Ukraine Always Get What You Want

[Justin_Rice]

There is no justification for Putin's actions. Stating what "will" happen --- instead of what "should" happen in a perfect world --- is not condoning it. Someone needs to work on "reading comprehension."

I'm only wondering if Justin's icon-clad statement that wars of conquest can't be "allowed" to happen are still valid if we happen to be the ones orchestrating the conquest.

If we invade Greenland I'll be standing on the White House lawn right beside you.

 

[BTExpress]

I get that. We'll "protest" it. Cool.

I'm talking about not allowing it to happen. What foreign entity is going to step up and not allow it to happen? As we are were ostensibly doing with Russia?

 

[Justin_Rice]

I get that. We'll "protest" it. Cool.

I'm talking about not allowing it to happen. What foreign entity is going to step up and not allow it to happen? As we are were ostensibly doing with Russia?

I suspect if the US invaded Greenland NATO would be over, and sanctions against the United States would begin immediately.

I also think if the US invaded Britain, France, or Germany, all these things would happen too.

But what is it you really hope to hear?

"Certain big countries can do whatever they want to small countries, especially Russia."

 

[BTExpress]

As I said, NATO would put on its best Susan Collins face. But no one will put boots on the ground to stop the U.S. from taking Greenland.

WE won't even put boots on the ground in Ukraine. Nor will anyone else.

 

[Justin_Rice]

As I said, NATO would put on its best Susan Collins face. But no one will put boots on the ground to stop the U.S. from taking Greenland.

WE won't even put boots on the ground in Ukraine. Nor will anyone else.

Yes? And?

"We" tend to be guided by "let's try to avoid nuclear exchange."

Nevertheless: I'm excited to see your sudden anti-Russia swing!

Russia needs to leave Ukraine, and our sanctions should stay in place until they do … right?

 

[BTExpress]

Here is my "sudden anti-Russia swing." From Feb. 24, 2022:

Stephen Cohen (RIP) said a few years ago that the Kremlin hawks were always on his back, bitching that he was always reactive, never proactive.

Well, fork that, I guess. I see no justification for this.

Cohen (referenced above) always said "sanctions are simply attitude instead of policy." I tend to agree with him. I have no great objection to them staying in place, however. But too often they hurt innocent citizens and other countries and do nothing to change the behavior of the offending nation (which is supposed to be the reason for the sanctions). They're one step above a Facebook avatar, IMO.

 

[Justin_Rice]

Here is my "sudden anti-Russia swing." From Feb. 24, 2022:



Cohen (referenced above) always said "sanctions are simply attitude instead of policy." I tend to agree with him. I have no great objection to them staying in place. But too often they hurt other people and countries and do nothing to change behavior (which is supposed to be the reason for the sanctions).

So what should we be doing instead?

 

[Oggiedoggie]

About Greenland: Why is Denmark allowing the American clown car on its soil. Detain them on entry, go through their phones and computers and, when messages threatening Denmark's sovereignty are found, keep them for a few days for investigation, then deport them.

 

[BTExpress]

So what should we be doing instead?

Negotiating.

Realistically negotiating. Should have been doing it two years ago.

 

[WriteThinking]

A very apropos, compelling read, from The Atlantic, about the Trump administration's switch from Ukraine ally to Russian asset. Really devastating, inexplicable and just unforgivable. It can't be justified, and this explains, well, how Trump doesn't even try to do so. And gets away with it.

The Hollow Men

In George Orwell's 1984, at the climax of Hate Week, Oceania is suddenly no longer at war with Eurasia, but instead is at war with Eastasia, and always has been. The pivot comes with no explanation or even announcement. During a public harangue, a Party orator is handed a scrap of paper and redirects his vitriol "mid-sentence, not only without a pause, but without even breaking the syntax."

Republican politicians in Donald Trump's Inner Party faced a similar verbal challenge when the president changed sides in Russia's war against Ukraine. One morning in late February, Republicans in Washington greeted Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky as a hero for continuing to resist Russian aggression. By afternoon, following Zelensky's meeting in the Oval Office with Trump and Vice President J. D. Vance, the Ukrainian leader was an ungrateful, troublesome, and badly dressed warmonger who, if he hadn't actually started the conflict with Russia, was the only obstacle to ending it.

After this new line was communicated to party leaders, a pro-Zelensky social-media post was taken down as swiftly as the banners denouncing Eurasia. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, and Senator Lindsey Graham—all supporters of Ukraine—were sent out in front of the cameras like the Hate Week orator, not to explain a new policy but to pretend that nothing had changed while America switched sides. Using nearly identical language, Rubio, Johnson, and Graham declared that Zelensky must do Trump's bidding, which is also Vladimir Putin's bidding, and capitulate to Russia; otherwise, Johnson and Graham added, Zelensky should resign. America's enemy isn't Russia. America's enemy is Ukraine....

 

[WriteThinking]

As I said, NATO would put on its best Susan Collins face. But no one will put boots on the ground to stop the U.S. from taking Greenland.

WE won't even put boots on the ground in Ukraine. Nor will anyone else.

I understand your argument, I think. So, you mean, NATO would be afraid to put boots on the ground in Greenland because it is now afraid of the U.S. using a nuclear weapon? (I'm not -- yet -- quite sure that that's true).

But the reason I ask is because that WAS/IS the primary reason for the U.S. not putting boots on the ground in Ukraine: because it was/is afraid that Putin/Russia truly, actually WOULD have no compunction about dropping a nuclear weapon.

 

[BTExpress]

Given what impulsive person is in the White House --- and given the U.S.'s 2-0 lead over the rest of the world in detonating nuclear weapons on civilians --- I think it's a valid concern.

More likely, they would just want to avoid a possible worldwide global conflict with a mighty military power on the other side.