Waffledynamics said:

---

AgBandsman said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

Anyone that thinks granting Russia any land gain whatsoever does not understand some pretty basic things about geopolitics and deterring future bad behavior. I don't care how smart you are. Ultracrepidarianism is a term for a reason.

---

There's a few areas of Ukraine whose own inhabitants don't even think rightfully belong to Ukraine and would side with Russia.

Should those citizens have a voice?

---

Yeah man the referendums where imported Russians, locals held at gunpoint, and more votes counted than people present are great indicators of a desire to be in the Russian Federation.

Musk somehow is so smart he separates the UN and Russia as if Russia isn't on the Security Council and wouldn't veto anything that didn't give them the sham results they want.

---

What percent of those areas would've voted to join Russia in January? You can't honestly believe the answer is 0%.

The worst thing is any questioning of yalls unweilding allegiance to Ukraine over your allegiance to your family and neighbors and you'll scream "why do you love putin" because you don't have a logical response.

The only way to stop Russia from being a bully is an offensive attack that ends up with significant consequences for Russia. Unless you want the US to engage Russia in Russia in a mass attack you are doing a really bad job expressing your opinion.

yeah invading other countries because you want that land is the right thing to do

putin doing the right thing. blame the nazis

I'd say Ukraine is already doing a pretty good job of stopping russia

Old Army Ghost said:

---

yeah invading other countries because you want that land is the right thing to do

putin doing the right thing. blame the nazis

---

See, I never said anything that can be remotely interpreted like this. You sound like a democrat when this is your response.

The fact that this is the standard response means there is no logical or rational argument for our current stance.

dude i agree with you that puton is right in taking eastern ukraine

Agthatbuilds said:

---

I'd say Ukraine is already doing a pretty good job of stopping russia

---

Ukraine can fight Russia for eternity for all I care and y'all can go over there and fight with them. We shouldn't be sending billions that are just getting rerouted back to politicians pockets.

Old Army Ghost said:

---

dude i agree with you that puton is right in taking eastern ukraine

---

I never said anything like that. How much does texags pay you to troll the board for clicks?

gig em 02 said:

---

Old Army Ghost said:

---

dude i agree with you that puton is right in taking eastern ukraine

---

I never said anything like that. How much does texags pay you to troll the board for clicks?

---

oh

Layne Staley said:

---

Russia is not our friend
Ukraine is not our friend.
Our establishment politicians are not our friend.

Be perfectly happy for all of this money we are wasting over there just retire our own national debt but instead a lot is coming back to Democrats and establishment Republicans through our corrupt embassy and the NGO's it funnels our money to controlled by Soros.

---

This waste is authored by corruption by both parties.
In the end, whether or not it's intentional, this uncontrolled printed money is one of the root causes of inflation and could cause the downfall of the comfortable standard of living that Americans and Europeans have enjoyed over much of the last century.

C@LAg said:

---

elon is a ****ing idiot and should keep his idiotic face out of world politics.

---

Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.

Here is some simple reality for people who claim they just want peace but don't want Russia to take parts of Ukraine:

If you advocate for concessions, you are in fact for Russia taking parts of Ukraine.

You advocate for a bandaid that Russia will rip off and take more land expecting you to make concessions again.

You advocate in favor of a belligerent that wants peace talks because they are rapidly posting up huge losses in troops, materiel, and occupied land. Heck, I wouldn't doubt that many people making these arguments have no idea that that is happening right now.

You advocate for further nuclear proliferation because you signal to countries that nuclear threats are the key to getting what you want. Why do you think NK and Iran have been seeking them for decades?

There is no good solution other than a full Ukrainian victory. End of story.

gig em 02 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

I'd say Ukraine is already doing a pretty good job of stopping russia

---

Ukraine can fight Russia for eternity for all I care and y'all can go over there and fight with them. We shouldn't be sending billions that are just getting rerouted back to politicians pockets.

---

I think the US has handled it pretty well. A relatively cheap destruction of a main power broker that allows us to focus on the true threat, China.

No, I don't want us soldiers there nor do I want to go there. However, the ROI is politically, militarily, and socially significant

On the other hand. If you advocate for Russia ceding Crimea, you're asking them to willingly commit geopolitical suicide and permanently remove themselves not only as a global power but even as a regional one.

Whatever we might think about the right or wrong of this situation, in the end we're talking about grand strategy. It doesn't matter what is right and wrong at this level, it matters what you can or can't do.

Old Army Ghost said:

---

dude i agree with you that puton is right in taking eastern ukraine

---

You're on TexAgs. Don't you know you're supposed to say the exact opposite of what you mean at all times?

