Wasn't it obvious? As of today US will lose a serious war.

[Jredbaron96]

He acts as though searchlights don’t exist and fighters that have a general idea of position and speed can’t find a stealth bomber well enough to engage with guns and IR missiles

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I don't really care what you believe or not.

But in your mind you've built up this fantasy of Russia where it's an incredibly advanced military state that could crush the United States armed forces with impunity. I don't know where you got this idea, because you don't need to be a spy in the Kremlin to know that Moscow doesn't share that fantasy.

If the Russians had found a way to defeat stealth, the Russian media would be screaming it from the rooftops, because like the American media the Russian media loves to gossip and theorize about things they don't really understand.

The Russians are not dumb. They know that in a war with NATO they would be overwhelmed by NATO's conventional superiority, and thus Russia's grand strategy leans very heavily on the nuclear deterrent.

I never said Russia would crush us. I said they can win. That is different things.

I based this on the fact we cannot deploy forces sufficient to defeat Russia without neglect of other obligations, that the domestic political situation now extant in America won’t tolerate a war with the Casualties this conflict would bring, let alone agree with any potential causus Belli. Especially if we’re the aggressors, and that NATO allies are purely self interested in their own sovereignty which Russia is unlikely to threaten.

that’s not saying “Russia would crush us”

 

[Jredbaron96]

I never said Russia would crush us. I said they can win. That is different things.

Russia doesn't seem to believe that, but sure. Whatever you want.

I based this on the fact we cannot deploy forces sufficient to defeat Russia without neglect of other obligations, that the domestic political situation now extant in America won’t tolerate a war with the Casualties this conflict would bring, let alone agree with any potential causus Belli. Especially if we’re the aggressors, and that NATO allies are purely self interested in their own sovereignty which Russia is unlikely to threaten.

The US is not going to pursue war with Russia unless acting out of self-defense. Full stop.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Russia doesn't seem to believe that, but sure. Whatever you want.



The US is not going to pursue war with Russia unless acting out of self-defense.

Russia is no danger to the United States. All of the acrimony toward Russia has been fully driven by the US via the insane idea that Crimeans have no right to self determination and that Ukrainian Nazis should be able to work toward a final solution in the Donbas. That’s not self defense of America

plus the idea that we were going to institute regime change in Syria and many of the elite are upset Russia moved in while we were arguing over red lines

 

[Jredbaron96]

Russia is no danger to the United States. All of the acrimony toward Russia has been fully driven by the US via the insane idea that Crimeans have no right to self determination

If Crimea wanted so badly to join Russia why not just request a referendum then force Kiev to admit its trying to hold onto a province that doesn't want to be part of it?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

If Crimea wanted so badly to join Russia why not just request a referendum then force Kiev to admit its trying to hold onto a province that doesn't want to be part of it?

There was a referendum.

Now some have argued it wasn’t a fair one, but I’ve never seen any evidence that the international community would accept any results that favored Russia no matter who administered the election.

it is known though that the Crimean parliament elected under Ukraine law favored the annexation and the lack of resistance by local garrisons or anti Russian partisans since would indicate the referendum that was conducted wasn’t wrong in result

 

[Jredbaron96]

There was a referendum.

After it was seized. Because Russian desire for Crimea was never based on self-determination. It's not that the Russians don't care for such things (see South Ossetia), but that was never the case for Crimea.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

After it was seized. Because Russian desire for Crimea was never based on self-determination. It's not that the Russians don't care for such things (see South Ossetia), but that was never the case for Crimea.

Ok but the parliament of Crimea assented to that referendum. The Ukrainian government never ordered the garrisons to resist because they feared they weren’t loyal to the new regime in Keiv, and there’s been no partisan resistance inside of Crimea that I can find

that’s the other thing, no one is willing to openly say the regime in Kiev exists because of a violent overthrow of a democratic regime that ethnic Ukrainians didn’t like

 

[Jredbaron96]

Ok but the parliament of Crimea assented to that referendum. The Ukrainian government never ordered the garrisons to resist because they feared they weren’t loyal to the new regime in Keiv, and there’s been no partisan resistance inside of Crimea that I can find

And if it was such a guarantee then there would not have been a need for a prior invasion. Crimea could have made it clear that they wanted to be part of Russia, then when Kiev refuses to concede the Russians could claim they were acting in the interest of self-determination and have a much better leg to stand on

 

[Luce]

Women units in Israel are like women border patrol in the Canadian sectors. They are in segregated units on borders with countries that Israel has solid peace agreements with.

