The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(11-11-2023 01:50 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If we even talk about cutting back on our help to Ukraine, that encourages Putin to continue the war

What is your (realistic) best case scenario for the United States and Ukraine?

How likely is it to play out?

(11-12-2023 08:42 AM)ess Wrote:  

(11-11-2023 01:50 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If we even talk about cutting back on our help to Ukraine, that encourages Putin to continue the war

What is your (realistic) best case scenario for the United States and Ukraine?

How likely is it to play out?

Ukraine pushes Russia out of some more territory and then they make a deal giving up some of the territory that Russia took but hopefully not too much. Ukraine then fortifies their new eastern border (since you can't trust Putin to stick to the agreement) and gets invited into NATO (not sure if Hungary or Turkey would go for that).

(11-14-2023 12:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Ukraine pushes Russia out of some more territory and then they make a deal giving up some of the territory that Russia took but hopefully not too much. Ukraine then fortifies their new eastern border (since you can't trust Putin to stick to the agreement) and gets invited into NATO (not sure if Hungary or Turkey would go for that).

Again

What is the likelihood that your scenario plays out?

NYT op ed

Quote:In the run-up to NATO’s summit in 2008, Mr. Bush wanted to give Ukraine and Georgia a formal path to enter the alliance, called a Membership Action Plan. Before the meeting, William Burns, the current C.I.A. director who was then ambassador to Russia, cautioned that such a move would have deadly consequences.
Editors’ Picks

“Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin),” Mr. Burns advised from Moscow. He specifically predicted that attempting to bring Ukraine into NATO would “create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.” Senior intelligence officials like Fiona Hill delivered similar warnings.

This ^^^ is an opinion piece. I get that.

But

There are plenty of other "sources" stating similar things.

(11-14-2023 05:52 PM)ess Wrote:  

(11-14-2023 12:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Ukraine pushes Russia out of some more territory and then they make a deal giving up some of the territory that Russia took but hopefully not too much. Ukraine then fortifies their new eastern border (since you can't trust Putin to stick to the agreement) and gets invited into NATO (not sure if Hungary or Turkey would go for that).

Again

What is the likelihood that your scenario plays out?

NYT op ed

Quote:In the run-up to NATO’s summit in 2008, Mr. Bush wanted to give Ukraine and Georgia a formal path to enter the alliance, called a Membership Action Plan. Before the meeting, William Burns, the current C.I.A. director who was then ambassador to Russia, cautioned that such a move would have deadly consequences.
Editors’ Picks

“Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin),” Mr. Burns advised from Moscow. He specifically predicted that attempting to bring Ukraine into NATO would “create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.” Senior intelligence officials like Fiona Hill delivered similar warnings.

This ^^^ is an opinion piece. I get that.

But

There are plenty of other "sources" stating similar things.

So we had Russian meddling in Crimea - actually a complete invasion - and in Eastern Ukraine even without inviting Ukraine into NATO. The only reason Russia is in Ukraine now as that they are NOT in NATO.

Nothing good happens if we just let Russia have Crimea and 1/3rd of Ukraine. Russia won't stop there, regardless of whether there's a peace deal.

(11-15-2023 02:41 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The only reason Russia is in Ukraine now as that they are NOT in NATO.

Nothing good happens if we just let Russia have Crimea and 1/3rd of Ukraine. Russia won't stop there, regardless of whether there's a peace deal.

Still hoping you'll answer.

What are the chances that your scenario actually occurs?

Regarding Russia's presence in Ukraine

Many disagree with your assessement.

I don't know what the odds are.

What are the odds that you would want to live in a Ukraine run by Russians? How many countries does Putin have to invade before you care? What were the odds that Hitler was going to stop after agreeing to take only half of Czechoslovakia?

I do know that the odds of Ukrainians suffering severely under Russian control are 100%.

(11-15-2023 06:32 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I don't know what the odds are.

What are the odds that you would want to live in a Ukraine run by Russians? How many countries does Putin have to invade before you care? What were the odds that Hitler was going to stop after agreeing to take only half of Czechoslovakia?