Not sure I agree with that.

C@LAg said:

---

elon is a ****ing idiot and should keep his idiotic face out of world politics.

---

I'm not most people on this website, having actually spent time in the country and have near-familial relationships with many Ukrainians.

I don't have family/friendsin Africa, nor do I have an affinity or appreciation for their culture or sufferings.

As much as you'd like me to be a (D)ifferent person, so that you can write off any oppositional arguments, you're completely off the mark.

I think Elon is trying his best to minimize death, kudos.
I think a vote at this point would be as honest as our own most recent elections if not worse... imagine Mexico forcing Texas to vote for parts of it to be Mexico and flooding those border towns voting with illegal immigrants and cartels that promise death and destruction to those who don't vote correctly.

Wish it was a simple solution.

gig em 02 said:

---

Adverse Event said:

---

How much if Texas are you willing to cede to Mexico/Indigenous?

---

Do you live in Ukraine? If not, how is this relevant? So many of you are willing to sacrifice your own families well being for a country you couldn't even find on a map a year ago.

Why are y'all so defensive of Ukraine but you don't even care about the nonstop territory battles in Africa? Is it because the tv and social media told you this time it's (D)ifferent?

"After the election I'll have more flexibility…" - obama to putin discussing what topic exactly?

---

Ukraine is very different than most parts of Africa for the simple fact that it impacts so many other countries. Ukraine and Russia are on the edge of Europe and they are 2 of the largest suppliers of wheat, fertilizer, and energy. If they are fighting the rest of the world is either going without those things or paying a much larger price for them. Ukraine is also very strategically significant territory. That will result in more conflict around the world, especially in the Middle East which gets most of its food from those countries. Then you have the nuclear component.

That's not to say when countries in Africa have fights and civil wars it isn't terrible. It is and it's something we should try to stop if we can. The reality is though if Niger and Chad fight each other though it doesn't really impact the rest of the world very much because they aren't connected with the rest of the world in the same way as Ukraine and Russia. They aren't nuclear powers and they have no ability to project force to be a threat to the larger world. Thus the rest of the world isn't going to be as concerned. It's not about what TV and Social Media are telling us to care about, it's the fact those areas simply don't impact the rest of the world very much.

Which part? Russia needing a warm weather port and access to the Black Sea, or that right and wrong matter less in these things than force?

gig em 02 said:

---

Old Army Ghost said:

---

yeah invading other countries because you want that land is the right thing to do

putin doing the right thing. blame the nazis

---

See, I never said anything that can be remotely interpreted like this. You sound like a democrat when this is your response.

The fact that this is the standard response means there is no logical or rational argument for our current stance.

---

No, you pretty much did say that

Quote:

---

What percent of those areas would've voted to join Russia in January? You can't honestly believe the answer is 0%.

---

There's really no other way to take that assertion in the context of a discussion of the invasion of Ukraine by Russian. The only reasonable reading of that statement is that the presence of ethnic Russians in Ukraine is a valid reason for Russia to try to seize that territory, which is a hard position to defend.

Ukraine is an independent nation entitled to defend its borders. Your assertion challenges that right. By your logic, Mexico would be justified to invade South Texas because the population there is compose of a majority of people whose ancestors came from Mexico, if they didn't come themselves. To deny Ukraine's right to defend its own territory is not a reasonable position to take, particularly if you don't want to be labeled a Putin sycophant.

As to the US and West aiding Ukraine, there are legitimate long term reasons for doing this, which any reasonable person would acknowledge: had Putin succeeded in Ukraine, that would have merely been the first step in his long term stated goal of restoring Russian dominance over the countries that formerly were part of the Russian empire, a number of which are NATO allies that we are treaty bound to defend. Helping Ukraine put up a road block before Putin could challenge the Baltic States and Poland is a pretty cost effective way of forestalling an even more expensive, and dangerous, conflict with NATO members.

Now, anyone can question how much aid is appropriate. We certainly have to be mindful of what it does to our defense preparedness when we send tangible military aid to other countries. We also can't ignore the bottom line budget impact, but, frankly, the numbers we are talking about are not going to make a huge difference to our budget bottom line, and, can reasonably be seen as an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure.

One can also question whether sending money is the right way to go, and whether it's ending up in the right pockets, but the fact that one can raise these questions doesn't mean that aiding Ukraine is wrong; this is a processs issue, not a policy issue.

Waffledynamics said:

---

Here is some simple reality for people who claim they just want peace but don't want Russia to take parts of Ukraine:

If you advocate for concessions, you are in fact for Russia taking parts of Ukraine.

