I think the point is that they aren't seeking negotiation like they should be. Ukraine leadership is prioritizing total victory instead of negotiated peace. That will take the cost of more and more people without that good of a chance of success.
A negotiation like giving up part of their country and forfeiting their right to set their own foreign policy? I guess they could do that if they didn't mind being the jizz rag to an aggressive bully. That's basically what France did. It emboldened the bully further and made them complicit in the Holocaust and the Eastern Front (where the worst attrocities of the European portion of the war were committed), but there's a case to be made that it was the right thing to do. It made the bully somebody else's problem and probably got them better beer for a little while.
That is part of it. They were already willing to give up Crimea without war. They were already willing to give up some level of autonomy to Donbas. So they will either need to give up land, most likely, or give up lives of their young men, all the property damage, and the economic destruction. At some point it will be more valuable to Ukraine to give up some land. But for us in the US, our cost is some inflation as we print more and more money to give to Ukraine. Low cost for us. So should the US be tipping the scales in a way that costs Ukrainian citizens more and more? If the US is encouraging Ukraine to continue the war, that is also them not exercising their own sovereignty. What choice do they have not to be? They either fight to the last man in order to keep all their land. Or they continue fighting a US proxy war. Either way they have to navigate being between 2 great powers. They won't get exactly what they want in the real world. I think the lead up to and outcome of World War 1 is much more representative of the situation.
In all realistic cases, a lot of Ukrainians are dying and Ukraine is losing land. I don’t see anyone trying to minimize either one. I don’t have access to all the facts, but it doesn’t appear that cooler heads are prevailing. It reads to me as the state department running amok. Remember the state dept is staffed with the same knuckleheads that testified against Trump in the impeachment trial.
At one point, the Allies were willing to give up Austria and the Sudetenland. The bully proved that appeasing him wasn't going to work, so they decided to fight back. That's what the Ukrainians are trying to do. They gave Putin an inch by tacitly forfeiting Crimea. He sensed weakness by them and by the Biden Administration, and he tried to take a mile. And let's suppose they make some concession and piss away land to Russia and promise never to join NATO. How do they know Russia will be satisfied with that in the long term? They weren't satisfied with Crimea, and they have little reason to assume Russia would be satisfied with a negotiated settlement of land now. We can help arm the Ukrainians indefinitely. That cost is pretty insignificant. The heavy costs are from the effective embargo on Russian oil. We can work around that too if we and the rest of the West stop acting like idiots about fossil fuel, and admittedly, I'm not holding my breath on that. Germany is mostly sticking by the Energiewende, when this fiasco should have totally and completely discredited that as the fraudulent crap-trap that it was and is. The choice they have is the same choice Afghanistan had with the US and the USSR - be enough of a pain in the *** that the external foe gives up and goes home. And let's remember that the Ukrainians can stop fighting anytime they want and be governed from Moscow. The fact that they aren't makes it pretty obvious that they view this as more than just a "US proxy war." It depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about the broader Russian conflict with the West, then I can see the parallel. But if you're the actual Ukrainians getting invaded? No.
We fundamentally disagree with what is happening. That hasn't changed. I prefer not to rehash the argument. But not every situation is like 1938. Shoot not even the real situation in 1938 is like the mythology some have built up about it. It is significant for poor and working class Americans. This is one factor leading us to stagflation. It is a tragedy to young men in Ukraine. But I get it. You don't really care how many of them die. I guess. That is what it sounds like anyway. Maybe. I think there are some significant geographical differences between the examples. They can. But already the US and UK have put pressure on Zelensky to not negotiate. He even said a week or so ago he would be willing to never seek NATO membership. But then some official from a NATO country criticizes Zelensky publicly. So as long as Ukraine is making its own decisions that is fine. There is obvious evidence that isn't the case though. Afghanistan/Russia was a proxy war even though Afghanistan wanted to fight. Vietnam was a proxy war with China/Russia/Communism even though the South Vietnamese wanted to fight. These aren't binary situations or mutually exclusive. Either way. The Ukrainians are kind of like the Belgians at this point. But England hasn't jumped into the war actively. They have received some weapons though. They have every right to decide for themselves how to respond and for how long. I just know that a long protracted war isn't good for Ukraine. It will affect poor people all over the world too since they export so much grain to Africa. The other thing is anyone with any ambition or intelligence is leaving Ukraine. There are talks of brain drain already. The war is depopulating the country. If they were able to end the war, some of those people will come back. The longer it goes more long term harm to Ukraine. I wish the best for them. Finding some acceptable long term peace for both sides is the best for everyone. But if Russia really pushes to take over the whole country, it is inevitable that the war goes on and on and on. I don't think Russia is capable of taking over Ukraine though. Their best bet is to stop once they achieve some kind of success in the East that they can point to.