I do know that the odds of Ukrainians suffering severely under Russian control are 100%.

I think that you do know what the odds are.

How many countries does Putin have to invade? How many has he invaded? And why did he invade them? And, is/was his invasion of the eastern region of Ukraine a direct threat to the national security of the United States?

I do get your point, though.

That "domino theory".

Sort of like Viet Nam.

Regarding Ukrainians suffering.

Ukraine negotiated a settlement with Russia in April of 2022 (unless you doubt the veracity of the reports).

Since then, after the west told them their negotiated settlement was not acceptable.

Thousands (likely > 20 - 25K) civilians have died.

And likely over 100K Ukrainian soldiers have died.

Meanwhile, the US is now (seemingly) waivering on their commitment to support Ukraine going forward.

Were those > 100K deaths (since last April) worth it ?

If yes. To who? And for what reason?

We'll see...

(11-15-2023 07:29 PM)ess Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 06:32 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I don't know what the odds are.

What are the odds that you would want to live in a Ukraine run by Russians? How many countries does Putin have to invade before you care? What were the odds that Hitler was going to stop after agreeing to take only half of Czechoslovakia?

I do know that the odds of Ukrainians suffering severely under Russian control are 100%.

I think that you do know what the odds are.

How many countries does Putin have to invade? How many has he invaded? And why did he invade them? And, is/was his invasion of the eastern region of Ukraine a direct threat to the national security of the United States?

I do get your point, though.

That "domino theory".

Sort of like Viet Nam.

Regarding Ukrainians suffering.

Ukraine negotiated a settlement with Russia in April of 2022 (unless you doubt the veracity of the reports).

Since then, after the west told them their negotiated settlement was not acceptable.

Thousands (likely > 20 - 25K) civilians have died.

And likely over 100K Ukrainian soldiers have died.

Meanwhile, the US is now (seemingly) waivering on their commitment to support Ukraine going forward.

Were those > 100K deaths (since last April) worth it ?

If yes. To who? And for what reason?

We'll see...

I doubt the veracity of the report. If there was a link that talked about it, I was unable to open the link.

Domino theory was about Communism. It wasn't about a dictator deciding to stop invading countries.

(11-15-2023 08:43 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I doubt the veracity of the report. If there was a link that talked about it, I was unable to open the link.

Domino theory was about Communism. It wasn't about a dictator deciding to stop invading countries.

Doubt it why?

(11-15-2023 08:48 PM)ess Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 08:43 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I doubt the veracity of the report. If there was a link that talked about it, I was unable to open the link.

Domino theory was about Communism. It wasn't about a dictator deciding to stop invading countries.

Doubt it why?

Who said that Ukraine had a deal and the US told them they couldn't do it?

Sounds like some garbage from a right-wing conspiracy site designed to get people to go along with not supporting Ukraine, thereby supporting Russia.

(11-15-2023 09:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Who said that Ukraine had a deal and the US told them they couldn't do it?

Sounds like some garbage from a right-wing conspiracy site designed to get people to go along with not supporting Ukraine, thereby supporting Russia.

Explained in previous post(s).

Research it on your own, or not.

Question for you.

What does "right -wing conspiracy site" mean to you?

Previously, "right wing" referred to the neocons.

People like Lindsey Graham, Nikki Haley, William Kristol, the Bush's, and John McCain (he'd usually get a pass because of his military history).

War mongers. And people who (currently) support US/Biden's policy in Ukraine. And Israel for that matter.

But now.

"Right wing (conspiracy, etc)" is often used to label people who would prefer not to meddle in the internal workings of foreign governments, and who lean toward being anti-war?

Long time (or previous) Democrats are even being labeled this way if/when they don't tow the company line.

How/why did that label change?

(11-16-2023 12:06 PM)ess Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 09:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Who said that Ukraine had a deal and the US told them they couldn't do it?

Sounds like some garbage from a right-wing conspiracy site designed to get people to go along with not supporting Ukraine, thereby supporting Russia.

