The Ukrainian War IV: "And von Moltke Laughed ..."

[Finalis]

almost as if we're damaging our national security to save a corrupt eastern european regime

We have more than enough to defend ourselves. Keeping Russia from their expansionist ideas at the very least will pay off in the future.

if we're being warned about this then no, we don't

and expansionist ideals against a nation that has been under their influence for longer than the united states has existed? how exactly does this pay off for us?

[Vassenor]

We have more than enough to defend ourselves. Keeping Russia from their expansionist ideas at the very least will pay off in the future.

if we're being warned about this then no, we don't

and expansionist ideals against a nation that has been under their influence for longer than the united states has existed? how exactly does this pay off for us?

Ah, so we're back to "Ukraine is rightful Russian Clay because Russia said so and to hell with what the people living there want".

[Salus Maior]

We have more than enough to defend ourselves. Keeping Russia from their expansionist ideas at the very least will pay off in the future.

if we're being warned about this then no, we don't

and expansionist ideals against a nation that has been under their influence for longer than the united states has existed? how exactly does this pay off for us?

Because an expansionist Russia is going to disrupt the status quo that favors the United States, and give our allies in Europe a headache. Why should we worry about two fronts (Russia in Europe, China in Asia) when we can eliminate one? Crushing Russia's expansionist ambitions will make it obvious that they can't just take what they want, when they want. The public will toss Putin for getting their sons and fathers killed, and their economy completely disrupted in a stupid war of aggression and I'd doubt we'd have to worry about Russia trying anything like that again for a long time, and we can focus on containing China if we can.

[The Lone Alliance]

And if they were being wasted, that might have been a problem.

they have indeed been wasted.

Considering those weapons were made to kill Russians and those weapons are indeed killing Russians, they are in fact serving their purpose.
HIMARs will be worthless in the war against China because the US is not going to be able to successfully pull of a land invasion of China to put the HIMARs in range. And Taiwan would be better served with large number of anti-ship missiles than they would be with HIMARs style rockets.

And there's no real conventional ground threat that could invade the mainland united states, both the Mexican and Canadian armed forces are underfunded and they are, at least supposed to be, allies. So again what's this grave threat that the US needs these missiles for?
As for the Middle East, unless the US wants to foolishly get themselves caught up in another war in the sandbox, again, losing these missiles aren't a big deal.
Sending them to Israel so they can blow up more HAMAS? Israel can take care of themselves.
Sending them to Syria to guard more stolen oil wells? I really doubt ISIS needs that much firepower to be taken care of with most of their firepower destroyed and their forces reduced to light infantry.

We have more than enough to defend ourselves. Keeping Russia from their expansionist ideas at the very least will pay off in the future.

if we're being warned about this then no, we don't
and expansionist ideals against a nation that has been under their influence for longer than the united states has existed? how exactly does this pay off for us?

It pays off for us by reminding the expansionist nation that it doesn't matter who was under their influence, if they don't want to be under your influence anymore, deal with it.

And the more crippled by losses the Russian military industrial complex is today the less chance we'll have to fight Russia directly in the future, if Ukraine continues to destroy Russian weaponry as a steady rate Russia will be unable to threaten Europe anytime in the near future. That means we can have less military equipment in Europe, less troops in Europe, and more ability to transfer equipment to face actual practical threats.

[Finalis]

if we're being warned about this then no, we don't

and expansionist ideals against a nation that has been under their influence for longer than the united states has existed? how exactly does this pay off for us?

Because an expansionist Russia is going to disrupt the status quo that favors the United States, and give our allies in Europe a headache. Why should we worry about two fronts (Russia in Europe, China in Asia) when we can eliminate one? Crushing Russia's expansionist ambitions will make it obvious that they can't just take what they want, when they want. The public will toss Putin for getting their sons and fathers killed, and their economy completely disrupted in a stupid war of aggression and I'd doubt we'd have to worry about Russia trying anything like that again for a long time, and we can focus on containing China if we can.

why do we need to be adversaries at all when we can focus on china?

our aggressive stance on russia is precisely what is pushing them into china's arms. and it's not as if this is the natural state of things. russia and china have been enemies since they first came into contact when russia colonized siberia. they nearly went to nuclear war during the sino-soviet split. they are allies purely because of the us.

[Finalis]

they have indeed been wasted.

