Russia/Ukraine

Status
Not open for further replies.
My thoughts...using an OLD dictionary (slovar)

Нынешний кризис не за горами. Русские всегда жаждали Украины. Они возьмут его либо политикой, либо силой.
Владимир — новый Иван Четвертый?
 
Я куплюсь на Николая Первого!
Okay, I have now used Google translate. You guys are way ahead of me here. My kid is minoring in Russian but I haven't learned to speak, read or write it yet.
 
Russia views any country or alliance that is not part of or controlled by Russia as an enemy. The Russians are paranoid and insecure.

Of course they have good reason to be so. Their history is replete with foreign invasions. The Swedes, the French, the Turks, the Poles, the Japanese, the Germans (ESPECIALLY the Germans), etc. have all invaded Mother Russia in just the last 400 years.

Ukraine was much a part of Russia as Scotland has been a part of the UK, up until 1991.

Putin (and much of Russia) misses its Empire and wants it back.

Whether or not Ukraine being reabsorbed into the Motherland is a threat to US national security is a problematic question. Same as Taiwan being reaborbed into China.

Americans were once told we had to fight the Viet Cong in the Mekong Delta so we didn't have to fight them in San Diego.

Americans were once told told we have to fight the Iraqis in Iraq so we didn't have to fight them in Brooklyn.

Lies, on both occasions. At tremendous price.

I don't want to see freedom-loving Ukrainians fall under the Russian boot, of course. And I feel bad for the Uighurs & Tibetans in China.

But enough, already. If Europeans don't care about Russian expansionism on their doorstep, why should Americans?

Narco-terrorism in Latin America is a much more direct threat to US national security. And has been for 20 or more years. If we had spent more attention to events in Mexico, Honduras and El Salvador as we did Iraq, Syria, Iran, Yemen, etc. would we be better off today?
First, this is post Vietnam and no one is going to believe we need to fight the Russians in Ukraine and not in San Diego
Second, there is a huge difference between fighting the Iraqis and the Viet Cong. No was concerned that either group was going to lob nukes into US soil. Sure there was a concern that Iraq had possible nukes but they were in no position to bomb the US at that point. Which was part of the excuse for going into Iraq when we did. The only issue there was that Saadam convinced the US and the rest of the world that they did have WMDs and turned out they didn't.. On the other hand, Israeli forces bombed both Syrian and Iraqi nuclear facilities which turned out to work really well.
Putin is no Hitler and his goal isn't to take over the world. On the other hand, Putin will push until someone pushes back. He took Crimea, he wants Ukraine and he is in Georgian territory. He obviously knows US troops will not be used. and is willing to take the pain of economic sanctions. Eventually, he will get close to some US ally and won't need to use physical force, he will just use intimidation to get what he wants. And they will because they know the US wont do anything. Everyone says we live in a global economy, so if one nation gets screwed over, we will feel it.
 
First, this is post Vietnam and no one is going to believe we need to fight the Russians in Ukraine and not in San Diego
Second, there is a huge difference between fighting the Iraqis and the Viet Cong. No was concerned that either group was going to lob nukes into US soil. Sure there was a concern that Iraq had possible nukes but they were in no position to bomb the US at that point. Which was part of the excuse for going into Iraq when we did. The only issue there was that Saadam convinced the US and the rest of the world that they did have WMDs and turned out they didn't.. On the other hand, Israeli forces bombed both Syrian and Iraqi nuclear facilities which turned out to work really well.
Putin is no Hitler and his goal isn't to take over the world. On the other hand, Putin will push until someone pushes back. He took Crimea, he wants Ukraine and he is in Georgian territory. He obviously knows US troops will not be used. and is willing to take the pain of economic sanctions. Eventually, he will get close to some US ally and won't need to use physical force, he will just use intimidation to get what he wants. And they will because they know the US wont do anything. Everyone says we live in a global economy, so if one nation gets screwed over, we will feel it.
Pretty sure he holds Germany's vital energy resources well in hand.
 
Pretty sure he holds Germany's vital energy resources well in hand.
yes, when Germany got rid of its nuclear power program, its energy requirements weren't replaced by renewable power so started relying more heavily on Russian energy resources. Which seems to be the US policy also. Reduce oil production in the US so that we can rely on foreign oil although I realize the end goal is to rely on renewable energy regardless of the cost
 
Are you sure about that? Production collapsed because the economy and prices collapsed. Both are in full recovery. Don't confuse rhetoric with reality.


Production is down because of that also, but Biden Administrating is going out of their way to reduce fracking and other sources of oil production due to environmental concerns and such. I am not confusing reality with rhetoric. I just read several articles explaining this.



