Ukraine: Ongoing…

[Kalbear]

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

Nope.  Didn't say that at all.  It's really sad you think I did.  I was referring to funding for Ukraine, obviously.  Not clandestine threats made by the president that are rather immediately revealed to the public because the entire Foreign Service - let alone the overall State Department, intelligence community, and NSC - will be apprised of such attempts.

In other words, your example proves my point.  If you still don't understand why, take my class.  Knowledge is Power!

Sorry, you said this:

"What we're talking about here is a Republican president not only confronting the opposition, not only confronting a significant portion of his own party in Congress, but also the goddamned US military industrial complex.  Not sure if y'all are aware of that, but even presidents have had a very hard time taking it on.  Dwight D. Eisenhower couldn't do it and he was credited by the American public as the general that won the most awesomeist war ever.  I have a very hard time imaging Trump, DeSantis, or the likes of Glenn Youngkin are in any way up to the task."

My point is that Trump already did exactly that. Perhaps when you said the above - in confronting the opposition and his party - you were only talking about funding, but even that was inaccurate - Trump was happy to do exactly that in 2019. 

Note that what happened as a result of that foreign service and state department confronting Trump - anyone involved lost their job and lost their entire careers in government. They're also all appointees by the executive branch. I don't think the lesson you've learned is the correct one; to me, the lesson learned is 'make sure sycophants are in place first'. He definitely learned that lesson with Barr. 

Now, will DeSantis do this? I think that's a more interesting question. DeSantis is good, as you say, at doing the kayfabe while not actually changing anything meaningful. He's already done that to a certain extent with Ukraine and did get called on it by the Republican senate and had to backtrack. That said, my suspicion is that simply DeSantis cannot be as threatening to individual congresspeople as Trump can be. Trump's recommendation or opposition can decide who gets candidacies in a whole lot of races (not who wins, mind you, but who goes through primary). I don't think DeSantis has that kind of power over the primary voters. 

At least right now it's a moot point; Trump leads DeSantis by 20 points in polling. Will talk about what Trump did about NATO and how he weakened it in the next comment, but suffice it to say that other countries started spending more on their own national defense precisely because the US made it clear that they were no longer a reliable or trustworthy partner.

[Kalbear]

On NATO and Trump damaging it. First there was several clandestine meetings and convos with Putin around the same time that he stated repeatedly wanting to leave it. Fortunately we had people like Bolton to save us...ugh. Do you think that'll happen next time?

While he was there, he also questioned our alliance and troop commitments with South Korea and Japan, got out of the Paris agreement, got out of the Asia trade agreement, and withdrew troops from Syria without consulting a single other person.

Now it's worth pointing out that this is a place that congress might actually try to block leaving NATO and might even be successful given that the NATO treaties are wedded into actual US legislation. But Trump still has full control over military response - even with obligation to NATO treaty holdings - and can simply choose to not do a damn thing. Would he? This is a guy who led an insurrection attempt against his own vice president and which most members of congress very much opposed. 

As to the actual actions Trump took? Let's start with WaPo. Under Trump direct spending for NATO via underwriting by the US actually went down to match what Germany does. AWACS also took a hit compared to Biden, though it wasn't very much. Trump withdrew 12000 troops stationed in Germany, though Biden reversed this. Trump didn't want to provide Ukraine with Javelins and when he did forced them to only be stored in Western Ukraine and NOT be used in Donbas. He put a hold on the funding to Ukraine for months until he was forced to change - after 3 months had passed. 

Then we have foreign policy. He withdrew from the INF nuclear treaty and the Open Skies treaty. 

So yeah, it could have been worse, and were it not for both Trump's cabinet and NATO leadership NATO itself probably would have died. But that doesn't make it particularly the case that Trump didn't really want to, and it's very clear that Trump himself doesn't care that much about congressional pushback. 

[kiko]

You know. Even though the US thread is locked, you could start a new one.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, kiko said:

You know. Even though the US thread is locked, you could start a new one.

You're welcome to, but this is relevant to Ukraine given the whole issue is whether or not Ukraine is going to be supported militarily by NATO or by the US come a Republican victory. DMC as usual thinks everything is fine, institutions are sound and nothing bad will ever happen. I disagree. And I think @Werthead had a very astute point - that while Ukraine is winning everyone will support them, but if the next offensive fails or is catastrophic then that funding and support may just dry up. 