Besides, the telos of women is not to fight. Even if women were more effective the role they serve with pregnancy and child reading is more important then military service

Doesn't matter. You don't get to decide what they do.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

And if it was such a guarantee then there would not have been a need for a prior invasion. Crimea could have made it clear that they wanted to be part of Russia, then when Kiev refuses to concede the Russians could claim they were acting in the interest of self-determination and have a much better leg to stand on

The “invasion” was Russian soldiers marching in to crowds that turned out to support them. It was an invasion in the sense that French and Dutch cities were “invaded” by the Allies. Was a single shot even fired in resistance?

there was certainly no major attempt at defense, and no resistance movements afterward.

and I don’t think Ukraine wants there to be a democratic election. They want Sevastopol because of its economic value.

 

[Jredbaron96]

The “invasion” was Russian soldiers marching in to crowds that turned out to support them. It was an invasion in the sense that French and Dutch cities were “invaded” by the Allies. Was a single shot even fired in resistance?

The Russians crossed into what was internationally recognized as Ukrainian soil. They did so without any kind of referendum indicating Crimea wanted to be part of Russia, only holding it after they were in control.

Again, if Crimean desire to join Russia was so strong, why not hold the referendum prior?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The Russians crossed into what was internationally recognized as Ukrainian soil. They did so without any kind of referendum indicating Crimea wanted to be part of Russia, only holding it after they were in control.

Again, if Crimean desire to join Russia was so strong, why not hold the referendum prior?

Yeah we didn’t organize a referendum in sny city in France either.

if a referendum was announced with no Russian troops present Ukraine would’ve flooded Crimea with loyal soldiers from the west.

the Crimean parliament and the “Ukrainian “ military commanders were clearly in contact with Russia because they immediately supported the troops.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The Russians crossed into what was internationally recognized as Ukrainian soil. They did so without any kind of referendum indicating Crimea wanted to be part of Russia, only holding it after they were in control.

Again, if Crimean desire to join Russia was so strong, why not hold the referendum prior?

Tell me what Spain did when Catalonia announced their referendum? They sent the Civil Guard to disarm the local police and used tear gas against voters and local fireman who formed a line to protect them

 

[Jredbaron96]

Yeah we didn’t organize a referendum in sny city in France either.

if a referendum was announced with no Russian troops present Ukraine would’ve flooded Crimea with loyal soldiers from the west.

And then they would have been painted as hostile occupational forces

Thus justifying Russian intervention on the basis of respect of self-determination. Instead they invaded then invented a reason afterwards, because the Russians first and foremost concerns were their strategic interests.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Tell me what Spain did when Catalonia announced their referendum? They sent the Civil Guard to disarm the local police and used tear gas against voters and local fireman who formed a line to protect them

If you want to get into a debate about the hypocrisy of self-determination you'll get no argument from me. Russia insisted upon it for South Ossettia while ignoring Kosovo, while NATO did the exact opposite.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

And then they would have been painted as hostile occupational forces

Thus justifying Russian intervention on the basis of respect of self-determination. Instead they invaded then invented a reason afterwards, because the Russians first and foremost concerns were their strategic interests.

Certainly it aligned with their interests. Two things can be true at once. That’s why the Russians haven’t tried a referendum in the Donbas, the headache of annexation there isn’t worth what the can provide.
But that isn’t relevant to the facts of Crimea

 

[Jredbaron96]

Certainly it aligned with their interests. Two things can be true at once. That’s why the Russians haven’t tried a referendum in the Donbas, the headache of annexation there isn’t worth what the can provide.
But that isn’t relevant to the facts of Crimea

So it's not a matter of self-determination but strategic interests. So therefore message is that Russia will use military force to take control of their strategic interests.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

So it's not a matter of self-determination but strategic interests. So therefore message is that Russia will use military force to take control of their strategic interests.