Considering those weapons were made to kill Russians and those weapons are indeed killing Russians, they are in fact serving their purpose.
HIMARs will be worthless in the war against China because the US is not going to be able to successfully pull of a land invasion of China to put the HIMARs in range. And Taiwan would be better served with large number of anti-ship missiles than they would be with HIMARs style rockets.

And there's no real conventional ground threat that could invade the mainland united states, both the Mexican and Canadian armed forces are underfunded and they are, at least supposed to be, allies. So again what's this grave threat that the US needs these missiles for?
As for the Middle East, unless the US wants to foolishly get themselves caught up in another war in the sandbox, again, losing these missiles aren't a big deal.
Sending them to Israel so they can blow up more HAMAS? Israel can take care of themselves.
Sending them to Syria to guard more stolen oil wells? I really doubt ISIS needs that much firepower to be taken care of with most of their firepower destroyed and their forces reduced to light infantry.

if we're being warned about this then no, we don't
and expansionist ideals against a nation that has been under their influence for longer than the united states has existed? how exactly does this pay off for us?

It pays off for us by reminding the expansionist nation that it doesn't matter who was under their influence, if they don't want to be under your influence anymore, deal with it.

And the more crippled by losses the Russian military industrial complex is today the less chance we'll have to fight Russia directly in the future, if Ukraine continues to destroy Russian weaponry as a steady rate Russia will be unable to threaten Europe anytime in the near future. That means we can have less military equipment in Europe, less troops in Europe, and more ability to transfer equipment to face actual practical threats.

you imagine that russsia is actually a serious threat to the us anymore. you are mistaken. and who cares what the ukrainians want?

[Salus Maior]

Because an expansionist Russia is going to disrupt the status quo that favors the United States, and give our allies in Europe a headache. Why should we worry about two fronts (Russia in Europe, China in Asia) when we can eliminate one? Crushing Russia's expansionist ambitions will make it obvious that they can't just take what they want, when they want. The public will toss Putin for getting their sons and fathers killed, and their economy completely disrupted in a stupid war of aggression and I'd doubt we'd have to worry about Russia trying anything like that again for a long time, and we can focus on containing China if we can.

why do we need to be adversaries at all when we can focus on china?

our aggressive stance on russia is precisely what is pushing them into china's arms. and it's not as if this is the natural state of things. russia and china have been enemies since they first came into contact when russia colonized siberia. they nearly went to nuclear war during the sino-soviet split. they are allies purely because of the us.

We're adversaries because some of our allies are threatened by Russia (the Baltics and Poland). I see no reason why we should just give them what they want when they're going to be adversarial to the US and our allies anyway. Russia is a committed enemy of the US and of Europe, handing them Ukraine won't change that.

Attempting to play nice with Russia is a losing proposition for us.

[Mestovakia]

you imagine that russsia is actually a serious threat to the us anymore. you are mistaken. and who cares what the ukrainians want?

Now, I might be a l'il bit of an idiot, but, I dunno, Europe?

[The Lone Alliance]

why do we need to be adversaries at all when we can focus on china?

First thing, the idea that Authoritarian Russia wouldn't ultimately side with China anyway is moronic.
When push comes to shove Russia would align with China because they agree that the Western world is a threat to them.
Ideologically Russia and China align far more than Russia aligns with the west, even before the Ukraine situation.

our aggressive stance on russia is precisely what is pushing them into china's arms. and it's not as if this is the natural state of things.

Yes it is the natural state of thing, both of them do not want to see the world order that the west represents controlling their nations. Therefore they have to ally.
This isn't the cold war anymore, quit thinking that modern Russia, or modern China for it's part, give a fuck about the differences between Maoism and the Soviet System.

russia and china have been enemies since they first came into contact when russia colonized siberia. they nearly went to nuclear war during the sino-soviet split. they are allies purely because of the us.

Which is why we have to throw Eastern Europe under the bus? Because some reason we need the mighty Russian bear to Beat China. That is exactly the same mindset that caused the west to align with China and turn China into the threat it is in the first place.

We should stop allying with shitty dictatorships to use them against shitty dictatorships, it never works out.

you imagine that russsia is actually a serious threat to the us anymore. you are mistaken.

If Russia isn't a serious threat to us then they aren't a serious threat to China and therefore we don't need them against China.

and who cares what the ukrainians want?

Most of Europe does. Because most of Europe doesn't want to deal with the fallout of Russian extermination campaigns in Ukraine when Ukraine refuses to be Russian slaves.