I also think regardless of what you think of the war the notion that the US under a Republican POTUS would keep with Article 5 if the Baltics were invaded is just a fantasy. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

My point is that Trump already did exactly that. Perhaps when you said the above - in confronting the opposition and his party - you were only talking about funding, but even that was inaccurate - Trump was happy to do exactly that in 2019. 

You have so little understanding about what I said.  I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or simply unable to understand basic concepts, but Trump threatening to withhold a small amount of funding - and should be clarified, failing to do so - when he was impeached has very little to do with what I am referring to.

I suppose it should be clarified because you clearly have no basic understanding of the event we talked about at the time.  The funding the US was providing to Ukraine was very clear and public.  It was about $400 million.  Everyone knew it was going to be allocated.  When it was delayed, everybody asked, hey, what's going on?  Simply asking this question consistently led to President Donald Trump to be impeached.  He is worse than Nixon in terms of covering his tracks, and Nixon taped his private conversations.

Donald Trump is corrupt.  But he's also demonstrably stupid while being corrupt.  I do not understand why you think he would change his behavior just because he hypothetically could become president again.  Self-improvement?  They still say those KFC buckets are going to the front of his faux Air Force 1, and dude's almost 80.

21 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

anyone involved lost their job and lost their entire careers in government.

Meh, no.  This is incorrect.  Did most of them eventually get fired?  Sure.  But acting like their careers are over is simply inaccurate.  Depending on the timing, getting fired or quitting Trump's administration is a pretty good line on the resume.

24 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Now, will DeSantis do this?

I don't really care.  Because neither Trump nor DeSantis can do what you think they can do.  As long as the Ukraine War is going on, we're going to fund.  Or more accurately, the US military industrial complex is going to fund it.  Again, if you think Trump, DeSantis, or any other GOP nominee will be able to stop that gravy train in Congress, I have some crypto bridges to sell you.

1 minute ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

DMC as usual thinks everything is fine, institutions are sound and nothing bad will ever happen.

That's never what I've said and you know it.  This is an incredibly dumbass depiction of my perspective.

[Werthead]

Interestingly, the Chinese government has issued new charts in which the names of former Chinese cities or sites in Russia are now all referred to by their Chinese names. Notably, Vladivostok is to be called Haishenwai.

This is not to herald a sudden invasion of Russia by Chinese forces, but is probably a very mild assertion of Chinese superiority in the relationship with Russia, and a possible sign that China may look to restore those lands in a future renegotiation with Russia should Russia's geopolitical star continue to dim and its reliance on China grow stronger.

No major military developments today from the look of it but a fair bit of diplomatic wrangling: Russia has taken over presidency of the UN Security Council for the first time since the invasion started, estimates of Ukrainian civilian casualties in the war so far have risen to 8,000 (and clearly far below the real figure), Russia is offering a "food for munitions" deal with North Korea, and Russia is calling up 147,000 Russian citizens for compulsory military service.

The Spanish Prime Minister is in Beijing and apparently has urged President Xi to act a peacemaker over the war by holding direct talks with Zelensky, which apparently Xi is considering.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Donald Trump is corrupt.  But he's also demonstrably stupid while being corrupt.  I do not understand why you think he would change his behavior just because he hypothetically could become president again.  Self-improvement?  They still say those KFC buckets are going to the front of his faux Air Force 1, and dude's almost 80.

I don't think he'll change his behavior. I think he'll change who he hires. I also don't think impeachment is a particular danger or foil to him. You seem to think that because he got impeached he won't do it again, or somehow impeachment actually stops his actions. It doesn't. 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Meh, no.  This is incorrect.  Did most of them eventually get fired?  Sure.  But acting like their careers are over is simply inaccurate.  Depending on the timing, getting fired or quitting Trump's administration is a pretty good line on the resume.

None of them have jobs in government. At least a couple like the Vindmans have said that they want them but cannot get them. It might be okay financially for them but a lot of them had some pretty high hopes about government service that are now entirely dashed. 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

I don't really care.  Because neither Trump nor DeSantis can do what you think they can do.  As long as the Ukraine War is going on, we're going to fund.  Or more accurately, the US military industrial complex is going to fund it.  Again, if you think Trump, DeSantis, or any other GOP nominee will be able to stop that gravy train in Congress, I have some crypto bridges to sell you.

