Abandoning allies

[Observer11]

History says Russia was at one time friendly to the US during the 1700s and 1800s. And was also an ally in WWII.

Or have we forgotten we fought the British at one time? A couple times, in fact. Japan was our ally, then they weren't, now they are again.

Current events change allies.

Why stop at 80 years of history?

 

[UberCougars]

This fits here:

https://x.com/usedgov/status/1893052700297728116?s=46

 

[Coug90]

History says that we will wait and let our allies suffer devastating losses until the public comes to the realization that if the bad guys win in Europe....they aren't going to stop there. If Russia and North Korea start going toe to toe with European forces, China will most likely decide it's time to take over Taiwan.....than the entire South China Sea.....then Vietnam and the Philippines and Guam...drawing us into a war with them and further reducing the chances that the US helps in Europe initially.

The good news is that Russia has proven to be relatively incompetent compared to the bad guys of the past. The bad news is that western Europe may be full of a bunch of armies that lack the willpower and fortitude of the Ukrainians. If the latter proves true and Russia starts expanding its power and China decides to throw in with the Russians to wipe out Western Europe, it's full blown WWIII as the US realizes that it can't beat both Russia and China if Europe falls.

Even if we were to just let it happen, imagine Trump shitting his pants when Russia takes over Greenland.

I've read articles saying that we don't have to worry about any of this because Russia has no aspirations of taking over Western Europe. It's important to remember that they said the same thing about Hitler in 1937. In early December 1941, nobody believed that Japan would have the audacity to attack the United States. As we see every day on social media, humanity by its very nature is selfish and insecure....always looking for ways to get what they can and prove their superiority over others. It's inevitable that conflicts continue to escalate until the bullies are beaten down.

To be honest, if you read this board, both sides of the current arguments are microcosms of what's going on in the world. We are all guilty of being assholes and jerks, belittling the other side as we argue over this. We all kind of suck in our own ways. The key difference is that the MAGA crowd is honest about the fact that they don't care how much "other" people get f#cked as long as they win and see some sort of financial gain, and the rest of us really only care because we are worried that if things change too much and that the selfish assholes win, it will create an imbalance of power that will eventually harm us as billionaires like Trump continue to seek more "wins". Because again, humanity is greedy and selfish and there is never enough money and power....they always want more.

My theory from what Trumps shown us with his fealty to Putin along with what we’ve seen and heard over the past six weeks; Putin has convinced Trump that he can have the Americas and Greenland while Putin expands his rule in Eastern Europe. I think Trumps dream that he’s been talked into is Xi, Putin, and him each rule their own third of the world, Xi taking Taiwan and further expanding in SE Asia. Wild? Naw. Putin’s been holding firm in Ukraine and Xi has been waiting patiently as well for this moment. They’ve got what they want now.

This 51st State and Greenland crap coming up now with Trump once again getting slapped in the chin with Putin’s balls is no coincidence. The dipshit can’t keep his mouth shut when he’s excited about something.

Of course there’s no way it plays out this way. Putin’s playing Trump like a fiddle just like Hitler did with Stalin at the onset of WW2. Yeah I could be way off, but as you said flat, nobody would have predicted what unfolded in the 30s and 40s. We now have 3 expansionist world leaders playing together in the sandbox just like we did back then.

 

[UberCougars]

First FBI director of color and suddenly, DEImocrats are silent?

Seems odd. Good speech though, yes?

 

[UberCougars]

My theory from what Trumps shown us with his fealty to Putin along with what we’ve seen and heard over the past six weeks; Putin has convinced Trump that he can have the Americas and Greenland while Putin expands his rule in Eastern Europe. I think Trumps dream that he’s been talked into is Xi, Putin, and him each rule their own third of the world, Xi taking Taiwan and further expanding in SE Asia. Wild? Naw. Putin’s been holding firm in Ukraine and Xi has been waiting patiently as well for this moment. They’ve got what they want now.

This 51st State and Greenland crap coming up now with Trump once again getting slapped in the chin with Putin’s balls is no coincidence. The dipshit can’t keep his mouth shut when he’s excited about something.

Of course there’s no way it plays out this way. Putin’s playing Trump like a fiddle just like Hitler did with Stalin at the onset of WW2. Yeah I could be way off, but as you said flat, nobody would have predicted what unfolded in the 30s and 40s. We now have 3 expansionist world leaders playing together in the sandbox just like we did back then.

You should hook up with Hillary and Shiff and let them know you’ve got the goods and are willing to testify!

 

[Coug90]

You should hook up with Hillary and Shiff and let them know you’ve got the goods and are willing to testify!

You should learn how to post a working hyperlink then get back to me with that thought 👍

 

[Coug90]

First FBI director of color and suddenly, DEImocrats are silent?

