Russia vs. Ukraine Part 2

[AndreusMaximus]

I'll answer both in the same answer.

For the first, you are in error, it was one of the greatest achievements of President Reagan! He took on an evil empire that pointed thousands of nuclear warheads at US! They threatened global nuclear annihilation. The continued global struggle with them took massive amounts of resources from us and our allies.

And then he broke them simply by outspending them. He took what was arguably the greatest threat to world safety, security, and prosperity and crippled them overnight. All for the very puny cost of about $2 or $3T. They were hit so hard by Reagan and their own collapse that they nave not nor will they ever recover. Birth rates after the fall of the USSR collapsed. Their educational sector collapsed. Healthcare is gone.

Did it hurt us financially? Sure it did. All progress has a cost. But it was ONLY financial damage - which we have easily weathered.

Do be mind-full that we sit here in the present. We know how everything has turned out. What if Pres Carter were reelected? What if the USSR wasn't broken? Where would we be today? I have no idea, but thank Heaven that Reagan did what he did!

Now for the last two (2) decades Vladimir Putin has attacked and bullied multiple countries on his boarders. Countries that were acknowledged as independent sovereign nations by EVERYONE when the Soviet Union collapsed. In most cases we (the west) has done nothing to stop him.

Now Putin is on his way to Poland, and Romania. He wasn't just trying to take Ukraine. He is trying to move through it to get to other countries, or at least key geographical regions in those countries.

Were he to succeed in Ukraine and then invade Poland (NATO member) or Romania (NATO member) we would come into direct military conflict with Russia. At which point the Russians would face two (2) choices, either total defeat not on their terms OR nuclear retaliation.

Imagine one (1) strategic nuclear warhead hitting "just" New York City. Let me rephrase that, hitting Wall Street! All the banks. All the insurance companies. The financial capital of the USA, and therefore much of western finance. We would lose more money in one day than all the monies we have poured into Ukraine combined with all money yet to pour in.

So, for myself, I will continue to support our financing of Ukraine for two (2) reasons. First, I believe it is the morally and ethically just thing to do. While we didn't promise their defense we did imply it when we pressured them to turn over nuclear weapons that were in their sovereign territory at the collapse of the USSR. Also, they didn't do anything to deserve being attacked. Second, I don't want to see our potential future severely crippled by coming into direct confrontation with them.

I do wish these were not on the table. Had the US and the world responded more forcefully when Putin attacked Chechnia, or Georgia, or Crimea, or Nagorno Karabov, or Transnistria, (my spelling is bad on many of these) then perhaps we wouldn't be here today.

I pray our children will sit around one day debating the pros and cons of our support of Ukraine. Debating in a world made more secure by the death of the Russian military over there.

Regards,

Doug

PS - My thoughts go out to Pres Carter and his family in their trying time.

I think this disconnect happens between accepting that yes, we have a legitimate interest, both ethically and strategically, in seeing that Russia is defeated in Ukraine, to then jumping to, let's pay for college for all Ukrainian nationals. Is there a rational point where we can say, hey, some of the money being spent just feels over the top, and is quite likely being used as cover for less-than-ethical dealings, given the Ukrainian government's history of corruption, with the Biden family in particular?

Also (and, please be aware, the following is NOT a rhetorical question; I genuinely don't know enough to form a judgement, and I'm interested in hearing different perspectives on it) how certain is it that Reagan's massive spending is what really crippled the USSR, and led to their downfall and the? I don't doubt that it was a factor, but I wonder how much more of a factor was simply his hard-line stance against communism, and his display of US resolve? Of course, I realize that the massive spending was actually a component of his hard-line stance, but I think one could rationally argue that we could have put on a display of resolve without spending ourselves into a massive hole, right?

(Okay, the following is more of my own opinion, and less a question, now.)

Which is actually one point of disagreement I actually do have with you, in that I don't see how one can call $2-3T a "puny" cost. How long would it take the US to pay back $2T, even if we were trying? How does $2T look in comparison to the amount of debt we racked up during the entirety of WWII? Is there any amount you wouldn't call "puny" if it's being spent purportedly to defeat communism?