The gravy train for Ukraine is mainly in sustain. Okay, sorry, I couldn't resist. The gravy train for Ukraine is not actually that much more, and it's not particularly relevant to most states. It's what, 5% of the total military spending budget? What Trump would almost certainly do is propose MORE military spending while also proposing giving nothing of it to Ukraine. Win-win for him. 

You're conflating helping Ukraine with spending money on our military. The two are not the same, and no where am I suggesting or even insinuating that Trump is going to cut military spending. 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

That's never what I've said and you know it.  This is an incredibly dumbass depiction of my perspective.

And yet you keep doing it. Every time anyone brings up negative predictions based on prior experience you go immediately to the 'economy is fundamentally sound' arguments. 

But I'll put it another way. Ukraine officials are concerned about Republicans and Trump getting back in office. NATO officials are very concerned about it, to the point where they're spending a lot of effort and time making contingency plans to deal with a lack of a US presence. Biden spent almost his first full year backstopping those relationships and convincing countries like Germany and France to actually back Ukraine, and a big chunk of that was spending a lot of effort just telling them that the US would actually support them this time while reversing Trump changes. So even if you disagree with me I would hope you'd take the actions of the European governments and NATO officials at face value. 

[A True Kaniggit]

31 minutes ago, kiko said:

You know. Even though the US thread is locked, you could start a new one.

Every thread is the U.S. Politics thread. 

Except for the U.S. Politics thread. 

[Wilbur]

6 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Interestingly, the Chinese government has issued new charts in which the names of former Chinese cities or sites in Russia are now all referred to by their Chinese names. Notably, Vladivostok is to be called Haishenwai.

This is not to herald a sudden invasion of Russia by Chinese forces, but is probably a very mild assertion of Chinese superiority in the relationship with Russia, and a possible sign that China may look to restore those lands in a future renegotiation with Russia should Russia's geopolitical star continue to dim and its reliance on China grow stronger.

Another item to consider is that this is a different situation from the maritime conflicts that China has instigated.  Unjustified Chinese expansionism on the ocean has always been and will be the cause of ongoing dispute with Australia, Brunei, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, the United States, and Vietnam, just to name the obvious countries with which China has entered into conflict off the top of my head.  There are a great many contestants in the conflict China has initiated on the sea, and several of them have bellicose recent histories.

But Manchuria?  If and when China decides that the trans-Amur lands really ought to be re-united with the mainland, who is going to seriously contest such a claim given Russia's isolation today?  Either of the Koreas?  Maybe Japan?  Technically, in a world that operates under the rule of law, land-grabbing ought to be frowned upon by everyone, but it isn't like Russia is going out of its way to be a sympathetic global actor here.

And if a weakened Russia loses Manchuria to China, Lake Baikal cannot be far behind on the Chinese punch list of "nearby places it would be useful to own."

[Jace, Extat]

3 hours ago, polishgenius said:

words

We'll find out. 

[Wilbur]

This is a great story of successful action from the British to help repair railway infrastructure in Ukraine.

 

[mcbigski]

22 hours ago, House Balstroko said:

If Russia were to make a move on Kazakhstan, what role would China play. Ukraine is far away from Asia, but given that China has its own set of interests in Kazakhstan, would it feel threatened by a Russian move to annex territory over there?

Take this with a grain of salt, because I'm basing this on things I've heard, rather than things I know, but Russia is trying to mobilize manpower for Ukraine, and I don't think they'd want to divert troops elsewhere if not necessary.

10 hours ago, Maithanet said:

A big part of why isolationism is popular in the Republican party is just that the US has fought so many wars that were only tangentially related to true US security that they see defending Europe against Russia as "not our fight".  That argument doesn't fly in Europe, particularly Central/Eastern Europe.  Which is why the current far-right government in Poland is staunchly anti-Russia.

I think you're talking about Republican voters, not Republican members of Congress.  Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham seem to think it's every tax payer's duty to spend more money on Ukraine.  

My Eastern European history knowledge is admittedly vague, but at some point in the last 1000 years or so the Rus people, for who Russia is now named were based in Kiev.  And then there was the Golden Horde and eventually in Tsarist Russia the political center was St Petersburg.  Long enough time for Ukraine to form a different linguistic/ethnic group, but still pretty close cousins.  

