How do you suggest we "bust Russia up" without starting (a likely nuclear) WWIII?
Russia Invades Ukraine XVII
- Thread starter crimsonaudio
- Start date
Not to mention Russia is ranked as the country with the most valuable natural resources on the planet - coal, oil, natural gas, gold, timber, and rare earth metals bringing in a valuation of about $75 trillion. By way of comparison, the US has a valuation of about $45 trillion...
How about we infìltrate their government, flood their media with democratic propaganda, shadow fund the campaigns of their legislators, influence their elections, stoke civil unrest, flood their country with illegal immigration, and hack their government systems to steal national secrets?
It's worked so effectively on us why not give them a taste of their own medicine?
It's worked so effectively on us why not give them a taste of their own medicine?
Because despite what many here in the US wish to believe, we don't live under an authoritarian dictatorship with state-controlled media like Russians do.
If it were that easy it would have been done decades ago...
Mike Pence: Mr. President, Ukraine did not “start†this war. Russia launched an unprovoked and brutal invasion claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. The Road to Peace must be built on the Truth.
For a number of reasons.
They are difficult to detect. Clandestine actors seek to hide from the target that the act even happened.
They are difficult to attribute. If an act happens, how do we know who did it (in a legally prosecutable level)?
Modern state bureaucracies look at the world through ministerial stovepipes: MOD looks at the through the lens of military matters. Ministry of Foreign Affairs looks at it through a diplomatic lens. Ministry of Interior is not overly concerned with international affairs, only threats to the regime from inside the country. Intelligence agencies look at adversary intelligence services. Cops look at criminals.
The hybrid threat, on the other hand, attacks a targeted country holistically. Let me give you an example. The FSB uses a Russian-based criminal organisation to smuggle (with FSB assistance) contraband into a NATO country. If successful the criminal gang hands over to the FSB the FSB's share of the profits. The FSB does not repatriate the money. They leave it inside the targeted country (and thus, within the EU) to fund FSB ops inside the targeted country or worse, inside a neighboring EU/NATO country. From the perspective of the targeted country, is this a police problem, an intelligence problem, a foreign affairs problem, or a ministry of the interior problem? Where do these ministries cross-talk?
"Bust Russia up" sounds good, but what does that mean? The reason why the Kremlin reduced Grozny to rubble was because the Chechens were seeking independence from the Russian Federation (Chechnya being a constituent republic of the Russian Federation). The Kremlin reacted very strongly to that threat. Breaking up the Soviet Union was one thing, but breaking up the Russian Federation is something else altogether (at least in the eyes of the Kremlin).
Russians mostly get their news from television. Putin right off the bat in 2000 moved to ensure that every television network was either (a) owned by the government or (b) owned by a "friend" beholden to Putin personally.
Russia passed a law stipulating that any organization inside Russia that receives a dime from foreign sources must declare every time it published, that this source was funded by foreign sources. And they enforce that with prison sentences in Siberia. The impact is that (a) Russia media organizations/NGOs do not accept foreign money or (b) Russians do not read what they publish.
The FSB is constantly on the lookout for "color revolutions." Gene Sharp, an American academic wrote a book From Dictatorship to Democracy, a "how to" manual for overthrowing dictatorial government. It was translated into Arabic (and Russian and a bunch of other languages) and widely used in the Arab Spring to overthrow Arab dictatorships, including Russian allies, such as Syria. The FSB is constantly on the lookout for "color revolutions" and not particular about arresting and sentencing the innocent as long at they get the guilty as well.
As for cyberespionage, I'm sure the US government is doing whatever it can in the field (but obviously not publicizing its successes).
Before I get too critical of the current crowd in the White House on Ukraine, I remember that Biden hinted that an invasion was understandable, at least as long as it was a "minor border incursion."
This was April Glaspie on steroids.
I'm sure someone at DoS suggested this as a "line to take," but man did Biden's statement boomerang on us.
I'm sure someone at DoS suggested this as a "line to take," but man did Biden's statement boomerang on us.
Trump talks tough when it comes to dealing with other nations, allies or enemies. However, with Russia and its conditions to end the war, it appears that he’s much more accommodating. Russia wants to keep the land it’s taken and Trump has said that’s a possibility. Russia does not want Ukraine in NATO, so their possible membership is off the table. Sanctions are the only really big thing left and it seems Trump is willing to drop those as well. Can anyone really blame skeptics for thinking that Trump has a special affinity for Putin? Russia has made noise about possible American business opportunities in their country after the war is over. Would anyone be surprised to find out that some sort of deal is in the works?
I’m not an expert, but it seems that in both the Glaspie and Biden incidents, the deterrence model wasn’t used nearly as forcibly as it should have been. Particularly with Glaspie, who emphasized American friendliness toward Iraq when communicating with Saddam. It’s been a long while since I read about that, so my recollection might be a little hazy.
