Democracy’s Fiery Ordeal: The War in Ukraine 🇺🇦

[BillsFanNC]

 

[LDD]

19 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

It was the U.S.

 

This tact is just part of the "proxy war"

 

P.S.  I love The Blacklist.

 

 

prox·y war

/ˈpräksē wôr/

Learn to pronounce

noun

a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved.

"the end of the Cold War brought an end to many of the proxy wars through which the two sides struggled to exert their influence

 

So, based on the definition, if it is a "proxy war" then the US would have to have started it.  Is that your position?

[Demongyz]

5 minutes ago, LDD said:

prox·y war

/ˈpräksē wôr/

Learn to pronounce

noun

a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved.

"the end of the Cold War brought an end to many of the proxy wars through which the two sides struggled to exert their influence

 

So, based on the definition, if it is a "proxy war" then the US would have to have started it.  Is that your position?

When Russia invaded Afghanistan and the US funded the Mujahadeen was that a proxy war?

[LDD]

1 hour ago, Demongyz said:

When Russia invaded Afghanistan and the US funded the Mujahadeen was that a proxy war?

Yes, I think that was a proxy war and I think this is also a proxy war although there are some big differences.  I was wondering if B-man, based on the definition, believed the US was complicit in "starting" the war.  

[Demongyz]

16 minutes ago, LDD said:

Yes, I think that was a proxy war and I think this is also a proxy war although there are some big differences.  I was wondering if B-man, based on the definition, believed the US was complicit in "starting" the war.  

Ah I see.

[sherpa]

14 minutes ago, LDD said:

Yes, I think that was a proxy war and I think this is also a proxy war although there are some big differences.  I was wondering if B-man, based on the definition, believed the US was complicit in "starting" the war.  

 

Come on.

In no way does the US support for Muslim rebels against the unprovoked Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan reach the level of a proxy war.

[All_Pro_Bills]

23 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Come on.

In no way does the US support for Muslim rebels against the unprovoked Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan reach the level of a proxy war.

In my view its more about motivation than fitting some classic definition of the term.  Why did the US provide assistance to the Afghan rebels?  Out of love for the cause (which wasn't the democracy pitch no matter which side prevailed) or to mess with the Soviets?  I'd argue the same motivation exists in Ukraine to a small or large degree depending on your perspective.  To mess with the Russians.  Because excluding the supporting democracy position (which I never bought into) I can't identify a single strategic interest.  Some might want to cite some half baked European domino theory about stopping Russia from taking over Western Europe but if they can't beat Ukraine one on one in over a year then somebody please explain and articulate a realistic path to prevailing over the US, NATO, and the armed forces of all of Europe in a combined military alliance?  Its just not possible.  

Edited March 8, 2023 by All_Pro_Bills

[LDD]

24 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Come on.

In no way does the US support for Muslim rebels against the unprovoked Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan reach the level of a proxy war.

Eh, CIA involvement, Donald Rumsfeld hugs, stinger missiles...it's close.  Considering the actual definition of a proxy war, I would agree that it doesn't, but it seems to be a "working term" on this thread and I was trying to ask whether the actual definition applied or whether the term was being thrown around loosely to capture US involvement in the Ukraine conflict.  

Defniition - No, Afghan/Soviet war doesn't meet the definition

Use on this thread - Yes, it was a proxy war. 

[sherpa]

29 minutes ago, LDD said:

Eh, CIA involvement, Donald Rumsfeld hugs, stinger missiles...it's close.  Considering the actual definition of a proxy war, I would agree that it doesn't, but it seems to be a "working term" on this thread and I was trying to ask whether the actual definition applied or whether the term was being thrown around loosely to capture US involvement in the Ukraine conflict.  

Defniition - No, Afghan/Soviet war doesn't meet the definition

Use on this thread - Yes, it was a proxy war. 

 

I get what you and All Pro Bills are saying, and the point is valid.

But, in my view, it takes a bit more than what we did re the mujahedeen to constitute a proxy war.

Simply supplying arms doesn't puncture that threshold if you ask me. 

 

If it did, the Six Day War, Yom Kippur and the scores of South/Central America actions, would, and they do not approach what went on in Korea and Vietnam.

 

Just a judgement re definition I suppose, but..........this thing in the Ukraine is getting really, really close to a definition of war, and if China arms Putin, we are in for interesting times.

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, sherpa said:

Just a judgement re definition I suppose, but..........this thing in the Ukraine is getting really, really close to a definition of war, and if China arms Putin, we are in for interesting times.

Interesting times indeed.  Monitoring the rhetoric out of China lately I'm convinced they're planning on providing support in material, arms, and intelligence.  Or may already be doing so.  And when I hear US officials support the commitment to the point of "whatever it takes", one I wonder what that quantifiably means and two, whatever it takes for what? 

 

Does whatever it takes mean an endless escalation of steps up to and including tactical nuclear weapons until total victory?  If F-16's are sent, then what's the next step if that doesn't produce "whatever it takes"?  Does "whatever it takes" include commitment of US forces to combat missions?