Another thing you mentioned was the massive collapse in birth rates in the USSR (which, while you mentioned it happening in countries that were former USSR after the collapse, to my understanding it seems like it was already underway even before the collapse.) I'm wondering how/if you are saying that was tied to the USA's fight against communism? It seems to me that it was more a fruit of the moral decay brought about by communist society. One of the central tenets of communism is that it sets itself in opposition to the traditional family. In communist thought, parenthood and the task of rearing children are looked upon with disdain, and both men and women are expected to leave the raising of children more or less to the state, and instead focus on work outside the home. When you couple this with the fact that abortion was pushed harder in the USSR than even in extremely liberal western countries today (for instance, protesting abortion was completely illegal, from what I understand) the collapsing birth rate seems to me to be more of a fruit of the evil mentality being foisted on those countries by their communist overlords, and less a fruit of western economic pressure.

 

[Ark]

Imagine one (1) strategic nuclear warhead hitting "just" New York City. Let me rephrase that, hitting Wall Street! All the banks. All the insurance companies. The financial capital of the USA, and therefore much of western finance. We would lose more money in one day than all the monies we have poured into Ukraine combined with all money yet to pour in.

And I am to understand you think the best way to avoid that is to spend $200 billion shooting down Russian aircraft, sinking Russian ships, destroying Russian armor, and killing a hundred thousand of Russia's sons through increasingly blatant direct US personnel participation in this war?

Because that seems like the opposite of peace and deescalation. Where did anyone say that a Russian victory in Ukraine would be celebrating by launching missiles at the US? 35 years ago, Ukraine was Russia.

 

[jamil]

Doug, you really didn't answer both. On the first, you brought an ought answer to an is statement. On the second, you didn't really justify an at all cost posturing.

I'll answer both in the same answer.

For the first, you are in error,

No. I stated facts. We started out in debt BR (before Reagan) And we were in a lot more debt AR. Then, I offered a noncontroversial statement that increasing the debt was not a good. I made no further statements of "OUGHT", whether the outcome justified the debt. I made an objective statement. And then I made a reasoned statement. But nothing about whether Reagan ought to have done that.

I posted what I did because you guys were bickering over the accuracy of the quantitative "IS" statement about debt, while really pushing different qualitative statements of "OUGHT".

The point was, the quantitative accuracy is irrelevant beyond what should be agreeable to both of you, that the debt increased a lot under Reagan. So then if that's out of the way, you can get on with the qualitative "ought" arguments instead of bickering over irrelevant precise numbers on the debt increase.

it was one of the greatest achievements of President Reagan! He took on an evil empire that pointed thousands of nuclear warheads at US! They threatened global nuclear annihilation. The continued global struggle with them took massive amounts of resources from us and our allies.

Okay, fine. But that doesn't change the numbers or that the debt was bad. A good thing can justify a bad thing. But again, I was nor condemning anything.

And then he broke them simply by outspending them. He took what was arguably the greatest threat to world safety, security, and prosperity and crippled them overnight. All for the very puny cost of about $2 or $3T. They were hit so hard by Reagan and their own collapse that they nave not nor will they ever recover. Birth rates after the fall of the USSR collapsed. Their educational sector collapsed. Healthcare is gone.

Did it hurt us financially? Sure it did. All progress has a cost. But it was ONLY financial damage - which we have easily weathered.

Again. Okay. Reagan started out with is in pretty big debt. We ended with a lot more debt. It was a bad thing that we increased the debt a lot. All those statements are true, though the last part is merely a reasonable "ought". None of those things are made incorrect if you justify the negative with a greater positive. It's a net outcome. Why not just say that? Then you guys can go on with arguing about whether the outcome justified the expense.

Do be mind-full that we sit here in the present. We know how everything has turned out. What if Pres Carter were reelected? What if the USSR wasn't broken? Where would we be today? I have no idea, but thank Heaven that Reagan did what he did!

