• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

WSJ: Pentagon Offers Plan to Arm Ukraine, Trump not yet briefed on plan

aeolist

Banned
Oct 31, 2006
17,538
0
0
Cool those don't really matter about this particular situation in Ukraine through, but it is funny bringing up whataboutism when talking about Russia.

it's pretty amazing that america's historically awful track record with proxy wars and regime change can never be brought up when talking about any specific conflict

can't wait to hear the excuses when we go to war with iran
 

reckless

Member
Sep 1, 2013
2,746
0
480
it's pretty amazing that america's historically awful track record with proxy wars and regime change can never be brought up when talking about any specific conflict

can't wait to hear the excuses when we go to war with iran

Its almost like Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan etc.. are completely different situations obviously the most important is Russia started the war not us.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,339
19,347
1,910
Best Coast
Cool those don't really matter about this particular situation in Ukraine through, but it is funny bringing up whataboutism when talking about Russia.

If Germany and France's oil interests are the key factor in one's argument, it's disingenuous to not also consider the USA's oil interests as it pertains to this situation as well.

Pointing out a historical pattern of misbehavior in order to avoid future mistakes of a similar fashion is also known as learning from history.
 

reckless

Member
Sep 1, 2013
2,746
0
480
If Germany and France's oil interests are the key factor in one's argument, it's disingenuous to not also consider the USA's oil interests as it pertains to this situation as well.

Pointing out a historical pattern of misbehavior in order to avoid future mistakes of a similar fashion is also known as learning from history.

Appeasing dictators sure has worked out in the past. Wonder whats next after Putin gets what he wants from Ukraine when the west shows they are divided and won't stand up to him.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,339
19,347
1,910
Best Coast
Appeasing dictators sure has worked out in the past. Wonder whats next after Putin gets what he wants from Ukraine when the west shows they are divided and won't stand up to him.

"not starting proxy wars = appeasement" is a troubling right wing hawkish foreign policy characterization of this situation.
 

aeolist

Banned
Oct 31, 2006
17,538
0
0
Appeasing dictators sure has worked out in the past. Wonder whats next after Putin gets what he wants from Ukraine when the west shows they are divided and won't stand up to him.

do you think we should invade crimea and go to war with russia directly?
 
Oct 4, 2012
8,269
7
785
More like won't someone think of solutions that don't involve potentially escalating proxy wars.


As if the USA's interests there don't involve oil-related power plays too. That argument might be more convincing if the USA's track record at this kind of thing wasn't so historically terrible.

It's not.

Yeesh, really? That's one of the major strategies to try to get the USA out of the Middle East.

Ok, so what should be the approach be? Given that Russia will not acknowledge that they're, you know, fighting a fucking war there?

You can't have diplomacy talks because Russia says it's not involved. Sanctions are a problem because of its supply of energy to Europe.

Arming Ukraine to at least fight and make this war become more expensive and costly in terms of lives for Russia seems to be the best bet.
 

reckless

Member
Sep 1, 2013
2,746
0
480
"not starting proxy wars = appeasement" is a troubling right wing hawkish foreign policy characterization of this situation.
3 years of diplomacy has failed, how long do you continue trying the same thing when it continuously fails?

do you think we should invade crimea and go to war with russia directly?
Little late for that one, giving Ukraine weapons seems like a good enough response. Creating things like the NATO Very High Readiness Joint Task Force being ready to quickly respond to little green men scenarios also seems like a reasonable response.
 

Mr. E. Yis

Banned
Jun 7, 2004
1,917
0
0
More like won't someone think of solutions that don't involve potentially escalating proxy wars.

Well, does the EU or any country in the EU have any solutions, or any ideas in general, to help the Crimea issue at all? I mean, it's been more than a few years since it was invaded, and the only thing EU did was the equivalent of McCain-furrowed-brows in that general direction.
I'm glad after all this time someone stands up to Russia to do what's right, and especially shocked that it is the U.S. thinking about doing these actions at this point in time.
With this issue and the EU trying to counter the sanctions, the EU talks tough to Russia, but is actually very placating and subservent, due to oil. Just like the horrible relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,339
19,347
1,910
Best Coast
3 years of diplomacy has failed, how long do you continue trying the same thing when it continuously fails?