 

And what is the objective of whatever it takes?  To reach some peaceful conclusion via a treaty or agreement or unconditional victory defined as a return to Ukraine's 2014 before the seizing of Crimea or something else.  What do the Ukrainians think are acceptable terms vs. the US vs. the Europeans?  What is Russia looking for or willing to negotiate?  

 

In any endeavor it's hard to measure success or failure or something in between when you have no objective goals.  

[SoCal Deek]

Is the small incursion over yet? I think I dosed off. 

[B-Man]

 

 

Well it took the Russians about half a year to take this city, so the "war" will be going on for quite a while still.

 

If only someone would try to bring about a cease-fire.

 

🤔

[Coffeesforclosers]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Well it took the Russians about half a year to take this city, so the "war" will be going on for quite a while still.

 

If only someone would try to bring about a cease-fire.

 

🤔

 

Eh, this is where Tayyep Erdogan would step in. Were he not fighting for his political life because his political party took bribes and kickbacks instead of enforcing building codes. Or doing disaster relief.  And 60,000 Turks died. 

 

Israel too, except they're drowning in domestic turmoil.

 

Or China, but Xi's leadership has been so weak and so milquetoast on the Ukraine issue it's been a year and they still don't know what to do. Also ditto the turmoil.

 

India just hosted a diplomatic summit where Russia's foreign minister was laughed out of the room on camera. And they're still getting bribed by everyone to not help anyone else. Ka-ching! Well played, India. 

 

Russia, for some reason, can't just take an L and live to fight another day.  Because they're  Really, Totally, For Real Guys, fighting a Nazi Satanist Globalist Warmongering American Hegemony or some other gibberish that comes with a useless liberal arts masters degree. 

 

We're happy to dump money and weapons into Ukraine for as long as Ukraine is willing to turn our support into dead Russians.  

 

Europe is split between countries who were occupied by Russia and justly hate them. And countries that are now scared of Russia but would really like this all to go away so they can get back to making money. 

 

It's an odd world. 

 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Coffeesforclosers

[Tiberius]

13 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Interesting times indeed.  Monitoring the rhetoric out of China lately I'm convinced they're planning on providing support in material, arms, and intelligence.  Or may already be doing so.  And when I hear US officials support the commitment to the point of "whatever it takes", one I wonder what that quantifiably means and two, whatever it takes for what? 

 

Does whatever it takes mean an endless escalation of steps up to and including tactical nuclear weapons until total victory?  If F-16's are sent, then what's the next step if that doesn't produce "whatever it takes"?  Does "whatever it takes" include commitment of US forces to combat missions?

 

And what is the objective of whatever it takes?  To reach some peaceful conclusion via a treaty or agreement or unconditional victory defined as a return to Ukraine's 2014 before the seizing of Crimea or something else.  What do the Ukrainians think are acceptable terms vs. the US vs. the Europeans?  What is Russia looking for or willing to negotiate?  

 

In any endeavor it's hard to measure success or failure or something in between when you have no objective goals.  

Putin's war machine again bombarding civilians with missiles again. 81 missiles rained down on men, women and children last night. Just another terror attack. Yet you think these terrorists will negotiate? You do consider Putin a terrorist, right? 

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Putin's war machine again bombarding civilians with missiles again. 81 missiles rained down on men, women and children last night. Just another terror attack. Yet you think these terrorists will negotiate? You do consider Putin a terrorist, right? 

My questions were about Washington's stated position of support to do "whatever it takes".  And other than a slogan there's little meaning to it unless you define some goals and objectives.   What are the administrations goals and objectives?  First it was defending democracy, then it was to weaken Russia.  Which is it?   I don't recall hearing anyone, including the President, address the American public with a clear and specific statement other than a few one liners.  If I missed it please point it out to me. 

 

 

[Tiberius]

42 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

My questions were about Washington's stated position of support to do "whatever it takes".  And other than a slogan there's little meaning to it unless you define some goals and objectives.   What are the administrations goals and objectives?  First it was defending democracy, then it was to weaken Russia.  Which is it?   I don't recall hearing anyone, including the President, address the American public with a clear and specific statement other than a few one liners.  If I missed it please point it out to me. 

 

 

Is Putin a terrorist? 

[All_Pro_Bills]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Is Putin a terrorist? 

If I said yes would it make you happy and would you address my questions? 

[SoCal Deek]

46 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Is Putin a terrorist? 

Honest Question: What is it that makes him a “terrorist” in your eyes?  I’m not saying I disagree with you Tibs, but we need to share a common language if we’re all going to have a conversation. 

[Tiberius]

14 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Honest Question: What is it that makes him a “terrorist” in your eyes?  I’m not saying I disagree with you Tibs, but we need to share a common language if we’re all going to have a conversation. 

Terrorising people with missiles

[Niagara Bill]

15 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Honest Question: What is it that makes him a “terrorist” in your eyes?  I’m not saying I disagree with you Tibs, but we need to share a common language if we’re all going to have a conversation. 

Me thinks a rose by any name is still a rose.