Russia-Ukraine War Politics Thread Mk. 2

[Bacle]

I need you to understand this.

I am not Ukrianian I live in america, I have to live here so yes If I have leverage to get my primal needs met I'm going to use them. Time after time the democrats have never wasted a crisis now its time for us to do the same. Use the leverage while we still have it to secure what is rightfully ours.

Have you considered that Ukraine is not effective as the leverage you want, because most of the rest of the nation (including many in the GOP) view it as a bipartisan issue?

Thus to most, support for Ukraine is not a 'Dem' vs' GOP' issue, and thus trying to use Ukraine as leverage for domestic issues doesn't work.

You mistake thinking that the rest of the GOP and independents view Ukraine as a 'Left vs Right' situation, instead of a US vs Russia situation.

So your entire premise of trying to use Ukraine as leverage in Dem Vs GOP fights is coming from false assumptions about how most of the rest of the nation views the situation.

 

[Cherico]

Have you considered that Ukraine is not effective as the leverage you want, because most of the rest of the nation (including many in the GOP) view it as a bipartisan issue?

Thus to most, support for Ukraine is not a 'Dem' vs' GOP' issue, and thus trying to use Ukraine as leverage for domestic issues doesn't work.

You mistake thinking that the rest of the GOP and independents view Ukraine as a 'Left vs Right' situation, instead of a US vs Russia situation.

So your entire premise of trying to use Ukraine as leverage in Dem Vs GOP fights is coming from false assumptions about how most of the rest of the nation views the situation.

I want my rights back.

By any means nessary.

 

[Bacle]

I want my rights back.

By any means nessary.

Then don't burn political and social good will that you will need to get shit back by trying to use Ukraine as leverage in fights unrelated to it.

Actually think tactically about what normies/middle like/think/want, and how to work with those conditions, so you pick the right levers and strings to pull in the US's social fabric, instead of wasting time and effort pulling the wrong levers the wrong way.

Ukraine isn't a good lever for use in domestic politics in the way you desire, and is in fact counterproductive as a lever to the ends you wish to see.

You want a good political lever to use against the Dems and their demands, just ask any Dem/Leftist which side they back in the Israel-Hamas fight, and whether support for Hamas on US campus's should count as sedition/treason/active aid to a terrorist organization. All the BLM and Lefty money that has aided people who have taken US hostages is more useful as a lever than bitching about aid to Ukraine.

 

[Bassoe]

Then don't burn political and social good will that you will need to get shit back by trying to use Ukraine as leverage in fights unrelated to it.

Actually think tactically about what normies/middle like/think/want, and how to work with those conditions, so you pick the right levers and strings to pull in the US's social fabric, instead of wasting time and effort pulling the wrong levers the wrong way.

Ukraine isn't a good lever for use in domestic politics in the way you desire, and is in fact counterproductive as a lever to the ends you wish to see.

You want a good political lever to use against the Dems and their demands, just ask any Dem/Leftist which side they back in the Israel-Hamas fight, and whether support for Hamas on US campus's should count as sedition/treason/active aid to a terrorist organization. All the BLM and Lefty money that has aided people who have taken US hostages is more useful as a lever than bitching about aid to Ukraine.

I disagree insofar as Israel-vs-Hamas only is a lot more one-sided and only involves one nuclear power (Israel) and can't escalate apocalyptically, unlike Ukraine-vs-Russia.

In terms of military capacity, Israel holds all the advantages over Hamas, the only reason they haven't already decisively won yet being international opinion against the war crimes doing so would require. The hypothetical worst-case scenario is a nuclear superpower (Israel) carrying out a one-sided massacre, which, while it would suck for the Palestinians, wouldn't escalate internationally and draw us in unless the radicalized Palestinians were allowed into our countries.

Ukraine-vs-Russia meanwhile, amounts to the US deliberately trying to back Russia into a corner where their only chance of winning (and therefore Putin's only chance of survival since his cronies will turn on him if he looks weak) is to use The Bomb. The potential consequences are a lot worse.