"Hey let's try a strategy this time that doesn't have a track record of continuously failing!"

"How about starting proxy wars?"

:/

The joke is that those don't have a stellar track record of success either
 

T.v

Member
Feb 26, 2017
394
88
315
How about you stick to your own continent for a while. Lord knows it could use some work.
 
Oct 4, 2012
8,269
7
785
Do you really think the negative consequences of such an action aren't going to be that bad?

When did I say they weren't going to be that bad?

This is strictly about what options are on the table. I'm pointing out that Russia will not admit it's involved in this conflict. So how do you pursue any kind of diplomacy in that scenario? And given that Europe is already looking for counter-measures against U.S. sanctions, part of which exist because of what's happening in Ukraine, it's clear that you're not going to have what normally happens in these cases which is a lot of international pressure and sanctions to get Russia to end their involvement.

So where do we go from there?

By the way this is 100% on Russia. They were the instigators of this and they continue to insult the intelligence of the global community by saying they aren't, and never were, involved.

They shot down a fucking passenger plane. People should be getting tried for war crimes here. Instead, we yelled at Russia for a bit and then when Europe realized its energy pipelines could be cut off, they sat the fuck down. Everyone else just kind of forgot about it.
 

ClosingADoor

Member
Apr 6, 2009
16,923
0
0
Amsterdam
I'm not really against this, but I might miss some geopolitical fallout possibilities.

Russia can counter by blocking Ukraine from natural resources and other exports. But that also means they block the EU countries from receiving gas. And Russia kind of needs their payments to keep things running. So... who blinks first in that case.
 

KingV

Member
Jul 30, 2004
5,540
2
1,450
If you hear any European leaders say they have "secured peace in our time"... run.
 

Dopus

Banned
Nov 6, 2013
1,801
0
0
Yeah appeasement really worked out the last time, didn't it?

Ah yes, NATO's expansion is appeasement. To me, it's pretty insane how there is zero reflection on US hegemony and a sole focus on Russian aggression without giving it any context.
 

Xe4

Banned
Aug 1, 2014
9,859
1
0
Lousy American government going for profits over stability.

Ukraine is already unstable. This wouldn't even be a thing if Russia wasn't engaging in an illegal conflict in Ukraine to destabilize it. Whether or not a US picks a dog in a fight, Russia is going to continue to press.

Ah yes, NATO's expansion is appeasement. To me, it's pretty insane how there is zero reflection on US hegemony and a sole focus on Russian aggression without giving it any context.
NATO is a voluntary defensive agreement. It can expand wherever the fuck it wants to. The question is why Russia has such a problem with it. (Hint: it'll keep them from engaging with other countries like it has Ukraine).
 

Dopus

Banned
Nov 6, 2013
1,801
0
0
NATO is a voluntary defensive agreement. It can expand wherever the fuck it wants to. The question is why Russia has such a problem with it. (Hint: it'll keep them from engaging with other countries like it has Ukraine).

But it can't expand wherever it wants to because is it a defensive alliance against Russia. That's the whole point. In Russia's eyes it's aggression and has been since the United States expanded the US-led alliance eastward in the 90's.

You can make a claim that it's defensive but that is down to perspective because it is nothing but aggression to the Russians. It makes them incredibly uneasy. Espeically after the missile shield debacle. That's why France and Germany protested so much to the US lobbying for the Ukraine and Georgia to join the alliance in 2008.
 

reckless

Member
Sep 1, 2013
2,746
0
480
But it can't expand wherever it wants to because is it a defensive alliance against Russia. That's the whole point. In Russia's eyes it's aggression and has been since the United States expanded the US-led alliance eastward in the 90's.

You can make a claim that it's defensive but that is down to perspective because it is nothing but aggression to the Russians. It makes them incredibly uneasy. Espeically after the missile shield debacle. That's why France and Germany protested so much to the US lobbying for the Ukraine and Georgia to join the alliance in 2008.

Amazing how a defensive alliance is aggression, almost like it makes no fucking sense and Russia is just trying to justify their own aggressive moves.
 

Dopus

Banned
Nov 6, 2013
1,801
0
0
Amazing how a defensive alliance is aggression, almost like it makes no fucking sense and Russia is just trying to justify their own aggressive moves.