Should I continue
 
Production is down because of that also, but Biden Administrating is going out of their way to reduce fracking and other sources of oil production due to environmental concerns and such. I am not confusing reality with rhetoric. I just read several articles explaining this.



Should I continue
Explain this to me, because I can’t figure it out.

If demand for gas and oil stays the same globally, does it matter which country produces it in terms of climate change? So even if we halt production, and Russia increases production, the net effect on climate change stays the same, if any?
 
Explain this to me, because I can’t figure it out.

If demand for gas and oil stays the same globally, does it matter which country produces it in terms of climate change? So even if we halt production, and Russia increases production, the net effect on climate change stays the same, if any?
yes and no. Fracking seems to have weird effects like earthquakes and oil can be dirty so i would assume it can mess up the local environment. However global warming would be the same regardless of who produces the oil. On the other hand, not sure if oil production in itself is a factor to climate change. The use of it would of course. However, i truly think the end goal is to increase the cost of fossil fuel. Clean energy can't compete with oil because it is so much more expensive. While the cost of clean energy has gone down in the last 20 years it is still more money than dirty energy. Well, there are two ways to fix this. Reduce the price of clean energy and or increase the price of fossil fuel.
 
Ukraine is not a member of NATO and has been dominated by Russia for 300 years. NATO will stand by and watch Russia re-annex Ukraine and NATO will do nothing.

But there should be a very different response if Russia ever threatens a NATO member in the future. NATO needs to pull together to prepare to prevent and deter any future Russian adventurism.
 
Ukraine is not a member of NATO and has been dominated by Russia for 300 years. NATO will stand by and watch Russia re-annex Ukraine and NATO will do nothing.

But there should be a very different response if Russia ever threatens a NATO member in the future. NATO needs to pull together to prepare to prevent and deter any future Russian adventurism.
I dont necessasrily disagree with you, but the question becomes, do you start now or do you wait until an ally or Nato member gets into the Russian crosshairs. Would Germany had invaded Europe if Germany annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938 would have been stopped Again, Putin isn't Hilter and Russia isn't Germany but what is the point you get involved. I also don't think US troops should be used to defend Ukraine, but i think something needs to be done.
 
I dont necessasrily disagree with you, but the question becomes, do you start now or do you wait until an ally or Nato member gets into the Russian crosshairs. Would Germany had invaded Europe if Germany annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938 would have been stopped Again, Putin isn't Hilter and Russia isn't Germany but what is the point you get involved. I also don't think US troops should be used to defend Ukraine, but i think something needs to be done.
Agree something needs to be done. Economic sanctions in coalition with our Nato partners. I think that will be done and is being worked on. But then we need to draw a line in the sand. The line is NATO.
 
I’m beyond concerned that we have now announced our citizens need to leave. That’s like ringing the bell of impending doom and signaling that you as a country know you cannot negotiate or stop this via some other means.

Not to say that we need another botched withdrawal of our citizens. I don’t ever want to see that again in my lifetime. Hell some are still stranded.

What bothers me the most is the mention of our own troops being ‘at the ready’ with a specific number of troops listed. Seriously? We cannot possibly be considering sending boots on the ground. We have so many crisis here at home and from all I have read and gathered and listened to, ultimately Ukraine has no strategic value to the US other than “Russia is bad”. I know the Ukrainian people don’t deserve to be invaded. I get that.
But IMHO it’s time for those directly affected in Europe to wear the cape and we need to stand back physically.
 
Production is down because of that also, but Biden Administrating is going out of their way to reduce fracking and other sources of oil production due to environmental concerns and such. I am not confusing reality with rhetoric. I just read several articles explaining this.



Should I continue
There's rhetoric and there's reality. Two months ago there was a Federal auction of drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico. I think I read someplace that is was the largest auction of Federal leases in history.


You're CNBC article is from Jan 2021. Mine is from Nov 2021

I'll stop the hijack. I just can't abide the misinfo.
 
What bothers me the most is the mention of our own troops being ‘at the ready’ with a specific number of troops listed. Seriously? We cannot possibly be considering sending boots on the ground.
I am not sure at this point we are so interested in reassuring Ukraine. They have been given "lethal aid" and I think that's going to be about all they get from us other than a "praying hands" emoji. I think the 8500 or so troops pledged to NATO are to calm Romania, Poland, and Estonia. If there isn't a stronger consensus by NATO countries to act (as opposed to peering across the Atlantic and asking us to shovel their poop), then the Russian bear will keep raiding trash cans. And NATO, like Monty Python's brave Sir Robyn, will bravely run away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top