Seems odd. Good speech though, yes?

View embedded media

I don’t think the spirit of DEI is to find the least qualified person of color imaginable for the job.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

History says Russia was at one time friendly to the US during the 1700s and 1800s. And was also an ally in WWII.

Or have we forgotten we fought the British at one time? A couple times, in fact. Japan was our ally, then they weren't, now they are again.

Current events change allies.

Why stop at 80 years of history?

Because you have to have your Hitler reference while ignoring the Marxist revolutionary playbook that's happening right before your eyes.

 

[95coug]

History says that we will wait and let our allies suffer devastating losses until the public comes to the realization that if the bad guys win in Europe....they aren't going to stop there. If Russia and North Korea start going toe to toe with European forces, China will most likely decide it's time to take over Taiwan.....than the entire South China Sea.....then Vietnam and the Philippines and Guam...drawing us into a war with them and further reducing the chances that the US helps in Europe initially.

The good news is that Russia has proven to be relatively incompetent compared to the bad guys of the past. The bad news is that western Europe may be full of a bunch of armies that lack the willpower and fortitude of the Ukrainians. If the latter proves true and Russia starts expanding its power and China decides to throw in with the Russians to wipe out Western Europe, it's full blown WWIII as the US realizes that it can't beat both Russia and China if Europe falls.

Even if we were to just let it happen, imagine Trump shitting his pants when Russia takes over Greenland.

I've read articles saying that we don't have to worry about any of this because Russia has no aspirations of taking over Western Europe. It's important to remember that they said the same thing about Hitler in 1937. In early December 1941, nobody believed that Japan would have the audacity to attack the United States. As we see every day on social media, humanity by its very nature is selfish and insecure....always looking for ways to get what they can and prove their superiority over others. It's inevitable that conflicts continue to escalate until the bullies are beaten down.

To be honest, if you read this board, both sides of the current arguments are microcosms of what's going on in the world. We are all guilty of being assholes and jerks, belittling the other side as we argue over this. We all kind of suck in our own ways. The key difference is that the MAGA crowd is honest about the fact that they don't care how much "other" people get f#cked as long as they win and see some sort of financial gain, and the rest of us really only care because we are worried that if things change too much and that the selfish assholes win, it will create an imbalance of power that will eventually harm us as billionaires like Trump continue to seek more "wins". Because again, humanity is greedy and selfish and there is never enough money and power....they always want more.

There’s no doubt in my mind that if we give Ukraine to Putin, he’ll keep going. Appeasement doesn’t work. If he restricts himself to the former Soviet states, maybe the rest of the world lets him do it…but giving up Ukraine could embolden him and convince him that Poland or something the west cares about is fair game. If he does push farther, I can see Europe trying to stop him once he starts pushing Germany….but they won’t be able to before he re-establishes East Germany. And, they’ll need us to provide material support just like they did in 1940. Problem Russia will have is that they continue to have their military led by obedient personalities, not by competent soldiers. Same thing brought down the Axis in WWII. Hard to say whether Europe has any competent soldiers, since they haven’t really fought anything significant in a couple generations. At this point, it’s hard to say whether we do either, now that our leadership is also being replaced by puppets.

As for China….reality is that at most points in the past 70 years and any point in the last 20, they could have taken Taiwan before we could do anything about it. If they move on it, we don’t really have a choice but to let it go. As for taking the Philippines and Vietnam, I don’t know that any of those gain China anything that’s worth the effort. Not that logic necessarily matters in geopolitics.

It does seem like - in some ways - we’ve regressed back to the late 19th century, where everyone’s turned expansionist and wants to grow their empire. There’s really only 3 countries that can do that, and 2 (us and China) are so economically entwined that it’s hard to unravel.

 

[95coug]

I don’t think the spirit of DEI is to find the least qualified person of color imaginable for the job.

No…that was affirmative action.

 

[dgibbons]

I don’t think the spirit of DEI is to find the least qualified person of color imaginable for the job.

Kamala.

 

[dgibbons]

There’s no doubt in my mind that if we give Ukraine to Putin, he’ll keep going. Appeasement doesn’t work. If he restricts himself to the former Soviet states, maybe the rest of the world lets him do it…but giving up Ukraine could embolden him and convince him that Poland or something the west cares about is fair game. If he does push farther, I can see Europe trying to stop him once he starts pushing Germany….but they won’t be able to before he re-establishes East Germany. And, they’ll need us to provide material support just like they did in 1940. Problem Russia will have is that they continue to have their military led by obedient personalities, not by competent soldiers. Same thing brought down the Axis in WWII. Hard to say whether Europe has any competent soldiers, since they haven’t really fought anything significant in a couple generations. At this point, it’s hard to say whether we do either, now that our leadership is also being replaced by puppets.

