Congressional Ukraine Caucus Cochair: Not Sure Ukraine 'Winnable Anymore'

[Delldude]

Apparently that is your hope, but clearly nearly all the rest of the world is determined to prevent that.

Not my hope.....not my game.

 

[José]

Originally posted by odanny
Yea, it was likely never "winnable" unless you can grind down the Russians and make them sick of their losses, which was likely the strategy, and remains the most likely strategy.

The problem with that strategy is that America ended up "grinding down" the wrong side.

 

[José]

Russia is defending herself from an bellicose, gratuitous western foreign policy that should have never been implemented in the first place.

On top of that, you have millions of russian speaking Ukrainians who didn't want to see their country participating in the military encirclement of Russia, didn't want to be "ukrainized" and wanted to preserve their cultural, economic ties with Russia.

What country in the world would not intervene on behalf of their own national security and ethnic, linguistic brethren in those circunstances?

In the 19th century America invaded and occupied Mexico, a country that posed no threat to the US national security, to protect a bunch of american immigrants living there for no more than 30 years.

US Mexican war:

1 Zero threat to America's national security.

2 Allegedly waged to "protect" a bunch of mostly illegal american immigrants pathetically calling a foreign land they had inhabited for less than 30 years "their homeland" (when they "seceded" in 35 they had lived there for 11 years!! This is the historic truth about that pathetic joke known as Texan "Revolution").

Ukraine war:

1 Massive threat to Russia's national security posed, among others, by the same country that murdered 15 million russians a few decades ago, all of them ganging up to surround Russia with a military alliance.

2 A russian speaking population already present there for centuries, with every right to call Ukraine their legitimate homeland, bitterly dissatisfied with the policies of the federal government in Kiev.

By any parameter you choose to compare them, Russia's casus belli in Ukraine is much stronger than America's casus belli in Mexico.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Russia is defending herself from an bellicose, gratuitous western foreign policy that should have never been implemented in the first place.

On top of that, you have millions of russian speaking Ukrainians who didn't want to see their country participating in the military encirclement of Russia, didn't want to be "ukrainized" and wanted to preserve their cultural, economic ties with Russia.

What country in the world would not intervene on behalf of their own national security and ethnic, linguistic brethren in those circunstances?

In the 19th century America invaded and occupied Mexico, a country that posed no threat to the US national security, to protect a bunch of american immigrants living there for no more than 30 years.

US Mexican war:

1 Zero threat to America's national security.

2 Allegedly waged to "protect" a bunch of mostly illegal american immigrants pathetically calling a foreign land they had inhabited for less than 30 years "their homeland" (when they "seceded" in 35 they had lived there for 11 years!! This is the historic truth about that pathetic joke known as Texan "Revolution").

Ukraine war:

1 Massive threat to Russia's national security posed, among others, by the same country that murdered 15 million russians a few decades ago, all of them ganging up to surround Russia with a military alliance.

2 A russian speaking population already present there for centuries, with every right to call Ukraine their legitimate homeland, bitterly dissatisfied with the policies of the federal government in Kiev.

By any parameter you choose to compare them, Russia's casus belli in Ukraine is much stronger than America's casus belli in Mexico.

In other words, you are an enthusiastic supporter of Russian imperialism.

 

[José]

Originally posted by toomuchtime
In other words, you are an enthusiastic supporter of Russian imperialism.

Self-defence is not imperialism.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Self-defence is not imperialism.

Again you show yourself to be an enthusiastic supporter of Russian imperialism. The Nazis made the same claims about German imperialism.

 

[José]

Originally posted by toomuchtime
Again you show yourself to be an enthusiastic supporter of Russian imperialism. The Nazis made the same claims about German imperialism.

If it is indeed imperialism, show us any russian aggresion against her neighbors prior to NATO's decision to surround Russia's borders, taken in 1991 or at least before its implementation in 1999 (first wave) or even 2004 (second wave):

Internal NATO reaction to these former Warsaw Pact countries was initially negative, but by the 1991 Rome summit in November, members agreed to a series of goals that could lead to accession, such as market and democratic liberalization, and that NATO should be a partner in these efforts.

Enlargement of NATO - Wikipedia

 

[toomuchtime_]

If it is indeed imperialism, show us any russian aggresion against her neighbors prior to NATO's decision to surround Russia's borders, taken in 1991 or at least before its implementation in 1999 (first wave) or even 2004 (second wave):



Enlargement of NATO - Wikipedia

As you know, there was no NATO decision to surround Russia. The enlargement of NATO was a consequence of former soviet states wanting to join NATO to protect themselves against Russian aggression.

