• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

The end of NATO?

sevenhelmet said:
How is my argument this hard for you to understand?

Per my earlier post, my argument is that the Ukraine war is the best bang-for-buck we have at dismantling a good portion of Russia’s negative influence on the world. Keeping them tied up and losing is absolutely in the USA’s best interest as compared to the alternative of a resurgent Russia.

The IO portion came up separately. Perhaps try re-reading the thread for complete context.
Click to expand...
What part of my argument is hard for you to understand?

"Russia's negative influence in the world" vis a vis Ukraine does not impact the American people or America's interest one bit. We gain nothing from Ukraine existing or not existing. We gain nothing if Russia 'loses' and withdraws, and we gain nothing even if Zelenskyy were to assassinate Putin and attempt to invade Moscow.

To the extent that Russia engages in activities that impact the U.S., our strategy to support Ukraine will not do anything to mitigate those activities. Losing 1500 tanks or 450,000 troops isn't going to stop nerds in the basement of the aquarium from hacking into our networks. On the contrary, it will most likely embolden them.

The only reason to take an interest in weakening Russia is to assist the security of our NATO allies, in particular the Baltic nations, Poland, and Germany. Which, I'm sure you've been following along, most Americans take a 'that's your problem, not ours' mentality toward European nations who should be capable of building a military strong enough to defend themselves against Russian invasion.

So if you're CNN and you are beholden to your shareholders to get viewer ratings, you aren't going to give this conflict a lot of air time. There isn't a clear pragmatic connection to draw on why John Q Public should give a shit, and moral-value based foreign policy is not en vogue anymore after decades of blatant hypocrisy. The policy to stay out of it is mostly settled, and there are very few people interested in debating it.

The Ukraine conflict is in the same category as India fighting China over a mountain in the middle of Asia, or south American countries having border wars over uninhabited sections of the Andes... both of which also don't get air time because it doesn't matter to people who live in the U.S. Speaking of South America, stories about Venezuela disappeared like a fart in the wind.
 
Last edited:
Spekkio said:
What part of my argument is hard for you to understand?

"Russia's negative influence in the world" vis a vis Ukraine does not impact the American people or America's interest one bit. We gain nothing from Ukraine existing or not existing. We gain nothing if Russia 'loses' and withdraws, and we gain nothing even if Zelenskyy were to assassinate Putin and attempt to invade Moscow.

To the extent that Russia engages in activities that impact the U.S., our strategy to support Ukraine will not do anything to mitigate those activities. Losing 1500 tanks or 450,000 troops isn't going to stop nerds in the basement of the aquarium from hacking into our networks. On the contrary, it will most likely embolden them.

The only reason to take an interest in weakening Russia is to assist the security of our NATO allies, in particular the Baltic nations, Poland, and Germany. Which, I'm sure you've been following along, most Americans take a 'that's your problem, not ours' mentality toward European nations who should be capable of building a military strong enough to defend themselves against Russian invasion.

So if you're CNN and you are beholden to your shareholders to get viewer ratings, you aren't going to give this conflict a lot of air time. There isn't a clear connection to draw on why John Q Public should give a shit, and moral-value based foreign policy is not en vogue anymore because of the blatant hypocrisy. The policy to stay out of it is mostly settled, and there are very few people interested in debating it.

The Ukraine conflict is in the same category as India fighting China over a mountain in the middle of Asia, or south American countries having border wars over uninhabited sections of the Andes... both of which also don't get air time because it doesn't matter to people who live in the U.S.
Click to expand...


Again, disagree.

Contrary to your opening comment above, I understand your argument just fine- and I think it’s utter bullshit.

The number of deaths alone should be proof of that.
 
I am fully supportive of supplying Ukraine with whatever military support they need.

What I'm saying is that if you talk to people outside of the national security space, they overwhelmingly take the stance that I just outlined. You can think it's bullshit, but it's the vast majority of the media audience and American voters. The news quotes some really large number as the price tag of supplying arms to Ukraine, and that's the end of U.S. popular support. Trump's promise to end the war in Ukraine - as empty and impossible as it was to anyone remotely informed on the issue - was a big net positive for his election campaign.

And I wouldn't hang my hat on 'number of deaths' when no one can agree on what that number actually is.

You get much more ratings putting a panel of people on air to argue over the meaning of 'under the jurisdiction of' after SCOTUS has decided it inbetween outrage porn over transgendered mtf teenagers playing on girls soccer teams.
 
Last edited:
Mos said:
I think you guys more in agreement then you seem to think and are arguing just for the sake of it at this point.
Click to expand...

From my perspective, I was arguing the merits of keeping Russia pinned down in a war of attrition. It seemed to me that Spekkio was arguing that isn’t necessary.

That’s the fundamental disagreement I was referring to.
 
sevenhelmet said:
From my perspective, I was arguing the merits of keeping Russia pinned down in a war of attrition. It seemed to me that Spekkio was arguing that isn’t necessary.

That’s the fundamental disagreement I was referring to.
Click to expand...
Why can’t 500 million Europeans with 20x the GDP of Russia do that?

We have enough problems with a country across the Pacific that has 4x our population + an equivalent GDP + vastly more heavy manufacturing that we should be concerned with.
 
Randy Daytona said:
Why can’t 500 million Europeans with 20x the GDP of Russia do that?

We have enough problems with a country across the Pacific that has 4x our population + an equivalent GDP + vastly more heavy manufacturing that we should be concerned with.
Click to expand...
Again, Why can’t 500 million Europeans with 20x the GDP of Russia do that?

Which is a bigger threat: the Russian Army which has made less than a snail’s pace progress over 4 years against Ukraine, or China’s Navy with 200x the shipbuilding capacity?
 
sevenhelmet said:
From my perspective, I was arguing the merits of keeping Russia pinned down in a war of attrition. It seemed to me that Spekkio was arguing that isn’t necessary.

That’s the fundamental disagreement I was referring to.
Click to expand...
Russia keeps me gainfully employed.

I think that if the topic took center stage in a national election when held up to the federal deficit, my job would be on the cutting room floor.

That's a commentary on the public's perception of threat vs payoff, and not my opinion of its value to national security.

 
Spekkio said:
Russia keeps me gainfully employed.

I think that if the topic took center stage in a national election when held up to the federal deficit, my job would be on the cutting room floor.
Click to expand...

It’s tragic that Ukraine aid is that hard to sell to the American people. Particularly against the backdrop of how much taxpayer money has been spent on getting Iran to close the strait of Hormuz.

:rolleyes:
 
It's more that hawks have painted themselves in a corner.

You can't cry foul about federal spending and then want to write a blank check to Ukraine without people calling you out for being a hypocrite.

If you're going to argue that America needs to make tough budget choices, as many Republicans do, then spending treasure on a country where we have no treaties, alliances, or trade agreements is going to be low pri... even though that expenditure is a fraction of a percentage of the budget.
 
Last edited:
Spekkio said:
It's more that hawks have painted themselves in a corner.

You can't cry foul about federal spending and then want to write a blank check to Ukraine without people calling you out for being a hypocrite.

If you're going to argue that America needs to make tough budget choices, as many Republicans do, then spending treasure on a country where we have no treaties, alliances, or trade agreements is going to be low pri... even though that expenditure is a fraction of a percentage of the budget.
Click to expand...

If the goal is to not ever be called a hyprocrite by the American people, I have some bad news…

We can make tough budget choices AND defend choices like keeping Ukraine in the fight. I’m just concerned this administration doesn’t want to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top