Explained in previous post(s).

Research it on your own, or not.

Question for you.

What does "right -wing conspiracy site" mean to you?

Previously, "right wing" referred to the neocons.

People like Lindsey Graham, Nikki Haley, William Kristol, the Bush's, and John McCain (he'd usually get a pass because of his military history).

War mongers. And people who (currently) support US/Biden's policy in Ukraine. And Israel for that matter.

But now.

"Right wing (conspiracy, etc)" is often used to label people who would prefer not to meddle in the internal workings of foreign governments, and who lean toward being anti-war?

Long time (or previous) Democrats are even being labeled this way if/when they don't tow the company line.

How/why did that label change?

The right-wing has shifted to the right. People like Haley, McCain, William Kristol are basically moderates now. Right-wingers don't come across as anti-war to me. They come across as isolationist, except when their religion makes them want to get involved, like in Israel. Or when propaganda gets them to think we should invade Iraq, attack Iran, attack Mexico, etc. And they apparently don't want democracy anymore.

(11-16-2023 01:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(11-16-2023 12:06 PM)ess Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 09:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Who said that Ukraine had a deal and the US told them they couldn't do it?

Sounds like some garbage from a right-wing conspiracy site designed to get people to go along with not supporting Ukraine, thereby supporting Russia.

Explained in previous post(s).

Research it on your own, or not.

Question for you.

What does "right -wing conspiracy site" mean to you?

Previously, "right wing" referred to the neocons.

People like Lindsey Graham, Nikki Haley, William Kristol, the Bush's, and John McCain (he'd usually get a pass because of his military history).

War mongers. And people who (currently) support US/Biden's policy in Ukraine. And Israel for that matter.

But now.

"Right wing (conspiracy, etc)" is often used to label people who would prefer not to meddle in the internal workings of foreign governments, and who lean toward being anti-war?

Long time (or previous) Democrats are even being labeled this way if/when they don't tow the company line.

How/why did that label change?

The right-wing has shifted to the right. People like Haley, McCain, William Kristol are basically moderates now. Right-wingers don't come across as anti-war to me. They come across as isolationist, except when their religion makes them want to get involved, like in Israel. Or when propaganda gets them to think we should invade Iraq, attack Iran, attack Mexico, etc. And they apparently don't want democracy anymore.

Terms like Right and Conservative have lost all meaning. I have no idea what a "Right Wing Conservative" believes in these days other than chaos. And chaos is the complete opposite of what conservatism used to mean.

(11-16-2023 01:57 PM)BroncoMinor Wrote:  

(11-16-2023 01:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(11-16-2023 12:06 PM)ess Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 09:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Who said that Ukraine had a deal and the US told them they couldn't do it?

Sounds like some garbage from a right-wing conspiracy site designed to get people to go along with not supporting Ukraine, thereby supporting Russia.

Explained in previous post(s).

Research it on your own, or not.

Question for you.

What does "right -wing conspiracy site" mean to you?

Previously, "right wing" referred to the neocons.

People like Lindsey Graham, Nikki Haley, William Kristol, the Bush's, and John McCain (he'd usually get a pass because of his military history).

War mongers. And people who (currently) support US/Biden's policy in Ukraine. And Israel for that matter.

But now.

"Right wing (conspiracy, etc)" is often used to label people who would prefer not to meddle in the internal workings of foreign governments, and who lean toward being anti-war?

Long time (or previous) Democrats are even being labeled this way if/when they don't tow the company line.

How/why did that label change?

The right-wing has shifted to the right. People like Haley, McCain, William Kristol are basically moderates now. Right-wingers don't come across as anti-war to me. They come across as isolationist, except when their religion makes them want to get involved, like in Israel. Or when propaganda gets them to think we should invade Iraq, attack Iran, attack Mexico, etc. And they apparently don't want democracy anymore.

Terms like Right and Conservative have lost all meaning. I have no idea what a "Right Wing Conservative" believes in these days other than chaos. And chaos is the complete opposite of what conservatism used to mean.