 

[Cherico]

Then don't burn political and social good will that you will need to get shit back by trying to use Ukraine as leverage in fights unrelated to it.

Actually think tactically about what normies/middle like/think/want, and how to work with those conditions, so you pick the right levers and strings to pull in the US's social fabric, instead of wasting time and effort pulling the wrong levers the wrong way.

Ukraine isn't a good lever for use in domestic politics in the way you desire, and is in fact counterproductive as a lever to the ends you wish to see.

You want a good political lever to use against the Dems and their demands, just ask any Dem/Leftist which side they back in the Israel-Hamas fight, and whether support for Hamas on US campus's should count as sedition/treason/active aid to a terrorist organization. All the BLM and Lefty money that has aided people who have taken US hostages is more useful as a lever than bitching about aid to Ukraine.

political capital that is never used is worthless.

 

[Marduk]

I disagree insofar as Israel-vs-Hamas only is a lot more one-sided and only involves one nuclear power (Israel) and can't escalate apocalyptically, unlike Ukraine-vs-Russia.

Iran in the corner...

Ukraine-vs-Russia meanwhile, amounts to the US deliberately trying to back Russia into a corner where their only chance of winning (and therefore Putin's only chance of survival since his cronies will turn on him if he looks weak) is to use The Bomb. The potential consequences are a lot worse.

If anything, letting ourselves get fearmongered into a corner with the mere threat of Putin's fragile ego not being able to take the damage of losing a war he started is more dangerous.
Letting it stand that nuclear powers can launch wars of conquest and the West is going to fearmonger themselves into thinking that any country by mere virtue of being a nuclear power needs to be granted at least some sort of limited victory is the real apocalyptic threat, as every existing and potential nuclear power will see that and make future plans accordingly.
If you think one authoritarian leader of a nuclear power launching and losing a war against a loosely western aligned country for fun and profit is a bad escalation risk, how about several of them doing that every decade because the West has shown them they are so chickenshit that they will pressure own allies to make some degree of partial surrender if they saber rattle enough.

 

[Bacle]

I disagree insofar as Israel-vs-Hamas only is a lot more one-sided and only involves one nuclear power (Israel) and can't escalate apocalyptically, unlike Ukraine-vs-Russia.

In terms of military capacity, Israel holds all the advantages over Hamas, the only reason they haven't already decisively won yet being international opinion against the war crimes doing so would require. The hypothetical worst-case scenario is a nuclear superpower (Israel) carrying out a one-sided massacre, which, while it would suck for the Palestinians, wouldn't escalate internationally and draw us in unless the radicalized Palestinians were allowed into our countries.

Ukraine-vs-Russia meanwhile, amounts to the US deliberately trying to back Russia into a corner where their only chance of winning (and therefore Putin's only chance of survival since his cronies will turn on him if he looks weak) is to use The Bomb. The potential consequences are a lot worse.

You forget Hezbollah and Iran exist, I see, and Iran may already have the bomb, and hid it as a North Korean nuclear test.

The Israel-vs-Hamas thing has every possibility of involving nuclear powers/near-nuclear powers depending on what Hezbollah and Iran do.

As well, you forget Ukraine WAS a nuclear power, and gave up said nukes after the Cold War under guarantees of security from the US, UK, and Russia.

Ukraine could have a nuke pretty damn fast if they wanted to, not like they don't have the reactors to make weapons grade material and the tech know-how from maintain Russia's old missile fleet before 2014.

Russia was never 'backed into a corner'.

They just weren't allowed to rule their former vassals anymore, and there are good reasons the Baltics and Poland entered NATO. Ukraine was/is just the first step in a plan that has Russia securing the Bessarabian Gap and Poland to plug their western geogrpahic borders while they still have/had the manpower.

Putin/Russia was never backed into a corner, it went rabid all on it's own.

political capital that is never used is worthless.