I can't really figure out why whether the Donbas is ruled from Kiev or Moscow is important enough to the US that we need aid packages every three months or so.  If we were acting based on national interest, rather than just feeding the war machine.

8 hours ago, DMC said:

when Trump was president he didn't actually do anything in spite of his anti-war - which appeals to populist conservatives as anti-globalists - rhetoric.  The closest he came was making a deal to pull troops out of Afghanistan....And then he delayed it....And then he delayed it again....And then again, to the point is was up to Biden to actually have the balls to carry it out.

The story in the conservative blogosphere at least was that Trump ordered and ordered withdrawal from Afghanistan and the military kept slow walking it.  Figured they could outlast him.  Whatever one thinks about Afghanistan, the US withdrawal from there certainly was disorderly and left a whole lot equipment behind.  A cynic like me thinks that's because the MIC would need to rebuild 10 figures + worth of equipment, and at my most cynical, leaving all that intact for a future enemy means even more appropriations down the road.

 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

The story in the conservative blogosphere at least was that Trump ordered and ordered withdrawal from Afghanistan and the military kept slow walking it.  Figured they could outlast him.

Hey, that's actually true!  Trump did try on this, or at least his administration, on reaching an agreement.  Like, they did, technically.  Eventually though, that was kinda the problem.  In retrospect, all that emphasizes is he was very happy to leave it to the next guy.  And then whine about how Biden did it when Trump was too much of a coward to do it himself.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Take this with a grain of salt, because I'm basing this on things I've heard, rather than things I know, but Russia is trying to mobilize manpower for Ukraine, and I don't think they'd want to divert troops elsewhere if not necessary.

I think you're talking about Republican voters, not Republican members of Congress.  Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham seem to think it's every tax payer's duty to spend more money on Ukraine.  

My Eastern European history knowledge is admittedly vague, but at some point in the last 1000 years or so the Rus people, for who Russia is now named were based in Kiev.  And then there was the Golden Horde and eventually in Tsarist Russia the political center was St Petersburg.  Long enough time for Ukraine to form a different linguistic/ethnic group, but still pretty close cousins.  

I can't really figure out why whether the Donbas is ruled from Kiev or Moscow is important enough to the US that we need aid packages every three months or so.  If we were acting based on national interest, rather than just feeding the war machine.

The story in the conservative blogosphere at least was that Trump ordered and ordered withdrawal from Afghanistan and the military kept slow walking it.  Figured they could outlast him.  Whatever one thinks about Afghanistan, the US withdrawal from there certainly was disorderly and left a whole lot equipment behind.  A cynic like me thinks that's because the MIC would need to rebuild 10 figures + worth of equipment, and at my most cynical, leaving all that intact for a future enemy means even more appropriations down the road.

 

Kyiv.

[Darzin]

9 hours ago, Secretary of Eumenes said:

We'll find out. 

Except people have been saying China will start arming Russia since the very start of the conflict, it hasn't happened yet and I don't think it will. While China and Russia are friendly I'm fairly sure they view this invasion as a boondoggle and Russia's boondoggle to deal with. Fairly early in the conflict state media switched from being implicitly pro-Russia to both sides bad war bad, peace good. Xi just proposed a peace plan. China is certainly not going to become hostile to Russia but they are not going to directly support the war either. People have been predicting it from the start  it hasn't happened and I don't think it will.

11 hours ago, Wilbur said:

But Manchuria?  If and when China decides that the trans-Amur lands really ought to be re-united with the mainland, who is going to seriously contest such a claim given Russia's isolation today?  Either of the Koreas?  Maybe Japan?  Technically, in a world that operates under the rule of law, land-grabbing ought to be frowned upon by everyone, but it isn't like Russia is going out of its way to be a sympathetic global actor here.

And if a weakened Russia loses Manchuria to China, Lake Baikal cannot be far behind on the Chinese punch list of "nearby places it would be useful to own."

China is not going to invade the Russian far east. This comes up again and again because people see a heavily populated area of China next to a sparsely populated area of Russia but it's just not going to happen anymore than the US is going to invade Canada for the same reasons.

