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

[romad1]

4 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

All from Russian Stooges.

all of it from stooges and trolls.   Supposedly the Real, real GOP doesn't like Mitt but lurves them some Tulsi. 

[romad1]

Biden's trip to Eastern Europe will go far to helping cement what Trump and Putin wanted to smash. 

[pfife]

Not even a hint of effort to be consistent 

 

[pfife]

 

 

[romad1]

Very interesting reporting on this meeting.  7 hour "direct" and "intense" meetings are a lot of fun. 

Jake Sullivan for MLB commissioner when this is over. 

 

[romad1]

BTW,  "it took us 20 days to get to Baghdad" day has arrived.  

[romad1]

Noted by the Morning Joe crowd that the Chinese government had one of their senior advisors pen an op-ed in the NYT on Sunday about china being a mediator.

 

[ewsieg]

Note, this is not a defense of Gabbard, but I still get her point on Syria and there is something in the back of my mind praying we don't fall into the same way of thinking here in Ukraine. 

Now looking at Ukraine and while things can change, I think it's becoming clear that the longer this goes on, the more dire the long-term consequences for Russia. As such, I'm sure there is someone within government making an argument that if we embolden Ukraine and turn this into a long term proxy war, the longer the better.  That's assuming a view from the standpoint that a weakened Russia for the entire world is worth a destroyed Ukraine.

 

[Archie]

1 hour ago, romad1 said:

Noted by the Morning Joe crowd that the Chinese government had one of their senior advisors pen an op-ed in the NYT on Sunday about china being a mediator.

 

Interesting coming from China. What are they doing now?  Giving Russia aid is doing nothing to de-escalate the situation.

[1984Echoes]

1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

...  That's assuming a view from the standpoint that a weakened Russia for the entire world is worth a destroyed Ukraine.

I would restate this a bit:

1. A weakened Russia is going to happen with or without a destroyed Ukraine... so an obvious preference would be for Ukraine to NOT be destroyed.

2. Russia will be weakened, IMO, for decades, not just on a short-term basis. Aside from Ukraine successfully destroying multiple myths about the Russian military, and inflicting heavy damage in its own right against the Russian military, Russia has completely lost the trust of the civilized world. That means an immense movement towards eliminating the need for Russian oil/ gas. That is the biggest money-maker for Russia, and this move will have a huge impact against their economy, even if it takes years to implement. And China won't make up 100% of this shortfall. Russian businesses of all shapes and sizes will be impacted by a western refusal to engage. No financial investments, no western technology, drastically reduced trade, no favored nation status/ huge tariffs thrown up against Russian businesses, cut out of the world financial system, assets frozen or confiscated... This is a long list, and it's longer than what I listed. How does Russia get any of this back? Stopping its war against Ukraine? That's not enough. The damage Putin has done to Russia's reputation, and any oligarchic/ fascist replacement of Putin won't change that calculus, will last for a long, long time. These sanctions are much more significant than Putin's war against Ukraine.

3. Most of the destruction is in the north (Kyiv to Kharkiv, and many points in between), and in the south (Kherson to Mariupol or, the "land bridge" from the Donbas to Crimea (Kherson is west of that... but controls the water flow into Crimea)). Most of the heaviest destruction, outside of Kiev, is East of the Dniepr River.

Taking the points above, I would restate your comment instead as: It is worth a weakened (fascist) Russia to have a successful military stalemate between Ukraine and Russia for the time being. But current signs of a genocide, or at least the list of Putin's war crimes so far compiled, may change the calculus for EU & NATO countries.

[ewsieg]

12 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

Taking the points above, I would restate your comment instead as: It is worth a weakened (fascist) Russia to have a successful military stalemate between Ukraine and Russia for the time being. But current signs of a genocide, or at least the list of Putin's war crimes so far compiled, may change the calculus for EU & NATO countries.

I absolutely agree with you.  My only concern is if the calculus required for change, gets morphed into a 'we need to do this for the greater good' rather than an honest assessment of what is going on the ground.

Go back to Johnson's "What is Aleppo?" moment.  Johnson, on MSNBC, gave a good response about the issues with these forever wars US foreign policy has gotten us into over the last 20 years.  A network you would think would be sympathetic to his response.  The "war machine" was so well greased that he gets hammered over being caught off guard with the question and being honest about it rather than any focus on his response or the US response.   I just hope Kyiz doesn't look like Aleppo by the time the West believes Russia has experienced enough pain (this is all assuming the west has the upper hand right now and in the future).

[mtutiger]

2 hours ago, ewsieg said:

That's assuming a view from the standpoint that a weakened Russia for the entire world is worth a destroyed Ukraine.

Where do the Ukrainians fall into this equation? Ultimately, they are the ones who are choosing to fight being subjugated. And they are the ones asking for the sanctions... frankly, they are asking more than the West has been giving.

Edited March 15, 2022 by mtutiger

[mtutiger]

6 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Where do the Ukrainians fall into this equation? Ultimately, they are the ones who are choosing to fight being subjugated. And they are the ones asking for the sanctions... frankly, they are asking more than the West has been giving.