We use military force to secure our strategic interests. Although I would argue that the US uses force to secure the interests of globohomo (the rich elite who want global homogenization) and not necessarily America at large, it wouldn’t shock me if Viktor Orban wins in Hungary again next year that we will start hearing about weapons of mass destruction in Budapest and how we need to bring democracy and Run the Rainbow flag up their parliament.

but that aside, it’s obvious the elites of powerful countries maintain the military option for their interests.

again, that doesn’t mean those interests don’t align with other groups of people.

the President that Crimeans supported was violently overthrown by US backed coup, the new regime was talking openly about eliminating the local autonomy that eastern Ukraine had been given and forcing them to do local business in Ukrainian language, then Russian troops entered, the local garrisons defected without firing a shot. The elected parliament of Crimea openly supported the Russians, and Ukraine’s top naval commander was among the defectors.
I do not buy the idea that Crimeans wanted to remain in Ukraine. If Russia invaded Western Ukraine I think there would be fierce resistance, occupied areas would see armed partisans emerge, there would be mass defiance to Russia rule, etc.

none of that happened in Crimea

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

So it's not a matter of self-determination but strategic interests. So therefore message is that Russia will use military force to take control of their strategic interests.

Which is different than the US how?

 

[Jredbaron96]

We use military force to secure our strategic interests. Although I would argue that the US uses force to secure the interests of globohomo (the rich elite who want global homogenization) and not necessarily America at large, it wouldn’t shock me if Viktor Orban wins in Hungary again next year that we will start hearing about weapons of mass destruction in Budapest and how we need to bring democracy and Run the Rainbow flag up their parliament.

but that aside, it’s obvious the elites of powerful countries maintain the military option for their interests.

again, that doesn’t mean those interests don’t align with other groups of people.

the President that Crimeans supported was violently overthrown by US backed coup,

lol, the Ukrainian revolution was not a US backed coup. The entire reaction of NATO amounted to basically "Yeah that's cool".

I do not buy the idea that Crimeans wanted to remain in Ukraine.

So it would have been the perfect opportunity to demonstrate Russian commitment to self-determination by asking for a referendum first and then intervening if Kiev refused to respect the results.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Which is different than the US how?

What territory has the US recently seized control of during an ongoing revolution in pursuit of its strategic interests?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

We use military force to secure our strategic interests. Although I would argue that the US uses force to secure the interests of globohomo (the rich elite who want global homogenization) and not necessarily America at large, it wouldn’t shock me if Viktor Orban wins in Hungary again next year that we will start hearing about weapons of mass destruction in Budapest and how we need to bring democracy and Run the Rainbow flag up their parliament.

but that aside, it’s obvious the elites of powerful countries maintain the military option for their interests.

again, that doesn’t mean those interests don’t align with other groups of people.

the President that Crimeans supported was violently overthrown by US backed coup, the new regime was talking openly about eliminating the local autonomy that eastern Ukraine had been given and forcing them to do local business in Ukrainian language, then Russian troops entered, the local garrisons defected without firing a shot. The elected parliament of Crimea openly supported the Russians, and Ukraine’s top naval commander was among the defectors.
I do not buy the idea that Crimeans wanted to remain in Ukraine. If Russia invaded Western Ukraine I think there would be fierce resistance, occupied areas would see armed partisans emerge, there would be mass defiance to Russia rule, etc.

none of that happened in Crimea

Regardless of how a person feels about Russia taking over Crimea, I think anyone who paid attention to how it was done would say it was a nearly perfect operation, planned and executed to near perfection

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

What territory has the US recently seized control of during an ongoing revolution in pursuit of its strategic interests?

Use of military force to control strategic interests

Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, threats and desire to attack/invade Iran.


Which does not actually require annexation of the territory, just control over

 

[Jredbaron96]

Use of military force to control strategic interests

Afghanistan, Iraq,

The US is withdrawing from both of these countries.

Syria,

If the US taking a disliking to a dictator gassing his own people, I won't object to that. That has little to do with controlling strategic interests.

threats and desire to attack/invade Iran.

Largely the product of neoconservatives, not the entire United States.