You advocate for a bandaid that Russia will rip off and take more land expecting you to make concessions again.

You advocate in favor of a belligerent that wants peace talks because they are rapidly posting up huge losses in troops, materiel, and occupied land. Heck, I wouldn't doubt that many people making these arguments have no idea that that is happening right now.

You advocate for further nuclear proliferation because you signal to countries that nuclear threats are the key to getting what you want. Why do you think NK and Iran have been seeking them for decades?

There is no good solution other than a full Ukrainian victory. End of story.

---

What is "full Ukrainian victory"? Does that mean Ukraine marches into Moscow? Does it mean that Russia withdraws from Ukraine completely? How about Crimea? Does it mean Putin stays in power? Depending on who you ask you will get different answers to that question.

I disagree with some of the specifics of the proposal that Elon has made but I do think people have lost perspective. Russia is a dying country and while Putin is terrible we have no idea what follows him. Look at Iraq after Saddam and Libya after Khadaffi. Now add nukes. Oh, and if you think Ukraine is full of peace loving folks you don't know much about Ukraine. It's one of the most corrupt countries on Earth and it's always been and always will be a piece of territory that is fought over. There is permanent solution for Ukraine because of geography and being very valuable and fertile land with no natural barriers sitting between multiple major powers.

There are already millions that are going to die because of this war and if it goes on another year it will be tens of millions. BTW, most of those who die won't be in Ukraine and in the battlefield, they will be poor people in poor countries that either starve or end up in a war of their own because of the lack of resources and inevitable conflict it will bring.

Zobel said:

---

Which part? Russia needing a warm weather port and access to the Black Sea, or that right and wrong matter less in these things than force?

---

Russia doesn't need Sebastopol to have access to the Black Sea (Rostov-on-Don is also a port city, but not as well positioned militarily). The Soviets built a huge naval base at Sebastopol that Russia was allowed to lease by treaty, but arguing that as a basis for seizing all of Crimea is like saying the US would be justified to seize Cuba in order to protect the base at Guantanamo Bay.

+1

gig em 02 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

I'd say Ukraine is already doing a pretty good job of stopping russia

---

Ukraine can fight Russia for eternity for all I care and y'all can go over there and fight with them. We shouldn't be sending billions that are just getting rerouted back to politicians pockets.

---

You act like we just sent it to them with cash app. Most of it was actual equipment and weapons.

Zobel said:

---

Which part? Russia needing a warm weather port and access to the Black Sea, or that right and wrong matter less in these things than force?

---

Mostly this part

Quote:

---

you're asking them to willingly commit geopolitical suicide and permanently remove themselves not only as a global power but even as a regional one.

---

I'd argue this war has already removed them as a global power. It's exposed their military as a paper tiger. Their economy is relatively nothing. Their demographics don't support them continuing to be able to support the title of global power.

Having Crimea won't change that.

The only thing that keeps them in the global power discussion is that they have nukes. But so does north Korea. If they aren't willing to use them, they don't mean anything.

I do generally agree that might makes right and the victor writes the history.

But the question is precisely a military one. If you control Rostov-on-Don but not Crimea you only have a warm water port as long as someone else says you do.

The problem is Crimea is a zero sum game. It isn't as if it remains neutral. In addition to projection of power Russia needs Sevastopol for sea control, and part of that is the ability to deny it to its enemies. Whoever controls Crimea exerts control over Ukraine's main ports and primary export infrastructure. Ukraine controlling Sevastopol means not only does Ukraine cover their own, but gives them the same over Russia's key economic ports in Novorossiysk.

And it isn't just the port itself - there's also the aspect of area denial from the air as well, also swinging both ways.

Without Crimea Russia no longer has control over the Black Sea, which not only affects the Black Sea but changes the dynamic of their base in Syria. It is a linchpin in their ability to be a regional power.

A neutral Crimea is tolerable to Russia as long as the counter party is someone they feel is truly neutral or they can work with or control. A hostile Crimea isn't.

Right - global seems to be out of the question. Losing Crimea removes them from the running of regional power as well.

aggie93 said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

Here is some simple reality for people who claim they just want peace but don't want Russia to take parts of Ukraine:

If you advocate for concessions, you are in fact for Russia taking parts of Ukraine.

You advocate for a bandaid that Russia will rip off and take more land expecting you to make concessions again.

You advocate in favor of a belligerent that wants peace talks because they are rapidly posting up huge losses in troops, materiel, and occupied land. Heck, I wouldn't doubt that many people making these arguments have no idea that that is happening right now.

You advocate for further nuclear proliferation because you signal to countries that nuclear threats are the key to getting what you want. Why do you think NK and Iran have been seeking them for decades?