Ukraine isn't political capital that will actually get you what you want, using it the way you are advocating for.

The only thing actions like that do is turn the Russian Collusion Hoax into a Russian Collusion Reality, for the GOP PR image.

You want a crisis to use against the Dems, use the one they are actively defending and which is splitting the Dems own base? The ties between BLM and Left orgs to Hamas and friends is direct, domestic viable issue you can use here and now.

There is bipartisan support for aid to Ukraine to continue, there is not bipartisan support for shielding Hamas from their crimes, and the Left have direct ties to Hamas that don't exist in the GOP.

Stop being stubborn about the aid to Ukraine, and start holding the Left's feet to the fire over their ties to Hamas. Shit, you want money/less debt for the US, then freeze and liquidate all assets belonging to groups who directly aid Hamas and friends.

The Muslim Brotherhood and their patsies/jihadi agents in the US are a direct and real threat here and now; aid to Ukraine does not threaten the US at all.

 

[Scottty]

If anything, letting ourselves get fearmongered into a corner with the mere threat of Putin's fragile ego not being able to take the damage of losing a war he started is more dangerous.

How about the threat of Washington DC being wiped off the face of the Earth in a huge fireball?

It's not about Putin's ego. It's about his duty as the leader of the Russian people to defend them against an enemy hell-bent on global domination.

Letting it stand that nuclear powers can launch wars of conquest and the West is going to fearmonger themselves into thinking that any country by mere virtue of being a nuclear power needs to be granted at least some sort of limited victory is the real apocalyptic threat, as every existing and potential nuclear power will see that and make future plans accordingly.

That ship has sailed, dude. And sent a radio message back from Alpha Cenaturi.

 

[Poe]

How about the threat of Washington DC being wiped off the face of the Earth in a huge fireball?

Moscow would go along with it, thus the Russians aren't likely to actually start a nuclear war. If they are, then what good does backing down do us anyway?

 

[Scottty]

Moscow would go along with it, thus the Russians aren't likely to actually start a nuclear war.

They might - if they see their survival as a nation as being in question.
"If we die, you do too" is the essence of it. It's almost the whole point of having The Bomb.

If they are, then what good does backing down do us anyway?

Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? America had nuclear missiles in Turkey, so the Soviet Union responded by putting some in Cuba. Things got a bit tense for a while, or so I'm told.

 

[Marduk]

How about the threat of Washington DC being wiped off the face of the Earth in a huge fireball?

It's not about Putin's ego. It's about his duty as the leader of the Russian people to defend them against an enemy hell-bent on global domination.

Not any more than he is. Do not make Russia's ex-commie spooks into some sort of global heroes of freedom. They aren't, only morons and useful idiots think otherwise.
They love global domination themselves, their only problem with it is that they think they should have more of the pie than they do now, preferably as much as they had in their good ol' days.

That ship has sailed, dude. And sent a radio message back from Alpha Cenaturi.

In that case some minor nuclear power like NK or soon Iran will have to become an example.

 

[Poe]

Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? America had nuclear missiles in Turkey, so the Soviet Union responded by putting some in Cuba. Things got a bit tense for a while, or so I'm told.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was not the US allowing the USSR to conquer a weaker nation for fear of nuclear war. If anything it was the exact opposite of that.

 

[King Arts]

Ukraine cannot control any of those other issues you want addressed, and it is a mistake to think you can use Ukraine's plight for domestic leverage against your ideological enemies.

Because support for Ukraine is a bipartisan issue for most, and trying to leverage Ukrainian lives for domestic issues only makes the GOP look worse to normies.

If you want your concerns addressed, don't make it a 'support Ukraine in exchange for X' situation, because you will lose and just burn good will in the process.

You truly want your concerns regarding domestic issues addressed, then deal with them as domestic issues, and stop acting like aid to Ukraine is involved at all.