[Finalis]

why do we need to be adversaries at all when we can focus on china?

our aggressive stance on russia is precisely what is pushing them into china's arms. and it's not as if this is the natural state of things. russia and china have been enemies since they first came into contact when russia colonized siberia. they nearly went to nuclear war during the sino-soviet split. they are allies purely because of the us.

We're adversaries because some of our allies are threatened by Russia (the Baltics and Poland). I see no reason why we should just give them what they want when they're going to be adversarial to the US and our allies anyway. Russia is a committed enemy of the US and of Europe, handing them Ukraine won't change that.

Attempting to play nice with Russia is a losing proposition for us.

we should never have expanded nato into those areas to begin with.

[Finalis]

why do we need to be adversaries at all when we can focus on china?

First thing, the idea that Authoritarian Russia wouldn't ultimately side with China anyway is moronic.
When push comes to shove Russia would align with China because they agree that the Western world is a threat to them.
Ideologically Russia and China align far more than Russia aligns with the west, even before the Ukraine situation.

our aggressive stance on russia is precisely what is pushing them into china's arms. and it's not as if this is the natural state of things.

Yes it is the natural state of thing, both of them do not want to see the world order that the west represents controlling their nations. Therefore they have to ally.
This isn't the cold war anymore, quit thinking that modern Russia, or modern China for it's part, give a fuck about the differences between Maoism and the Soviet System.

russia and china have been enemies since they first came into contact when russia colonized siberia. they nearly went to nuclear war during the sino-soviet split. they are allies purely because of the us.

Which is why we have to throw Eastern Europe under the bus? Because some reason we need the mighty Russian bear to Beat China. That is exactly the same mindset that caused the west to align with China and turn China into the threat it is in the first place.

We should stop allying with shitty dictatorships to use them against shitty dictatorships, it never works out.

you imagine that russsia is actually a serious threat to the us anymore. you are mistaken.

If Russia isn't a serious threat to us then they aren't a serious threat to China and therefore we don't need them against China.

and who cares what the ukrainians want?

Most of Europe does. Because most of Europe doesn't want to deal with the fallout of Russian extermination campaigns in Ukraine when Ukraine refuses to be Russian slaves.

so therefore we just make ourselves not a threat to russia. ezpz

we do not need eastern europe. we never did. this is why we gave it to the soviets on a silver platter.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

American isolationalism once more demonstrating that it should not be permitted to run even a lemonade stand - the story

[Vassenor]

We're adversaries because some of our allies are threatened by Russia (the Baltics and Poland). I see no reason why we should just give them what they want when they're going to be adversarial to the US and our allies anyway. Russia is a committed enemy of the US and of Europe, handing them Ukraine won't change that.

Attempting to play nice with Russia is a losing proposition for us.

we should never have expanded nato into those areas to begin with.

Ah, so we need to accept that the Baltic States are Rightful Russian Clay too.

[The Lone Alliance]

so therefore we just make ourselves not a threat to russia. ezpz
we do not need eastern europe. we never did. this is why we gave it to the soviets on a silver platter.

The only reason the Soviets got Eastern Europe was at the end of World War 2 the Western allies were too exhausted to try to start a third world war right after the second. And the Western Allies spent most of the cold war regretting it because it's what made the Soviets so dangerous.

Giving Russia back it's Soviet Empire isn't good for the west in the slightest. Quit trying to bring back the cold war, the Soviet Empire died for a reason, let the pathetic structure rot. The only thing Abandoning Eastern Europe would do is we'll see Poland trying to get nuclear weapons.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The only reason the Soviets got Eastern Europe was at the end of World War 2 the Western allies were too exhausted to try to start a third world war right after the second.

Imagine these isolationalists getting what they want and Eastern/Central Europe getting shafted by a 2nd Western betrayal. I'm not sure America/NATO would be permitted to have ambassadors in Warsaw anymore after the dust settles.

[The Lone Alliance]

The only reason the Soviets got Eastern Europe was at the end of World War 2 the Western allies were too exhausted to try to start a third world war right after the second.

Imagine these isolationalists getting what they want and Eastern/Central Europe getting shafted by a 2nd Western betrayal. I'm not sure America/NATO would be permitted to have ambassadors in Warsaw anymore after the dust settles.

We'll see a nuclear armed Poland within a decade of it too. Ukraine has proved that if you don't have an alliance on your side you need nukes.

[Finalis]

so therefore we just make ourselves not a threat to russia. ezpz
we do not need eastern europe. we never did. this is why we gave it to the soviets on a silver platter.