What is a simple definition of imperialism?


Imperialism is when a country extends its power into other territories for economic or political gain. The goal of imperialism is to acquire resources, often through exploitation and force. Motives for imperialism include economic, cultural, political, moral, and exploratory control.Nov 30, 2022

There is no doubt in anyone's mind but that the invasion of Ukraine was motivated by Putin's imperialist ambitions, and all your whining about eastern European states wanting to join NATO because they didn't trust Russia does nothing to change that.

 

[José]

Originally posted by toomuchtime
As you know, there was no NATO decision to surround Russia. The enlargement of NATO was a consequence of former soviet states wanting to join NATO to protect themselves against Russian aggression.

Your inability to present any russian aggression against her neighbors prior to the 1991 decision to expand NATO towards Russia's borders was duly noted. Thanks for validating all the adjectives I chose to qualify that disastrous decision:

gratuitous, unprovoked, groundless, wanton, etc...

As for the opposition to NATO expansion and Ukraine and Belarus being the brightest of all red lines, this is not "putinism". William Burns made it clear that opposition to NATO enlargement "cut across the entire russian political spectrum, from communists to monarchists", and included half of Ukraine's population as well.

Originally posted by toomuchtime
There is no doubt in anyone's mind but that the invasion of Ukraine was motivated by Putin's imperialist ambitions, and all your whining about eastern European states wanting to join NATO because they didn't trust Russia does nothing to change that.

The experts on this subject (NATO enlargement) unanimously agree that the enlargement of NATO was not an "act of charity" on the part of the West, as you're trying to pass it off:

By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen Euro-American hegemony.

"NATO enlargement and US foreign policy: the origins, durability, and impact of an idea". Shifrinson, Joshua R. (2020).

There was an extremely easy way to not surround the borders of european Russia:

Deny membership to all countries that border Russia.

The only thing that prevented America and the leading european countries to make an exception to NATO's open door policy was their sheer lack of political will.

The geopolitical decision to surround Russia with NATO countries was so "nonexistent" that even on the eve of the ukrainian war, Biden summarily dismissed Putin's draft proposal for a neutral Eastern Europe/Ukraine instead of engaging in negotiations and presenting a counterproposal.

The military encirclement of european Russia was a consistent neocon policy the West never abandoned for a single minute in the last 30 years, not even to avoid war.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Your inability to present any russian aggression against her neighbors prior to the 1991 decision to expand NATO towards Russia's borders was duly noted. Thanks for validating all the adjectives I chose to qualify that disastrous decision:

gratuitous, unprovoked, groundless, wanton, etc...

As for the opposition to NATO expansion and Ukraine and Belarus being the brightest of all red lines, this is not "putinism". William Burns made it clear that opposition to NATO enlargement "cut across the entire russian political spectrum, from communists to monarchists", and included half of Ukraine's population as well.



The experts on this subject (NATO enlargement) unanimously agree that the enlargement of NATO was not an "act of charity" on the part of the West, as you're trying to pass it off:

By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen Euro-American hegemony.

"NATO enlargement and US foreign policy: the origins, durability, and impact of an idea". Shifrinson, Joshua R. (2020).

There was an extremely easy way to not surround the borders of european Russia:

Deny membership to all countries that border Russia.

The only thing that prevented America and the leading european countries to make an exception to NATO's open door policy was their sheer lack of political will.

The geopolitical decision to surround Russia with NATO countries was so "nonexistent" that even on the eve of the ukrainian war, Biden summarily dismissed Putin's draft proposal for a neutral Eastern Europe/Ukraine instead of engaging in negotiations and presenting a counterproposal.

The military encirclement of european Russia was a consistent neocon policy the West never abandoned for a single minute in the last 30 years, not even to avoid war.

What is a simple definition of imperialism?


Imperialism is when a country extends its power into other territories for economic or political gain. The goal of imperialism is to acquire resources, often through exploitation and force. Motives for imperialism include economic, cultural, political, moral, and exploratory control.Nov 30, 2022

The very fact that you claim Russia has the right to decide for other countries what their foreign policy should be brands you as an enthusiastic supporter of Russian imperialism.

As for your question about examples of Russian aggression in Europe before 1991, all of Russian history from Peter the Great to Stalin and the only reason Stalin was finally stopped was the formation of NATO.