Once again you spout foolishness. Look at another group that does similar things the Haredi in Israel their leaders are small yet they get their wants catered to by the government because they sell their votes. Other groups can do the same as long as they are not too greedy and don’t ask for too big of a thing or too many issues. As long as the right limits it’s demands to not everything it wants then this strategy could work.

 

[Scottty]

Not any more than he is. Do not make Russia's ex-commie spooks into some sort of global heroes of freedom.

They're not, but neither are the clowns who rule the USA nowadays.

 

[mrttao]

Letting it stand that nuclear powers can launch wars of conquest and the West is going to fearmonger themselves into thinking that any country by mere virtue of being a nuclear power needs to be granted at least some sort of limited victory is the real apocalyptic threat, as every existing and potential nuclear power will see that and make future plans accordingly.

This is like a knight insisting we must rise up against guns because of the threats they pose to the aristocratic knight class.

You are unhappy with reality (nuclear deterrant). So you want to pretend that it is not a thing and we should just push nuclear powers into a corner and they won't do the inevitable because your feelings are more important than reality.

This is stupid. as stupid as the liberals who think their feelings trump reality.

 

[Marduk]

This is like a knight insisting we must rise up against guns because of the threats they pose to the aristocratic knight class.

You are like a knight insisting that enemies with guns have to be surrendered to even before any fight, because fighting an enemy who has a gun, no matter the circumstances, balance of power or cause, will result in your death. It is defeatism distilled.

You are unhappy with reality (nuclear deterrant). So you want to pretend that it is not a thing and we should just push nuclear powers into a corner and they won't do the inevitable because your feelings are more important than reality.

This is stupid. as stupid as the liberals who think their feelings trump reality.

But that is not how nuclear deterrent works, you are making shit up for a political agenda that is quite clear, it goes beyond any doctrines made in the Cold War.
It's pure defeatist or useful idiot politics.
The saying is "nuclear powers can be destroyed or defeated, but not conquered".
Not "nuclear powers can defeat all they want and no one can do anything about it or everyone will be destroyed".

They're not, but neither are the clowns who rule the USA nowadays.

Unfortunately. But still everyone sane would rather live under the latter, those who get to vote with their feet make it clear.

 

[King Arts]

You are like a knight insisting that enemies with guns have to be surrendered to even before any fight, because fighting an enemy who has a gun, no matter the circumstances, balance of power or cause, will result in your death. It is defeatism distilled.

But that is not how nuclear deterrent works, you are making shit up for a political agenda that is quite clear, it goes beyond any doctrines made in the Cold War.
It's pure defeatist or useful idiot politics.
The saying is "nuclear powers can be destroyed or defeated, but not conquered".
Not "nuclear powers can defeat all they want and no one can do anything about it or everyone will be destroyed".

Unfortunately. But still everyone sane would rather live under the latter, those who get to vote with their feet make it clear.

Marduk actually to use the knight analogy it means that in conflicts with other knights you don’t use your full force you have a code of “honor” so both sides see it as more of a contest than a true life or death struggle. So neither side fights in a way that is serious and limits themselves. Note this only applies to the knights or nuclear club. If a nuclear power is bullying a non nuclear power then it’s a lot like how the early modern nations had war. In Europe it’s civilized but against colonials you can do whatever.

You may not like it because Poland is not a nuclear power but the world isn’t fair just like it wasn’t fair to colonized nations in Africa or Asia.

 

[Marduk]

Marduk actually to use the knight analogy it means that in conflicts with other knights you don’t use your full force you have a code of “honor” so both sides see it as more of a contest than a true life or death struggle. So neither side fights in a way that is serious and limits themselves. Note this only applies to the knights or nuclear club. If a nuclear power is bullying a non nuclear power then it’s a lot like how the early modern nations had war. In Europe it’s civilized but against colonials you can do whatever.

You may not like it because Poland is not a nuclear power but the world isn’t fair just like it wasn’t fair to colonized nations in Africa or Asia.