Not every situation is like 1938, but that doesn't mean that no situation is. There are some very strong similarities. This is like telling a poor person he's poor because he buys a 30 cent pack of gum a week. If we stopped aiding Ukraine, it would not make any noticeable difference to poor and working class Americans. And do you think if we didn't aid Ukraine that we'd return that money to the taxpayers? Of course we wouldn't. We'd use it to set up a grant program for libraries to hold more drag queen story hours. I do care, but I also understand that protecting one's nation from a foreign conquerer is worth dying for if you care about having any kind of self-determination. It's not my place to demand that they do so, but if they choose it, I will support them. So long as we recognize that there isn't a binary, that's fine. My point isn't that this isn't a proxy war at least of sorts. The US and NATO clearly want to keep Russia from expanding to the West. My point is that one man's proxy war is another man's fight for national survival. I don't think they view it as just a proxy war. I'm sure NATO doesn't want them to give up after all NATO has risked for them. However, the decision is ultimately theirs. We can send weapons, but nobody can make them fight. That is entirely their choice. Protracted war isn't good for anybody except defense contractors (and eventually it's not even good for them), but that also includes Russia and you seem to think they are willing to fight to the last man. I don't think they are. They don't want to hemorrhage lives and money either. To be clear, I don't buy the 30,000 killed figure the Ukraine has put claimed, but I don't doubt that the numbers are high. They've probably lost more troops than the be US lost in Afghanistan and Iraq combined. Eventually, they will also tire of this. You've made your opinion of the Ukrainians and their leader pretty clear in the other thread. You're not their friend, and I think it's pretty clear which side you sympathize with. Either way, there's no reason for the Ukrainians to think Russia is going to honor any kind of negotiated settlement in the long term. It's not a matter of real choice.
The money is being created ex nihilo and given to Ukraine. It contributes to inflation. Yeah. I don't think Russia is either. That is a part of the equation that I think will lead to an acceptable negotiation for both sides. No. We have heard that Russia is having to send less experienced troops already. They will tire. I think it is pretty clear you don't understand me very well. My sympathy is with the American people. What is best for us is what I am for. I don't think much of Putin as a fascist dictator. I just think he is a rational actor, even while he can't be trusted on everything. Zelensky has been a good leader in the defense of his country. But I don't trust Biden, Woke Capitalists, or the Neoliberal power structure that has made Zelensky their media darling. When things like that happen I get suspicious. It is my understanding that both sides didn't live up to the Minsk 2 agreement. So there is blame on both leaders for that. Of course the moment Putin invaded he became the bad actor. At that point my desire was to see how to set up a stronger peace. I don't think that happens by attempting regime change in Russia. That causes more death and even to Americans. Obviously, if a treaty is negotiated and Putin reinvades and tries to take Kiev that is a different situation. Of course he has already failed at that once and will probably fail again. The weakness of the Russian army has shown just how much less they should be feared. He can't take over Ukraine much less anything else.
The ironic thing is if Putin really wanted to return Russia to some kind of national greatness, the best thing he could do is liberalize his administration. Give the people free speech and gun rights. Undo barriers to trade with the countries around Russia. Be a more peaceful neighbor. Privatize all industries and reduce government intervention in the economy. That last part is harder because of how the economy is controlled by oligarchs and the 90s were a catastrophe when they tried to liberalize. But if he made moves incrementally and somehow got buy in from the oligarchs, he could make it work. The economy would improve, the birth rate would probably increase, life expectancy would go up. But it is hard to teach an old mafioso new tricks.
Beginning to sink in. Regardless I don’t think they understand that dems are probably locked out of the senate for at least 10 years and the presidency for 8 years starting in 2024. "Regret And Anxiety": Dems Quietly Panicking, Don't Want Biden To Face Trump In 2024 | ZeroHedge
Kick them all out and start fresh. I don't believe a single politician truly has my back, only self interest and self preservation.
24% among Hispanics? How can this be? The demx and the Biden administration are showing how much they care about that exact demographic by heavily promoting, nay, even forcing, the term latinx on the rest of us backwards, redneck Republicans. If that kind of love can't win more than 1/4 of the vote, something is most definitely wrong here.
It contributes, but it's negligible. If we didn't do it, nobody would notice. Well, you were taking a pretty substantial dump on Zelensky not that long ago. I'm not sure why you're not doing that now, but that's fine. I wouldn't want regime change in Russia unless it happened from within, which I don't see happening anytime soon. In light of this, can't you see why Ukrainians are not in a hurry to trust Putin to work any deal and why they're more willing to fight than one might otherwise expect?
I'm not surprised. Sanctions rarely work, especially if China and India are buying the oil the West isn't buying.
Looks like Mayra Flores flipped the 34th District (currently held by Filemon Vela). Link. It's a D+5 district and will run in a tighter district in November. Probably gonna win that.
This could be interesting. If it's false they have their name all over it to be held accountable. I'm not so sure. I mean Cruz is more of a MILF/Step daughter/boyfriend kind of guy....
Good for her. She seems right up my alley. Isn't the re-district battle in November supposed to be a lot harder for her?
Okay. So harder district to win plus Demx likely to spend more doesn't translate to probably gonna win for me.
It will be, but her chances in the new district are very good especially in the current political climate.
not exactly incumbent status but if she can get a few pressers as "Congresswoman Flores" it will go a long way for her credibility and future campaign and a long way for the GOP showing that you can be Latino and Conservative/GOP at the same time. Especially helpful with her being a woman also.
Reading more libs talk about Flores is quite entertaining. They can't figure out how one who is female person of color born in another country could vote anything but Democrat! And the kicker is how could that racist Trump endorse a Hispanic? LOL!