I can't say I care? That's all speculative. I have obvious reasons for not thanking Heaven for what Reagan did, but beyond religious beliefs, I don't think history is as positive that it was all Reagan. That's for a different topic though. You get to justify your "ought" with whatever you want. Just recognize that you're not making an "is" argument. Because you can't derive an ought from an is.

Now for the last two (2) decades Vladimir Putin has attacked and bullied multiple countries on his boarders. Countries that were acknowledged as independent sovereign nations by EVERYONE when the Soviet Union collapsed. In most cases we (the west) has done nothing to stop him.

That's the Western take given Western sources saying what Russia thinks. Is that narrative accurate? Do you accept it as true without scruteny?

Now Putin is on his way to Poland, and Romania. He wasn't just trying to take Ukraine. He is trying to move through it to get to other countries, or at least key geographical regions in those countries.

Were he to succeed in Ukraine and then invade Poland (NATO member) or Romania (NATO member) we would come into direct military conflict with Russia. At which point the Russians would face two (2) choices, either total defeat not on their terms OR nuclear retaliation.

Imagine one (1) strategic nuclear warhead hitting "just" New York City. Let me rephrase that, hitting Wall Street! All the banks. All the insurance companies. The financial capital of the USA, and therefore much of western finance. We would lose more money in one day than all the monies we have poured into Ukraine combined with all money yet to pour in.

So you're justifying no limit--remember, that's what I asked for, justify "all costs"--based on your imagination, which is fed by propaganda. And don't get me wrong. There's propaganda thrown around by everyone. And the US end of that is to get people like you to support "at all costs".

So, for myself, I will continue to support our financing of Ukraine

I mean. I don't care if you think we should support them. But what you're saying is that you want government to take my money and put it in their pockets. That's what that means. This whole part of the discussion is the never ending support for war, including that senile dickhead occupying the white house saying he wants to pay pensions for Ukrainians.

If you continue to support them, could you at least put some reasonable limits on your support? I mean, you're being pretty generous with my money, and my kid's money, and future posterity's money. I'd kinda like you to stop that. Be reasonable. Maybe just support buying them some tanks.

for two (2) reasons. First, I believe it is the morally and ethically just thing to do.

I think an abundance of morality is as bad a reason to justify collective sacrifice as out of an abundance of caution. What can't you justify with that?

While we didn't promise their defense we did imply it when we pressured them to turn over nuclear weapons that were in their sovereign territory at the collapse of the USSR. Also, they didn't do anything to deserve being attacked. Second, I don't want to see our potential future severely crippled by coming into direct confrontation with them.

I do wish these were not on the table. Had the US and the world responded more forcefully when Putin attacked Chechnia, or Georgia, or Crimea, or Nagorno Karabov, or Transnistria, (my spelling is bad on many of these) then perhaps we wouldn't be here today.

Had the US honored its commitment to Gorbachev about not moving any further East, possibly this conflict wouldn't be here. But that's as speculative as your reason for justifying it. It's no less plausible.

I pray our children will sit around one day debating the pros and cons of our support of Ukraine. Debating in a world made more secure by the death of the Russian military over there.

The history books will be written by the winners. I don't think it was wrong to support Ukraine. I wanted you to tell me if there was a line too far for you to cross in your support. And you didn't give me one. I don't mean this as harsh as it sounds, but I think that makes you dangerous as a voter.

Not saying that should impact your rights. But I think the electorate is better off with people having the capacity to find reasonable limits. This is not an at-all-cost conflict. The future is not certain if we don't take money from our own citizens and their futures, to give to Ukrainians and theirs. If you want to be generous, fine, but be generous with your own resources. I wish you could find a limit.

Regards,

Doug

PS - My thoughts go out to Pres Carter and his family in their trying time.