Just to add, I find the sidelining or disregarding of what the Ukrainian government (and seemingly it's people) want in these conversations to be wildly chauvinistic. 

And yeah, this is something I see on both sides of the debate, not just from the Gabbard/useful idiot side of the debate. As long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight and die for their country, I don't see an issue with supporting their endeavor to the best of our abilities given that the lines are pretty clear on who the aggressor is here.

Edited March 15, 2022 by mtutiger

[ewsieg]

17 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Where do the Ukrainians fall into this equation? Ultimately, they are the ones who are choosing to fight being subjugated. And they are the ones asking for the sanctions... frankly, they are asking more than the West has been giving.

Ultimately I'd hope they have the most say.  They seem all to willing to fight at all costs.  My above worries come down to the US feeding enough weapons just enough to them to keep them fighting, rather than enough to help force Russia to sit at the table for a resolution.

[mtutiger]

2 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Ultimately I'd hope they have the most say.  They seem all to willing to fight at all costs.  My above worries come down to the US feeding enough weapons just enough to them to keep them fighting, rather than enough to help force Russia to sit at the table for a resolution.

I mean, there are concurrent peace negotiations ongoing. 

I guess I'm not clear what the complaint is here when the only complaints we are hearing from actual Ukrainians is that we aren't doing enough.

[ewsieg]

14 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I mean, there are concurrent peace negotiations ongoing. 

I guess I'm not clear what the complaint is here when the only complaints we are hearing from actual Ukrainians is that we aren't doing enough.

No complaints, just was throwing out some concerns/worries.  At times, in my gut, I want to be a little more hawkish, but overall I think Biden has handled this very well.  There is a lot of focus on what currently appears to be the long term harm of Russia by Putin and matching that up with reports that talks have become more substantive hopefully signals that Putin realizes this and is looking for an exit strategy.  I guess I'm just saying I hope that if a legitimate deal can be done, no one tries to derail it under the guise of inflicting more pain on Russia at the expense of further damage to Ukraine.

Edited March 15, 2022 by ewsieg

[mtutiger]

Awful.

And yet Tucker will come on tonight and make excuses as per usual

[Tigeraholic1]

 

 

[gehringer_2]

11 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

 

 

land mine?

[1776]

Russia imposed sanctions on President Biden and other top U.S. officials, in a move aimed at restricting travel to Russia in response to “unprecedented sanctions” preventing Russian officials from entering the U.S.

Russia’s foreign ministry said on Tuesday that it also sanctioned Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, CIA Director William Burns and White House press secretary Jen Psaki. The list also includes former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mr. Biden’s son, Hunter Biden.

The Kremlin’s latest round of travel restrictions includes 13 people, and the foreign ministry said the measures could be expanded.

“In the near future, new announcements will follow to expand the sanctions list by including top U.S. officials, military, lawmakers, businessmen, experts and media people who are Russophobic or who contribute to inciting hatred against Russia and the introduction of restrictive measures,” the foreign ministry said in a statement.

-WSJ
 

[mtutiger]

I still wonder if committing Belarusian forces would cause Luka internal problems...

Edited March 15, 2022 by mtutiger

[oblong]

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

Awful.

And yet Tucker will come on tonight and make excuses as per usual

Greg Gutfeld on his show suggested the media was hyping up the bad news by showing the same thing over and over.  He was corrected by his correspondent, who later was injured.

 

[oblong]

31 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Russia imposed sanctions on President Biden and other top U.S. officials, in a move aimed at restricting travel to Russia in response to “unprecedented sanctions” preventing Russian officials from entering the U.S.

Russia’s foreign ministry said on Tuesday that it also sanctioned Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, CIA Director William Burns and White House press secretary Jen Psaki. The list also includes former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mr. Biden’s son, Hunter Biden.

The Kremlin’s latest round of travel restrictions includes 13 people, and the foreign ministry said the measures could be expanded.

“In the near future, new announcements will follow to expand the sanctions list by including top U.S. officials, military, lawmakers, businessmen, experts and media people who are Russophobic or who contribute to inciting hatred against Russia and the introduction of restrictive measures,” the foreign ministry said in a statement.

-WSJ
 

Why didn't they sanction former Presidents?

[mtutiger]

9 minutes ago, oblong said:

Why didn't they sanction former Presidents?

Also, where's Trump? 

I was assured that there was no one tougher on Russia than Trump

[1984Echoes]

2 hours ago, mtutiger said:

... I don't see an issue with supporting their endeavor to the best of our abilities given that the lines are pretty clear on who the aggressor is here.

In full agreement here.

In fact, I believe that I want to go further than anyone else in here.

I am for protecting the Ukrainian people, even if that means a direct war with Russia. If it is a united front, and it cannot be the US and the US alone, I believe in the face of a united European/ North American front that Putin will back down immediately. It's a dangerous game to play, and no one knows exactly how Putin would respond except for Putin himself... But I believe I am making a correct assessment.