My view of the war

[Doll]

Gator, your stepson is right about Crimea.

[Doll]

I wait for him to become enlightened.

He won't, trust me- not because of propaganda but because he is right

[AC]

Supporting President is one thing, wishing other nation collapse is another.
 Here people a openly happy about hardships of other nation.

And at the end of WWII people were also happy about the hardships which were finally being faced by Nazi Germany, so get over it; your "dear leader" is a crook and your lack of any empathy for the Ukrainian people whom your country has harmed is nauseating. 

[AC]

He won't, trust me- not because of propaganda but because he is right

ob·tuse


/əbˈt(y)o͞os,äbˈt(y)o͞os/


adjective

adjective: obtuse



1.



annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.

"he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse"


synonyms: slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent, ignorant, simpleminded, witless;

[Boethius]

No, Doll.  He is not right.


There was never any risk of the US establishing a Black Sea Fleet.  There were never fascists running the government in Kyiv.  There was never any threat to the Russian language in Ukraine.

[fathertime]

No, Doll.  He is not right.


There was never any risk of the US establishing a Black Sea Fleet. 

And how can you say that with certainty?   Why would Russia believe this to be true? Does the US need to build a 'Black sea fleet' to effectively neutralize/ lesson the impact of Russia in international affairs, such as Syria and Libya?

Fathertime!

[Boethius]

There are only two ports in Ukraine on the Black Sea.  Sevastopol is one, and Russia had a long term lease for that port, and Odessa which, AFAIK, is still in Ukraine.


The Black Sea, as I noted previously, is a locked sea.  Once the Dardenelles are locked, there is no way out.



There was never any chance for the US to do this.  However, the US military had been investigating setting up a large eavesdropping station in the region.

[Faux Pas]

Supporting President is one thing, wishing other nation collapse is another.
 Here people a openly happy about hardships of other nation.

Supporting a president that is waging a war on a neighbor and wishing that neighbor to collapse is the very same as supporting the war with the neighbor and hoping for it's collapse. There is no separation of the two. No matter how you try to rationalize it in your mind. It's the same.

Gator, your stepson is right about Crimea.

No he isn't right about Crimea. There never was, has been or will be a desire for a U.S. base in Crimea. Pure hyperbole propaganda

[fathertime]

No he isn't right about Crimea. There never was, has been or will be a desire for a U.S. base in Crimea. Pure hyperbole propaganda

actually it is pure bs that you would say this with such certainty.  Nobody knows what the future holds..and you don't know for certain what has been discussed by various leaders. In addition it would not take a full fledged military base to potentially gain strategic advantages, in what appears to be an ongoing effort.

Fathertime!

[Gator]

Supporting a president that is waging a war on a neighbor and wishing that neighbor to collapse is the very same as supporting the war with the neighbor and hoping for it's collapse. There is no separation of the two. No matter how you try to rationalize it in your mind. It's the same.

Your deductive reasoning sounds good yet it is wrong if your first point is wrong.  Russians believe that Russia is not waging a war; the conflict is limited to Ukrainians fighting Ukrainians.   

[Doll]

actually it is pure bs that you would say this with such certainty.  Nobody knows what the future holds..and you don't know for certain what has been discussed by various leaders. In addition it would not take a full fledged military base to potentially gain strategic advantages, in what appears to be an ongoing effort.

Fathertime!

She just thinks so.

[Doll]

Your deductive reasoning sounds good yet it is wrong if your first point is wrong.  Russians believe that Russia is not waging a war; the conflict is limited to Ukrainians fighting Ukrainians.   

One more time- this conflict was started by Ukrainians againts Ukrainians.
Actually it started back in 2002.

[Faux Pas]

actually it is pure bs that you would say this with such certainty.  Nobody knows what the future holds..and you don't know for certain what has been discussed by various leaders. In addition it would not take a full fledged military base to potentially gain strategic advantages, in what appears to be an ongoing effort.

Fathertime!

Okay Mr. Wisenheimer what strategic advantage is there with a U.S military base in Crimea? Take your time and don't bore me with a bunch of "us", "we's" or "ours"

[Faux Pas]

Your deductive reasoning sounds good yet it is wrong if your first point is wrong.  Russians believe that Russia is not waging a war; the conflict is limited to Ukrainians fighting Ukrainians.   

Not really. Doll has the information to make a logical conclusion of what is happening in Ukraine. She chooses denial. She chooses to support the president of her homeland in spite of the information that a good majority of her fellow country folks aren't getting. All while he wages war and folks die. She supports him and by default supports his actions

[Gator]

Gator, your stepson is right about Crimea.

Proving that a 15-yo and an adult, educated RW score the same on the scale of being informed and using logic. 

Now I know how Hans Blix felt.  In that mistake, at least there was some evidence.  What was missing was the evidence showing everything had been shipped to Syria. 

[Boethius]

One more time- this conflict was started by Ukrainians agains Ukrainians.Actually it started back in 2002.