 

[jamil]

I genuinely don't know enough to form a judgement, and I'm interested in hearing different perspectives on it) how certain is it that Reagan's massive spending is what really crippled the USSR, and led to their downfall

My own personal thoughts on this is that it did contribute. Was it everything? I am more certain that it wasn't the only factor than I am that it was the primary factor.

 

[jamil]

Brighteon

Brighteon.com is a leading online free platform that empowers free speech, allowing individuals to freely share videos and express their thoughts without any form of censorship. Join us today and be part of our community.

www.brighteon.com

propaganda with elements of truth.

It's all propaganda. The only truth out there is what's hidden between words of propaganda at this point.

 

[Sylvain]

On presidents day no less. FEARLESS AND BRAVE.

POTUS could at least dress like the locals and wear a full multicam suit.

 

[bobzilla]

Well, Doug. You are certainly NOT going to win friends and accolades form many of the posters on this thread. But I like it. . good Post!

I agree with him. I know that makes me some form of evil etc but I believe Reagan made the right choice at the time for our future.

 

[Hawkeye]

And I am to understand you think the best way to avoid that is to spend $200 billion shooting down Russian aircraft, sinking Russian ships, destroying Russian armor, and killing a hundred thousand of Russia's sons through increasingly blatant direct US personnel participation in this war?

Because that seems like the opposite of peace and deescalation. Where did anyone say that a Russian victory in Ukraine would be celebrating by launching missiles at the US? 35 years ago, Ukraine was Russia.

"increasingly blatant direct US personnel participation in this war"

Any particular support for this or do we just take you at your word?

"35 years ago, Ukraine was Russia."

No it wasn't. 35 years ago (+/-), Ukraine was part of the USSR, sort of. Even the USSR treated Ukraine as a separate republic, sort of. See for example the charter members of the UN. Ukraine, or "the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic" signed the Charter on 26 June, 1945. It was not part of Russia.

 

[jamil]

"increasingly blatant direct US personnel participation in this war"

Any particular support for this or do we just take you at your word?

"35 years ago, Ukraine was Russia."

No it wasn't. 35 years ago (+/-), Ukraine was part of the USSR, sort of. Even the USSR treated Ukraine as a separate republic, sort of. See for example the charter members of the UN. Ukraine, or "the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic" signed the Charter on 26 June, 1945. It was not part of Russia.

I think a lot of people are using imprecise information to make their arguments. At the end of the day, it's just about the policy they want. Doug wants to spend **** tons of US resources with no limit as far as he's said.

Ark looks to be saying that we shouldn't be spending $200B, Troops or whatever, killing Russians. I dunno. That's what you do in wars, you destroy the enemy's war making capability. You destroy arms/equipment/people. Or maybe the crux of the point is that we shouldn't spend that much.

I think we've spent enough. We're done. Time to shut the money machine down. If we can't save Ukraine with what we've given so far, it probably can't be done without involving our own military. And NO ****ing way on that one. Not one drop of American blood over this.

 

[Ark]

"increasingly blatant direct US personnel participation in this war"

Any particular support for this or do we just take you at your word?

"35 years ago, Ukraine was Russia."

No it wasn't. 35 years ago (+/-), Ukraine was part of the USSR, sort of. Even the USSR treated Ukraine as a separate republic, sort of. See for example the charter members of the UN. Ukraine, or "the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic" signed the Charter on 26 June, 1945. It was not part of Russia.

We literally bragged about doing the targeting on the Moskva hit for the Ukrainians before our people were reminded to hush up about it.

American personnel are absolutely freaking everywhere in Ukraine, just like they've been in every other American proxy war for the last century.

 

[Ark]

Ark looks to be saying that we shouldn't be spending $200B, Troops or whatever, killing Russians. I dunno. That's what you do in wars, you destroy the enemy's war making capability. You destroy arms/equipment/people. Or maybe the crux of the point is that we shouldn't spend that much.

I'm pointing out that if you're concerned about nuclear war, $200B worth of war escalation is a funny way to show it.