The only reason the Soviets got Eastern Europe was at the end of World War 2 the Western allies were too exhausted to try to start a third world war right after the second. And the Western Allies spent most of the cold war regretting it because it's what made the Soviets so dangerous.

Giving Russia back it's Soviet Empire isn't good for the west in the slightest. Quit trying to bring back the cold war, the Soviet Empire died for a reason, let the pathetic structure rot. The only thing Abandoning Eastern Europe would do is we'll see Poland trying to get nuclear weapons.

the old cold war was way better than this cold war. at least the soviets didn't have the sort of manpower or giant economy the chinese do.

resurrect the bear. we need a counterbalance.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Imagine these isolationalists getting what they want and Eastern/Central Europe getting shafted by a 2nd Western betrayal. I'm not sure America/NATO would be permitted to have ambassadors in Warsaw anymore after the dust settles.

We'll see a nuclear armed Poland within a decade of it too. Ukraine has proved that if you don't have an alliance on your side you need nukes.

And a single Russian soldier going across the border now leads to nuclear exchange.
Yeah I'll have the current status quo back please.

[Continental Free States]

the old cold war was way better than this cold war. at least the soviets didn't have the sort of manpower or giant economy the chinese do.

resurrect the bear. we need a counterbalance.

The entire reason why China's the other guy of the current Cold War is because you thought Russia needed a counterbalance last time lmao.

[Finalis]

the old cold war was way better than this cold war. at least the soviets didn't have the sort of manpower or giant economy the chinese do.

resurrect the bear. we need a counterbalance.

The entire reason why China's the other guy of the current Cold War is because you thought Russia needed a counterbalance last time lmao.

china is still the soviet's frankenstein monster gone wrong. they and the japanese are the biggest reasons the communist party came to power

[Continental Free States]

We'll see a nuclear armed Poland within a decade of it too. Ukraine has proved that if you don't have an alliance on your side you need nukes.

And a single Russian soldier going across the border now leads to nuclear exchange.
Yeah I'll have the current status quo back please.

To be honest if Russia had a nuclear power next to its borders that has almost zero tolerance for its bullshit on a fundamental level, Russia would not be stepping into their borders in the first place. They're not idiots, they'd know Poles will assume the worst and let the nukes fly the moment Russians violate their border again.

[Latorik]

The only reason the Soviets got Eastern Europe was at the end of World War 2 the Western allies were too exhausted to try to start a third world war right after the second. And the Western Allies spent most of the cold war regretting it because it's what made the Soviets so dangerous.

Giving Russia back it's Soviet Empire isn't good for the west in the slightest. Quit trying to bring back the cold war, the Soviet Empire died for a reason, let the pathetic structure rot. The only thing Abandoning Eastern Europe would do is we'll see Poland trying to get nuclear weapons.

the old cold war was way better than this cold war. at least the soviets didn't have the sort of manpower or giant economy the chinese do.

resurrect the bear. we need a counterbalance.

To side with the chinese?

Again?

[The North Polish Union]

We'll see a nuclear armed Poland within a decade of it too. Ukraine has proved that if you don't have an alliance on your side you need nukes.

And a single Russian soldier going across the border now leads to nuclear exchange.
Yeah I'll have the current status quo back please.

Very little good has ever come of any Russian soldier crossing the Polish border.

[The Lone Alliance]

And a single Russian soldier going across the border now leads to nuclear exchange.
Yeah I'll have the current status quo back please.

To be honest if Russia had a nuclear power next to its borders that has almost zero tolerance for its bullshit on a fundamental level, Russia would not be stepping into their borders in the first place. They're not idiots, they'd know Poles will assume the worst and let the nukes fly the moment Russians violate their border again.

I really don't think these Isolationists want a nuclear armed Visegrád alliance of Central\Eastern European nations who mutually hate Russia (For being Russia) and the west (For betraying them again) sitting tactically in the middle of Central and Eastern Europe... it'll be an Axis powers situation all over again. Because then we'd have to prepare a countermeasure against them too.

These Brilliant Isolationists want to increase the number of enemies to supposedly make it easier to fight China?

[Finalis]

the old cold war was way better than this cold war. at least the soviets didn't have the sort of manpower or giant economy the chinese do.

resurrect the bear. we need a counterbalance.

To side with the chinese?

Again?

sino-soviet split 2.0

russia and china are natural enemies. fan the flames.