Regardless, stupid mistakes by both of them, particularly in hindsight.
Last edited:
VP Vance: This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come. And thank God for that.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come. And thank God for that.
As usual, Vance has a well-written defense of Trump policy. The guy is clearly bright. However, the questions remain: What does Trump think is America’s best interest regarding this situation and does that include giving Putin most of what he wants?
Certainly, reasonable people can disagree on what is in America’s interest.
Maybe Trump is enamored of business opportunities in Russia. Who knows? I do not think anything beside extraction of oil and gas is going to be very lucrative. The place is a mess.
As for "allowing" Russia to keep the land it has grabbed, what is the alternative? Mexico "allows" the United States to keep California, Arizona, New Mexico, etc., but does Mexico have a realistic alternative?
Who is going to pry that land out of Russian hands? Ukraine is losing more land every day. The Russian offensive does not look like the blitzkrieg of the summer of 1941, but it is more like a steamroller, slow but inexorable. Thus, the pressure is on the side losing ground to make a deal while they still have a country. Are the negotiators supposed to say to Putin, "You would better make a deal because if you wait until tomorrow, … you're gonna get more land. And if you wait till next week… You're gonna get even more land."
To continue indefinitely is to become Palestine, the people who refused to make a deal.
For reference, here is the America First Policy Institute plan developed by Lieutenant General (Retired) Keith Kellogg:
America First, Russia, & Ukraine
That is probably the point of departure for any peace plan, although this was written last April. I am not endorsing AFPI or Kellogg, just pointing where you can read more.
Considering that BRICS is dead set on devaluing the USD as much as it can, this is an open door to come in and make a deal that protects the value of our money. Obviously Putin is not to be trusted, but then again, neither are we. However, if we can strike a deal and no one reneges, we at least have a shot here to shore up a defense against the potential for WWIII and save the dollar at the same time. I don't know if Trump has the stones to play it like that, but I guess we'll find out.
There was also one kind of weapon that Russia has that Iraq in 1991 did not.
Thank you for the link. I’ll check it out.
If you have the time, I’d like your opinion on the solutions proposed in this article.
Neutrality: An Alternative to Ukraine’s Membership in NATO
While Ukraine’s acceptance into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) appears unattainable, armed neutrality may be the country’s next best option to protect against future Russian aggression.
www.cfr.org
Rumer is, I think, correct. As mentioned above, countries with an unresolved border dispute cannot join NATO.Thank you for the link. I’ll check it out.
If you have the time, I’d like your opinion on the solutions proposed in this article.
Neutrality: An Alternative to Ukraine’s Membership in NATO
While Ukraine’s acceptance into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) appears unattainable, armed neutrality may be the country’s next best option to protect against future Russian aggression.
The AFPI/Kellogg plan called for:
1. No NATO membership for Ukraine (at least not now), but security guarantees from the US and European countries (again).
2. A Zone of Separation established to separate the warring powers, to be patrolled by European ground troops, but not American troops. Europe pays for this mission.
2. Russia retains (most?) land it has taken in Ukraine, but the US does not recognize the change in borders, just de facto occupation (as the US did for the Baltic States 1941-1991).
3. Some sanctions relief for Russia, but significant ones stay in place or are dependent on Russian compliance.*
* Russia has an atrocious track record for complying with peace deals. They say they are complying, but in reality, they are doing nefarious stuff under the table or in a deniable manner. For example, when OSCE proposed to put monitors on the border to stop the flow of weapons from Russia into Ukraine in 2015 (eleven main border crossing sites), Russia publicly agreed. Then, Russia said OSCE can only monitor five of the eleven crossings. "Do not worry about the other 6 crossing sites. We promise we are not using them." One road crossing was near (3 km from) a railroad crossing site, but Russia forbade OSCE monitors from the road crossing site to walk the 3km through the woods to check out the railroad crossing site and the monitors could hear trains crossing all day every day.
I cannot see how continuing to pour money into the bottomless pit of Ukraine benefits the US. Perhaps it's the long-term weakening of Russia, but it's not clear that benefit is worth the money spent on a war that has no realistic end in sight other than a stalemate or a total win for Russia.
Keep in mind if Russia takes all of Ukraine they likely gain enough in natural resources to more than pay for all the loss the take on over the years of this war.
I'd love to hear a cogent plan for Ukraine winning - I absolutely HATE it when bad people win. It happens far too often but rarely on this scale. I'd LOVE to see Putin lose here but no one has put forth a way in which that realistically happens.
Trending content
Latest threads
-
-
ESPN: Judge grants Oklahoma LB Heinecke extra year- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: NCAA recommends earlier start to football season
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Duke, Diaz reach contract extension through '32
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: WR Knox found negligent in crash, to pay $2.8M
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Report: Ex-Bama DE used Penix, others for fraud
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0