Russia vs. Ukraine Part 2

[rhamersley]

Zelensky Inbound for (Another) Washington Visit as Congress Debates $24+ Billion in Ukraine Aid

The White House and Capitol Hill can expect a visit from Ukraine President Volodymr Zelensky next week as the latest aid package worth upwards of $24 billion is debated in Congress.

www.breitbart.com

Just curious, is there an ending/exit strategy here, or is it just, shovel money on until Russia surrenders?

The strategy...

 

[erasure]

Lookit that, another Putin apologist, where are they all coming from

 

[Brad69]

The military industry is laughing all the way to the bank.

Didn't we invade Mexico ?

Might have been Canada?

Or Guatemala?

Definitely not Cuba!

 

[BugI02]

So it’s oknfor one country to invade another njust because. Got it. Thank you Russian apologists. I’ll remember that the next time you mention defending your house. Just lay back and let it happen.

Grenada does not approve of this message

 

[BugI02]

Zelensky Inbound for (Another) Washington Visit as Congress Debates $24+ Billion in Ukraine Aid

The White House and Capitol Hill can expect a visit from Ukraine President Volodymr Zelensky next week as the latest aid package worth upwards of $24 billion is debated in Congress.

www.breitbart.com

Just curious, is there an ending/exit strategy here, or is it just, shovel money on until Russia surrenders [or we run out]?

B. Definitely B

 

[Hawkeye]

The military industry is laughing all the way to the bank.

Didn't we invade Mexico ?

Might have been Canada?

Or Guatemala?

Definitely not Cuba!

Do you have a point? Or just screeding now?

 

[KellyinAvon]

Do you have a point? Or just screeding now?

I'll try to see where Brad is going

The military industry is laughing all the way to the bank.

It's been 25 years since I had to deal with Lockheed-Martin and I still hate them.

Didn't we invade Mexico ?

1916 when Lt Patton shot it out with 3 of Pancho Villa's guys on horseback?

Might have been Canada?

Definitely not Cuba!

Castro involved with both of these? Bay of Pigs is a case study in how NOT to do things. As far as Canada, we are seeing "like father, like son' is a real thing.

Or Guatemala?

The War on Drugs has been going on a while. I think we need to change strategy and tactics.

 

[Ark]

Zelensky Inbound for (Another) Washington Visit as Congress Debates $24+ Billion in Ukraine Aid

The White House and Capitol Hill can expect a visit from Ukraine President Volodymr Zelensky next week as the latest aid package worth upwards of $24 billion is debated in Congress.

www.breitbart.com

Just curious, is there an ending/exit strategy here, or is it just, shovel money on until Russia surrenders?

10% for the big guy.

 

[Brad69]

We are not with sin whe it comes to wars of aggressions.
Thanks Kelly for the clarification !

Let's give some more $$ for a never ending war. That we have no business in.

 

[Hawkeye]

We are not with sin whe it comes to wars of aggressions.
Thanks Kelly for the clarification !

Let's give some more $$ for a never ending war. That we have no business in.

So we should not support Ukraine when Russia invades them?

 

[KellyinAvon]

Is this all Xi playing the long game? The norks have been the Chi-coms brain damaged junk yard dog on a log chain for decades. Now he sees Vlad as a more efficient way to achieve the end game.

Our country is polarized like nothing we’ve seen in 160 years. Resources are being drained (war reserve materiel in particular) and we are in debt passed our eyeballs.

Ukraine drags out, Vlad bombs a NATO country, article 5 kicks in, we redeploy to Europe…

Not sure what our National Defense Strategy is these days. Something tells me fighting two major regional conflicts simultaneously may be a Bridge too far these days.

Edit: and the leading cause of death of those 18-45 (AKA Military aged) is drug overdoses.

 

[Brad69]

So we should not support Ukraine when Russia invades them?

We have no obligation to support Ukraine. I am all about killing Russian's if they threatened us.

We cannot afford to drain our military reserves and Billions of cash to support them forever.

It appears the Russian's are paper tiger and we would easily defeat them. If non Nuclear.

Ukraine is far from a Democracy and we are playing with fire IMO.
One stray rocket into a NATO could trigger WWIII.

Blue ID card holders hate war of any kind.

 

[smokingman]

So we should not support Ukraine when Russia invades them?

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.


This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.


It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. . . .

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.


Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?


It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. . . .


Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and
bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and
resentment, sometimes impels to war the government,
contrary to the best calculations of policy. The
government sometimes participates in the national
propensity and adopts through passion what reason
would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of
the nation subservient to projects of hostility
instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister and
pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes
perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation
for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for
the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an
imaginary common interest in cases where no real
common interest exists, and infusing into one the
enmities of the other, betrays the former into a
participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter
without adequate inducement or justification. It leads
also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges
denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the
nation making the concessions—by unnecessarily
parting with what ought to have been retained—and
by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to
retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are
withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or
deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite
nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of
their own country without odium, sometimes even
with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a
virtuous sense of obligation a commendable deference
for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good,
the base or foolish compliances of ambition,
corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable
ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to
the truly enlightened and independent patriot.

George Washington

You can read the rest here. (second link to senate records,but no longer at the government office of the historian) https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/washington-farewell )

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Washingtons_Farewell_Address.pdf

 

[Route 45]

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.


This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.


It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. . . .

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.


Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?


It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. . . .


Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and
bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and
resentment, sometimes impels to war the government,
contrary to the best calculations of policy. The
government sometimes participates in the national
propensity and adopts through passion what reason
would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of
the nation subservient to projects of hostility
instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister and
pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes
perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation
for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for
the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an
imaginary common interest in cases where no real
common interest exists, and infusing into one the
enmities of the other, betrays the former into a
participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter
without adequate inducement or justification. It leads
also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges
denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the
nation making the concessions—by unnecessarily
parting with what ought to have been retained—and
by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to
retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are
withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or
deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite
nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of
their own country without odium, sometimes even
with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a
virtuous sense of obligation a commendable deference
for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good,
the base or foolish compliances of ambition,
corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable
ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to
the truly enlightened and independent patriot.

George Washington

You can read the rest here. (second link to senate records,but no longer at the government office of the historian) https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/washington-farewell )

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Washingtons_Farewell_Address.pdf

Blah blah blah. Foreign alliances bad.

I don't remember Washington waving off French assistance. Indeed if he had, we would still be abnormally fond of tea.

Actions speak louder than words.

 

[smokingman]

it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or
deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite
nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of
their own country without odium, sometimes even
with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a
virtuous sense of obligation a commendable deference
for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good,
the base or foolish compliances of ambition,
corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable
ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to
the truly enlightened and independent patriot.

George Washington weighed asking for assistance,and in the end asked for it to further the USA.

It was a tough choice for him especially taking on the debt. It did help gain our independence though so furthered US interest. We did however not return the favor during the French revolution.

Less than 30 years later we reformed our navy to fight France after they had captured more than 300 American ships(with George Washington brought out of retirement to lead),because the USA had defaulted on the debt owed.

Ah,the dangers of foreign entanglement.

Now in what possible way other than the US corporations that own much of Ukraine is it in our interest to spend billions? Will it further US security as a nation? If so in what way? Will the debt owed by Ukraine be repaid? I believe helping Ukraine does nothing for the USA,and things like restricting SWIFT have in fact started the fall of the US dollar as the worlds reserve currency. If there is a benefit to our nation in helping Ukraine I do not see it.

So as George Washington said...
"Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?"

 

[actaeon277]

Something tells me fighting two major regional conflicts simultaneously may be a Bridge too far these days.

Well, I think the Afgan evac showed that a regional conflict may be too much.
Thanks to leadership

 

[KellyinAvon]

Well, I think the Afgan evac showed that a regional conflict may be too much.
Thanks to leadership

That made Operation Eagle Claw (failed Iran hostage rescue) in 1980 look well planned.

 

[Route 45]

 

[actaeon277]

That made Operation Eagle Claw (failed Iran hostage rescue) in 1980 look well planned.

Eagle Claw can at least be explained by
1) plugged air filters. (Huh, imagine that. Desert, and sand)
2) plan had no "play" in it. Too much had to happen right. Similar to wishful thinking that Market Garden had in it.
3) Just plain random chance. No matter the operation, there is still the element of chance.

At least in my opinion.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Eagle Claw can at least be explained by
1) plugged air filters. (Huh, imagine that. Desert, and sand)
2) plan had no "play" in it. Too much had to happen right. Similar to wishful thinking that Market Garden had in it.
3) Just plain random chance. No matter the operation, there is still the element of chance.

At least in my opinion.

Carter micromanaged it from the White House.