That logic completely throws both alliances and NPT under the bus, and then backs down the bus over it just to be sure.
Many countries, from Poland through Germany to even Japan, SK and Taiwan could become nuclear powers in few years or less if they had the political will to do so. Even a backwards shithole like NK with less GDP than Luxemburg can be one if it's willing to starve its people over it. The only reason they aren't is because of alliances and treaties. Take it away, and you will live in a world when nuclear escalation possibilities have grown tenfold, which stuff like NPT, NATO nuclear sharing and so on is supposed to minimize.
And that's just NPT. Your isolationist derision of alliances would get you laughed out of the court even in ancient world as a jester. So thing through all the things you are implying and make sure you are ok with all of the implications. You don't seem to have a clue about how much of the modern status quo and balance of power is built on deals, treaties and alliances rather than hard power and technological limitations. This shit is why the political faction you represent gets laughed at by the establishment.

 

[King Arts]

That logic completely throws both alliances and NPT under the bus, and then backs down the bus over it just to be sure.
Many countries, from Poland through Germany to even Japan, SK and Taiwan could become nuclear powers in few years or less if they had the political will to do so. Even a backwards shithole like NK with less GDP than Luxemburg can be one if it's willing to starve its people over it. The only reason they aren't is because of alliances and treaties. Take it away, and you will live in a world when nuclear escalation possibilities have grown tenfold, which stuff like NPT, NATO nuclear sharing and so on is supposed to minimize.
And that's just NPT. Your isolationist derision of alliances would get you laughed out of the court even in ancient world as a jester. So thing through all the things you are implying and make sure you are ok with all of the implications. You don't seem to have a clue about how much of the modern status quo and balance of power is built on deals, treaties and alliances rather than hard power and technological limitations. This shit is why the political faction you represent gets laughed at by the establishment.

No I get that alot of nations like Germany and Japan are nuclear breakout states. But the NPT is a foolish treaty for them to adhere to. You've even brought up that we have to protect Ukraine because of them giving up their nukes, and if we don't it makes it more likely others won't consider treaties as sufficient defense and will go for their own nukes.

But your vaunted establishment has done damage to that idea itself when they sabotaged Gadafi. He stopped his nuclear program it did not help him. North Korea kept it up and is now seen as too dangerous to attack. It makes sense for nations to go like Iran and go for nukes even if they face sanctions because those are temporary while if they give up nukes like Gadafi or Ukraine it will be worthless since 10 or 20 or 100 years from now you won't have protection. While nukes assuming there is no new tech that makes them worthless will ensure you are safe always.

 

[Zachowon]

How about the threat of Washington DC being wiped off the face of the Earth in a huge fireball?

It's not about Putin's ego. It's about his duty as the leader of the Russian people to defend them against an enemy hell-bent on global domination.



That ship has sailed, dude. And sent a radio message back from Alpha Cenaturi.

You mean the trheats he has been giving us for what...the last 30 years practically?

No I get that alot of nations like Germany and Japan are nuclear breakout states. But the NPT is a foolish treaty for them to adhere to. You've even brought up that we have to protect Ukraine because of them giving up their nukes, and if we don't it makes it more likely others won't consider treaties as sufficient defense and will go for their own nukes.

But your vaunted establishment has done damage to that idea itself when they sabotaged Gadafi. He stopped his nuclear program it did not help him. North Korea kept it up and is now seen as too dangerous to attack. It makes sense for nations to go like Iran and go for nukes even if they face sanctions because those are temporary while if they give up nukes like Gadafi or Ukraine it will be worthless since 10 or 20 or 100 years from now you won't have protection. While nukes assuming there is no new tech that makes them worthless will ensure you are safe always.

Ah yes, allow countries to have nukes and to fund the destruction of the west because a few lefties are in power and you would rather watch the world burn and turn into a authoritarian community Islamic shithole then except the fact that these countries are bad and the US is just going through a rough patch