No, it wasn't.  About half the "pro Russian separatists" demonstrating in Ukraine were Russians, from Russia.  Pro Russian separatists in Kharkiv admitted to being paid $40 a day(!) to demonstrate, and that they had received training in Russia.  Polls, which I have linked, always demonstrated that Ukrainians were united in their views toward Ukraine, and in their opposition to NATO.  Even now, less than half of those residing in terrorist controlled territories support separate republics.

[fathertime]

Okay Mr. Wisenheimer what strategic advantage is there with a U.S military base in Crimea? Take your time and don't bore me with a bunch of "us", "we's" or "ours"

 
YOU are the know-it-all pretending to know the future! In addition to not reading carefully, if YOU can't figure out what strategic advantages are then you are a lost cause and i'm unwilling to help you.   

Fathertime!

[Doll]

There are only two ports in Ukraine on the Black Sea.  Sevastopol is one, and Russia had a long term lease for that port, and Odessa which, AFAIK, is still in Ukraine.


The Black Sea, as I noted previously, is a locked sea.  Once the Dardenelles are locked, there is no way out.



There was never any chance for the US to do this.  However, the US military had been investigating setting up a large eavesdropping station in the region.

Boe, if Ukraine joins NATO a whole bunch of military bases would be along Russia's borders next day.
Including Sevastopol

[Brasscasing]

The U.S. has no plans to build a naval base in the Crimea (kinda stupid to be building one there now) or establish a Black Sea Fleet per se.

Keep in mind there's more going on in this region than just Russian expansion.

Turkey, the de facto gate keepers of the Black Sea aren't interested in having the U.S. establish a Naval base (in the Black Sea basin) as it would be seen in Ankara as weakening their own regional strategic influence/foreign policy initiatives (as any U.S. presence in the region has always been seen to be).

Further, as a stable regional power and NATO ally, Turkey's cooperation (such as it is) is needed and will be needed for some time with other ongoing conflicts in the region.

The U.S. has/will increase it's naval presence in the region with more frequent visits but will probably concentrate it's efforts on assisting/strengthening friendly/allied countries surrounding the Black Sea like Romania.

Turkey has voiced concern over Russia's recent activities in Crimea, however, has avoided direct confrontation because of their own foreign policy and trade pacts with Russia. This may soon change with the Russians threatening to increase their Black Sea fleet and build new bases in the Crimea (also threatening Turkey's regional influence).

Having said that Turkey may also realize an opportunity advantageous to themselves if being courted by both Washington and Moscow.

Brass

[Doll]

Brass, there are 2 US AF bases in Turkey

[Boethius]

Boe, if Ukraine joins NATO a whole bunch of military bases would be along Russia's borders next day.
Including Sevastopol

Ukraine had no intention of joining NATO before Russia decided to invade its sovereign territory.  Poll after poll, even during Euromaidan, showed that a majority of Ukrainians did not support joining NATO.  Ukraine didn't even have mandatory conscription.  So, this is a canard thrown out by Russia and its supporters.


Of course, now that Ukraine has actually been invaded, it is seeking NATO membership but of course, because of the invasion, that is off the table.


Ukraine's mistake was giving up its nuclear weapons, though it could also probably stop the conflict today with a few airstrikes.

[fathertime]

Ukraine's mistake was giving up its nuclear weapons, though it could also probably stop the conflict today with a few airstrikes.

At this point in time nations can clearly see that not having a credible deterrent like nukes puts their nations at risk.  The usa would not strike a nuclear armed state so wantonly, nor would Russia.

The statement about a few airstrikes by Ukraine ending this battle seems odd.  How does a few airstrikes end the battle?

Fathertime!

[Brasscasing]

Brass, there are 2 US AF bases in Turkey

Yes, there are U.S. air force installations in Turkey. Off the top of my head I don't know if they're permanent (long term lease) or on loan short term for the recent/current conflicts.

Turkey is hosting other NATO countries as well. It may be part of their NATO commitment.

There is a difference in establishing a military presence [edit: within] one's coalition/allied/regional commitments or through invitation though, Doll. I would assume the U.S. acting unilaterally building military installations or increasing their military presence [beyond one's agreement/commitment] would be met with resistance from allied/host countries.

Brass

[Boethius]

How does a few airstrikes end the battle?

Target the terrorists no matter where they are, with casual disregard for non combatants, and the war is over.  However, Ukraine will not do this.

While many living in the conflict zone support the terrorists, the majority do not.  They don't care who takes over the region, as long as the violence ends and they can live normally.  However, most of those left are those who had no option to leave - the old, the infirm, the indigent.

[fathertime]

Target the terrorists no matter where they are, with casual disregard for non combatants, and the war is over.  However, Ukraine will not do this.

Well that is an interesting opinion. It assumes there wouldn't be much of a response.

 I think that what you proposed would widen the conflict and one end result would be poroshenko straining the end of a rope. ..another end result would be loss of much outside support. ..another would be similar tactics in western Ukrainian cities.

Fathertime!