Chinese diplomats  have been working for decades to repair Russo-Chinese relations since the Sino-Soviet split that conflict is regarded as a major mistake and blunder. The border disputes along the Amur river have been settled through negotiations. Russia which was once an enemy is now a friend and what's more a powerful and influential friend that is dependent on Chinese largess which is the best kind of powerful friend. Destroying all that in an Eastern Barbarossa would get them what? The resources of Siberia? This 19th century slicing and dicing of territory is not going to happen there is no benefit, it would be like the US invading Saudi Arabia for the oil. Why would China invade a friendly country that is already trading with them on very good terms? Siberia is already filled with Chinese companies and customers and the recent sanctions have made the Chinese more competitive as it's reduced the number of buyers. 

Also there is the moral factor China wants to take Taiwan and the South China sea because they are considered to be part of China the Qing considered them China, the Kuomintang considered them China and the PRC does as well. China's claimed borders maybe maximalist but they are not arbitrary or ever changing. The man on the street would see a war to take Taiwan as the glorious unification of China against hostile foreigners who want China divided and weak, whereas the taking of Siberia would be seen as random aggression. Plus the fact Russia has a huge nuclear arsenal prevents any of this from happening but even if they didn't it's not something China would want to do anyway. 

[ThinkerX]

China doesn't have to invade the Russian Far East to reap the benefits. Instead, they would just cut deals with the utterly corrupt local Russian bosses, who are already ticked off at Putin. These provinces would, in effect become defacto vassals or puppet states - still technically part of Russia, but actually answering to China. 

[Jace, Extat]

Hey I've been wrong before. I don't claim to be some political science wonk. I'm just telling you what makes sense to me. 

I can be obnoxious, perhaps. And could do better in managing that condition. 

[Padraig]

11 hours ago, mcbigski said:

My Eastern European history knowledge is admittedly vague, but at some point in the last 1000 years or so the Rus people, for who Russia is now named were based in Kiev.  And then there was the Golden Horde and eventually in Tsarist Russia the political center was St Petersburg.  Long enough time for Ukraine to form a different linguistic/ethnic group, but still pretty close cousins.  

Modern day diplomacy is not based on this though.  Unless you have a great love for monarchy, arguing about what land some distant ancestor used to live in or own is deemed irrelevant.  Fluid border create wars.  Allowing Russia to bring back war for conquest would be a terrible precedent.

Its not similar at all to the Ukraine situation but to look at Ireland for a moment.  Up to 1999, the Republic of Ireland claimed the whole of the island of Ireland.  You could understand why but whether they liked it or not, the border existed and the majority of the people across the border were happy with that.  So, your claims didn't really matter.  With a less modern viewpoint though, sure, people could justify murdering civilians for the sake of some historical truth.  That thinking isn't completely gone either.

I'd love to see the military industrial complex be reduced though.

16 hours ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

And I think @Werthead had a very astute point - that while Ukraine is winning everyone will support them, but if the next offensive fails or is catastrophic then that funding and support may just dry up. 

And to echo this.  This is my fear.  If things don't change much over the next year then who knows where we will end up.  In that case, people may be right to question whether throwing more arms into this war is the right answer.  It possibly will be but context is everything and I can't guess what the context will be in a year or two.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

17 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Every thread is the U.S. Politics thread. 

Except for the U.S. Politics thread. 

Rule one of the fight club...

[Martell Spy]

Another new low for Putin and he releases a literal axe murderer on his own people.

Quote

 

A Wagner soldier returned home after fighting for Russia. Days later, he was a murder suspect

https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-04-01-23/index.html

Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin has recruited heavily from Russian prisons, with inmates such as Rossomakhin promised a pardon and other benefits in exchange for a contract.

Rossomakhin did an indeterminate stint with Wagner in Ukraine – the normal contract is for six months – before returning to his home town of Novyj Burets in the Kirov region this month.

Almost immediately, according to local accounts, there was trouble. He was placed under arrest for five days after making a number of threats.

His presence led to a town hall meeting on Monday, which was filmed by a local TV channel.

One resident, Galina Sapozhnikova, said Rossomakhin was seen holding a pitchfork, an ax and a knife, threatening to kill everyone.

The District Police Chief Vadim Varankin told the meeting that Rossomakhin was a “known troublemaker” and was being dealt with.

But before that could happen, an elderly woman in the town was murdered. Rossomakhin was arrested on suspicion of carrying out the crime but has not been formally charged.