As for China….reality is that at most points in the past 70 years and any point in the last 20, they could have taken Taiwan before we could do anything about it. If they move on it, we don’t really have a choice but to let it go. As for taking the Philippines and Vietnam, I don’t know that any of those gain China anything that’s worth the effort. Not that logic necessarily matters in geopolitics.

It does seem like - in some ways - we’ve regressed back to the late 19th century, where everyone’s turned expansionist and wants to grow their empire. There’s really only 3 countries that can do that, and 2 (us and China) are so economically entwined that it’s hard to unravel.

Putin is 72. Hitler was 49 in 1938. There’s been a lot of speculation about his health, and he seemed genuinely paranoid about Covid. Vlad doesn’t have that much time left before he kicks the bucket or someone inside Russia challenges him.

You’re not incorrect about China having been able to take Taiwan earlier, especially 1958 (second Taiwan Strait crisis) to the early 2000s. Taiwan was able to buy more advanced weapons. China’s sealift capability, naval power and rocket forces haven’t been close up to about now, and they’ve been taking leaps forward in technology. It wouldn’t be just us against China. It would be Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Australia, Singapore, the UK and probably South Korea. India would be a wildcard.

 

[BSpike76]

Acceptable to me? Coug90 and Putin have a shirtless arm wrestling contest. Best of five. Between rounds Putin gets oiled up by CougEd, and Coug90 gets oiled up by Trump. BYOBO, bring your own baby oil.

What’s “acceptable to me” is meaningless of course. So, I'll do my best to outline what I think are terms that need to be addressed, and what I think are reasonable ways of compromising.

1. Assuming that a DMZ is feasible, the frontline is about 600 miles, Ukraine gives up Kursk, and the DMZ extends eastward (so toward the Russian side).
2. The EU is holding about $300 billion in frozen Russian assets. Those are used for fences, trenches, or whatever is needed along the DMZ. If anything is left, it goes back to Russia over 50 years, backloaded so more is at the end. Ukraine gets the interest on the fund in the meantime. Russia gets the benefit of that money being used for security.
3.a. A peacekeeping force is a difficulty. I haven't heard anything about a UN peacekeeping force, and I'd say this is beyond what the UN could handle anyway. One thing working against this is a dearth of neutral countries that could provide a peacekeeping force. If Sweden and Finland were still neutral, maybe them along with Switzerland and Austria could have put 10,000ish troops along the DMZ, but not now. Maybe some combination of Arab states along with India could do it. Not sure how that gets funded. However, this does not appear to be part of the discussion.
3.b. Rather than a peacekeeping force in 3.a., this seems to be where the mineral rights are coming in, with the idea being that the US would have an economic interest and protect that interest (we have troops in Syria to protect the Conoco oil fields), and that would deter Russia. Trump said something about a security guaranty today. I assume that means Ukraine will be buying US weapons and equipment and some kind of mutual defense treaty. I would very much like the US to stop ****ing around in Ukraine. We haven't exactly wrapped ourselves in glory in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. But, like I said, what is acceptable to me is meaningless.

What do you think would get a deal done?

Yours sounds pretty good.

 

[95coug]

Yours sounds pretty good.

I see a bit of an opportunity in this. Let’s tell Zelenskyy that the US will handle the security force, in exchange for a share of Ukrainian rare earth deposits. That reduces our reliance on China for the same. But…let’s make sure that Putin understand that in order to have a security force for Ukraine, we’re going to need to have a US military base in Ukraine.

If he didn’t want Ukraine in NATO because he was afraid that was a threat….let’s see how he feels about a US base within spitting distance of his border instead. See how fast he starts bargaining to avoid that.

In fact, we’re going to use that $300B to fund building and supplying the base…and then the rest is going to rebuild Ukraine.

 

[Stretch 74]

I don’t think the spirit of DEI is to find the least qualified person of color imaginable for the job.

Joe Biden disagrees vehemently with you. But it isn't limited to people of color.

 

[CougEd]

History says Russia was at one time friendly to the US during the 1700s and 1800s. And was also an ally in WWII.

Or have we forgotten we fought the British at one time? A couple times, in fact. Japan was our ally, then they weren't, now they are again.

Current events change allies.

Why stop at 80 years of history?

When they stop threatening us with nukes ... maybe then ....

 

[CougEd]

Joe Biden disagrees vehemently with you. But it isn't limited to people of color.

When are white men gonna catch a break. Jackson and Harris are less qualified than who?

 

[CougEd]

Kamala.

Harris is less qualified than JD Vance ?

 

[Observer11]

When they stop threatening us with nukes ... maybe then ....

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp9580kgp09o

OK

 

[Observer11]

Harris is less qualified than JD Vance ?

yes