I continue to reject the assertion that Russia is an existential enemy to the US or that we have any duty or authority to "destroy their war making capability". Ukraine is not an American ally, they are not in NATO, we have no defense treaty with Ukraine, and Russia has attacked no US citizens or assets unless you count the Biden family's crooked businesses. We have no more business in Ukraine than we would have had in Georgia or Chechnya or Afghanistan.

 

[BugI02]

I'm pointing out that if you're concerned about nuclear war, $200B worth of war escalation is a funny way to show it.

I continue to reject the assertion that Russia is an existential enemy to the US or that we have any duty or authority to "destroy their war making capability". Ukraine is not an American ally, they are not in NATO, we have no defense treaty with Ukraine, and Russia has attacked no US citizens or assets unless you count the Biden family's crooked businesses. We have no more business in Ukraine than we would have had in Georgia or Chechnya or Afghanistan.

You are absolutely correct. The limit of our involvement should have been to support NATO partners when and if they stepped up and took the lead on dealing with what is manifestly their problem

 

[Ark]

You are absolutely correct. The limit of our involvement should have been to support NATO partners when and if they stepped up and took the lead on dealing with what is manifestly their problem

Hey, we can sell them, and the Europeans, whatever they want. Payment in gold bullion, please, not fiat.

Oh, you want credit? Ehhh...your Experian score not so good, fellas.

 

[Leadeye]

I have to say I would feel better if some time was being put into an exit strategy for this mess. Maybe it is and we just don't hear about it.

Since Regan, we've spent a lot in blood and treasure, the New World Order as George 1 called it has produced mixed results at best. I've always felt that we missed an opportunity in the broken USSR somewhere.

 

[DragonGunner]

I'm pointing out that if you're concerned about nuclear war, $200B worth of war escalation is a funny way to show it.

I continue to reject the assertion that Russia is an existential enemy to the US or that we have any duty or authority to "destroy their war making capability". Ukraine is not an American ally, they are not in NATO, we have no defense treaty with Ukraine, and Russia has attacked no US citizens or assets unless you count the Biden family's crooked businesses. We have no more business in Ukraine than we would have had in Georgia or Chechnya or Afghanistan.

Afghan had the minerals for electric cars. That’s why the Biden crime family gave China Afghan in exchange for Ukraine which has minerals plus fertilizer plus a better $ laundry scam. It’s all legit except Russia wasn’t suppose to invade. Joe likes to think his is a master chess player on a checker board. When he is just a meat puppet for the higher up democrats.

 

[bwframe]

 

[JettaKnight]

Which is actually one point of disagreement I actually do have with you, in that I don't see how one can call $2-3T a "puny" cost. How long would it take the US to pay back $2T, even if we were trying? How does $2T look in comparison to the amount of debt we racked up during the entirety of WWII? Is there any amount you wouldn't call "puny" if it's being spent purportedly to defeat communism?

Genuine question here, "how did that $2-3T hurt us?" Please show your work.

We haven't had to pay it back, we still borrow money with seemingly reckless abandonment, so did it hurt? And what did we gain economically by crushing the USSR? I think one could argue that a big upfront expenditure potentially saved a portion of that in the long run.

 

[JettaKnight]

I have to say I would feel better if some time was being put into an exit strategy for this mess. Maybe it is and we just don't hear about it.

What that strategy is better have a plan for recovery or control of all this equipment. No one will be happy if Putin snags a couple of Abrams or HIMARS.

First you got to get the Russians out so we can move in for that.

 

[gassprint1]

I'm tired of hearing all the threatening bs..if they are going to do it, then shut up an do it. Same old thing...dictators say this or that and never do..same goes for the usa

 

[JettaKnight]

I have to say I would feel better if some time was being put into an exit strategy for this mess. Maybe it is and we just don't hear about it.

Since Regan, we've spent a lot in blood and treasure, the New World Order as George 1 called it has produced mixed results at best. I've always felt that we missed an opportunity in the broken USSR somewhere.

I don't know about the New World Order, but the results of New Order are fantastic.