To Russia it is.

Amazing how you can't understand that. Goodness me.
 

reckless

Member
Sep 1, 2013
2,746
0
480
To Russia it is.

Amazing how you can't understand that. Goodness me.

Or Russia just uses it as a justification to make aggressive moves like invading people and even people in the west will eat it up since Amerikkka and America is always wrong. If they don't attack other countries NATO means nothing.
 

Xando

Member
May 2, 2014
10,084
0
595
Germany
twitter.com
Amazing how a defensive alliance is aggression, almost like it makes no fucking sense and Russia is just trying to justify their own aggressive moves.
So you don’t think it would be aggressive behavior if russia started a defensive alliance with mexico and canada to shrink american influence contrary to previous assurances made and also stationed troops there?
 

Tovarisc

Member
Jul 1, 2014
16,139
0
0
Amazing how a defensive alliance is aggression, almost like it makes no fucking sense and Russia is just trying to justify their own aggressive moves.

So Cuban missile crisis was just over reaction from US and wrongfully took it as act of aggression when it was just Soviets giving some means of defense to Cubans?

As quite simplified example.
 

antonz

Member
May 12, 2010
22,341
0
0
It really is amazing how many people have their head up Putins ass on these forums.

Ukraine was illegally invaded and everyday Ukrainians are dying to keep their country from being taken over by Russia. But somehow its those evil Americans. Practically every day Russia is delivering more artillery, tanks and weapons to its soldiers in Ukraine. But lets be Europe and pretend its not happening and suck Russias dick for more Gas
 

mreddie

Member
Oct 22, 2013
22,542
0
0
Arizona
Because that worked out terribly well with Saddam, the Taliban, et all...


Do you know the definition of insanity?
 

walking fiend

Member
Apr 13, 2011
8,247
0
0
I'm waiting for the liberals to foam over the decision to arm one repressive regime just cause it is the enemy of the enemy.

It really is amazing how many people have their head up Putins ass on these forums.

Ukraine was illegally invaded and everyday Ukrainians are dying to keep their country from being taken over by Russia. But somehow its those evil Americans. Practically every day Russia is delivering more artillery, tanks and weapons to its soldiers in Ukraine. But lets be Europe and pretend its not happening and suck Russias dick for more Gas
Pretty sure deliverying more arms to Ukraine will result in fewer casualties. US doesn't care the slightest about Ukrainians; it is all about them having a foothold next to Russia.
 

Dopus

Banned
Nov 6, 2013
1,801
0
0
It really is amazing how many people have their head up Putins ass on these forums.

Ukraine was illegally invaded and everyday Ukrainians are dying to keep their country from being taken over by Russia. But somehow its those evil Americans. Practically every day Russia is delivering more artillery, tanks and weapons to its soldiers in Ukraine. But lets be Europe and pretend its not happening and suck Russias dick for more Gas

How about you engage with the arguments instead of presenting your fantasised version of them.
 

Xando

Member
May 2, 2014
10,084
0
595
Germany
twitter.com
Pretty sure deliverying more arms to Ukraine will result in fewer casualties. US doesn't care the slightest about Ukrainians; it is all about them having a foothold next to Russia.
Just shows you how stupid this is since when ukrainians get arms from the US Putin will have to double down and take even more land.
 

reckless

Member
Sep 1, 2013
2,746
0
480
So you don’t think it would be aggressive behavior if russia started a defensive alliance with mexico and canada to shrink american influence contrary to previous assurances made and also stationed troops there?
Hey if Canada or Mexico wanted to join sure, luckily for us Canada/Mexico aren't terrified of the U.S annexing them. Unlike many countries in Eastern Europe, with the Ukrainian war showing their fears to be justified.

Get it in writing and get formal promises for something so important. Lots of things get talked about during negotiations. You have Gorbachov himself saying NATO expansion talk wasn't brought up
https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html
The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification.
Eastern Germany is a different thing then NATO expansion in general.

So Cuban missile crisis was just over reaction from US and wrongfully took it as act of aggression when it was just Soviets giving some means of defense to Cubans?

As quite simplified example.

Well it almost ended the world so probably, although there is a difference. We're not putting nukes in Estonia or Lithuania which would be similar distances.