I can agree with that, I don't know what they stand for either, other than the end of our democracy. As far as I can tell, William Kristol (since you mentioned him) is still a conservative in the old-time sense.

(11-16-2023 01:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The right-wing has shifted to the right.

What do you mean (specifically)?

Examples?

(11-16-2023 03:15 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(11-16-2023 01:57 PM)BroncoMinor Wrote:  

(11-16-2023 01:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(11-16-2023 12:06 PM)ess Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 09:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Who said that Ukraine had a deal and the US told them they couldn't do it?

Sounds like some garbage from a right-wing conspiracy site designed to get people to go along with not supporting Ukraine, thereby supporting Russia.

Explained in previous post(s).

Research it on your own, or not.

Question for you.

What does "right -wing conspiracy site" mean to you?

Previously, "right wing" referred to the neocons.

People like Lindsey Graham, Nikki Haley, William Kristol, the Bush's, and John McCain (he'd usually get a pass because of his military history).

War mongers. And people who (currently) support US/Biden's policy in Ukraine. And Israel for that matter.

But now.

"Right wing (conspiracy, etc)" is often used to label people who would prefer not to meddle in the internal workings of foreign governments, and who lean toward being anti-war?

Long time (or previous) Democrats are even being labeled this way if/when they don't tow the company line.

How/why did that label change?

The right-wing has shifted to the right. People like Haley, McCain, William Kristol are basically moderates now. Right-wingers don't come across as anti-war to me. They come across as isolationist, except when their religion makes them want to get involved, like in Israel. Or when propaganda gets them to think we should invade Iraq, attack Iran, attack Mexico, etc. And they apparently don't want democracy anymore.

Terms like Right and Conservative have lost all meaning. I have no idea what a "Right Wing Conservative" believes in these days other than chaos. And chaos is the complete opposite of what conservatism used to mean.

I can agree with that, I don't know what they stand for either, other than the end of our democracy. As far as I can tell, William Kristol (since you mentioned him) is still a conservative in the old-time sense.

I didn't mention him. You somehow have me confused for ess.

(11-16-2023 05:29 PM)ess Wrote:  

(11-16-2023 01:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The right-wing has shifted to the right.

What do you mean (specifically)?

Examples?

I should say, that party shifted to become, by and large, right-wing. 20 years ago, how many people in what is now the Insurrection Party would have been amplifying bogus claims of voter fraud to their voters to the point where it caused an attack on the Capitol, and then refuse to hold Trump accountable for inciting it (or pressuring election officials to change the result?) And then continue to support someone who has no interest in democracy? At what point did this become okay?

The people who are still moderates in that party are now a fringe group - most of them have been voted out or didn't run for re-election.

They're also pushing extreme abortion laws that it is obvious most voters don't want. In addition they seem to want to push their religious beliefs on others more than usual - all this talk about the US being a Christian nation - seems like they're pushing on that too.

We need people like George Santos to run the country or at least be Trump's running mate. Neither care about integrity and do whatever they need to do to get their way.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...dd74&ei=41

(11-16-2023 05:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(11-16-2023 05:29 PM)ess Wrote:  

(11-16-2023 01:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The right-wing has shifted to the right.

What do you mean (specifically)?

Examples?

I should say, that party shifted to become, by and large, right-wing. 20 years ago, how many people in what is now the Insurrection Party would have been amplifying bogus claims of voter fraud to their voters to the point where it caused an attack on the Capitol, and then refuse to hold Trump accountable for inciting it (or pressuring election officials to change the result?) And then continue to support someone who has no interest in democracy? At what point did this become okay?

The people who are still moderates in that party are now a fringe group - most of them have been voted out or didn't run for re-election.

They're also pushing extreme abortion laws that it is obvious most voters don't want. In addition they seem to want to push their religious beliefs on others more than usual - all this talk about the US being a Christian nation - seems like they're pushing on that too.

Ironic thing nobody has ever accused Trump of being a religious person except for one photo when he was holding Bible upside down after trying to get military to clear protesters from outside the WH.