There is no good solution other than a full Ukrainian victory. End of story.

---

What is "full Ukrainian victory"? Does that mean Ukraine marches into Moscow? Does it mean that Russia withdraws from Ukraine completely? How about Crimea? Does it mean Putin stays in power? Depending on who you ask you will get different answers to that question.

I disagree with some of the specifics of the proposal that Elon has made but I do think people have lost perspective. Russia is a dying country and while Putin is terrible we have no idea what follows him. Look at Iraq after Saddam and Libya after Khadaffi. Now add nukes. Oh, and if you think Ukraine is full of peace loving folks you don't know much about Ukraine. It's one of the most corrupt countries on Earth and it's always been and always will be a piece of territory that is fought over. There is permanent solution for Ukraine because of geography and being very valuable and fertile land with no natural barriers sitting between multiple major powers.

There are already millions that are going to die because of this war and if it goes on another year it will be tens of millions. BTW, most of those who die won't be in Ukraine and in the battlefield, they will be poor people in poor countries that either starve or end up in a war of their own because of the lack of resources and inevitable conflict it will bring.

---

Ukraine is fighting a defensive war and has only expressed a desire for Russia to leave all of their territory and return to the boundaries pre-2014, as internationally recognized. They have not expressed an interest at all in marching to Moscow.

Russia started this. They need to lose it and get out.

Quote:

---

What is "full Ukrainian victory"? Does that mean Ukraine marches into Moscow? Does it mean that Russia withdraws from Ukraine completely? How about Crimea? Does it mean Putin stays in power? Depending on who you ask you will get different answers to that question.

---

I don't know that I would agree with the assertion that a "full Ukraine victory" is absolutely necessary, but, it seems unlikely that anything short of that is a possible end point so long as Putin is in control.

Going back to the occupation lines prior to February 24 is really not a viable solution for reasons that Musk understands (Crimea isn't viable as a stand alone territory because it depends on water from Ukraine), but for which he proposes something that no sovereign state would ever agree to (supplying the water necessary to enable the occupation of strategically important territory by an aggressive neighbor).

The naval base at Sebastopol is really a bit of a red herring; the Russians already had that under lease by treaty. The reason they want all of Crimea is that they want all the Black Sea coast, which would effectively give them control of Ukraine. Without access to the sea, Ukraine can't export wheat effectively. The Russians also want control of the gas fields in Eastern Ukraine--they can see that it would be all too easy for Ukraine to seize the Russian pipeline running through Ukraine and start using it to selling Ukrainian gas to current Russian customers once those Ukrainian fields start producing, or just build their own pipeline to compete with Russia.

Russia really has no legitimate interest that would be threatened by restoring the pre-2014 borders. Even the Russian speakers living in the Eastern provinces are not monolithically in favor of being placed under Russian rule for reasons that have become clear in the course of the war. Corrupt though the Ukraine government may be, the ethnic Russians have a better chance of influencing events in Kiev than they do in Moscow.

Zobel said:

---

But the question is precisely a military one. If you control Rostov-on-Don but not Crimea you only have a warm water port as long as someone else says you do.

The problem is Crimea is a zero sum game. It isn't as if it remains neutral. In addition to projection of power Russia needs Sevastopol for sea control, and part of that is the ability to deny it to its enemies. Whoever controls Crimea exerts control over Ukraine's main ports and primary export infrastructure. Ukraine controlling Sevastopol means not only does Ukraine cover their own, but gives them the same over Russia's key economic ports in Novorossiysk.

And it isn't just the port itself - there's also the aspect of area denial from the air as well, also swinging both ways.

Without Crimea Russia no longer has control over the Black Sea, which not only affects the Black Sea but changes the dynamic of their base in Syria. It is a linchpin in their ability to be a regional power.

A neutral Crimea is tolerable to Russia as long as the counter party is someone they feel is truly neutral or they can work with or control. A hostile Crimea isn't.

---

They have a lease for the naval base at Sebastopol. They don't need all of Crimea, and they certainly don't need and are not entitled to control of the Black Sea. Our NATO ally Turkey has no interest in seeing that happen.

As far as grand strategy goes, the stress this has put on the Dollar hegemony might be sufficient to collapse the global economy, which (IMO) was a major reason Putin timed it around the same time as BRICS solidified.

I truly believe much of this war or aggression was to attempt to have multiple entities overplay their hands, cause massive disruption, and allow for "helpful hands" to build it back up with a new/different economic solution, whether that's china's digital Yuan (social credit system), a DEI/ESG CBDC US Dollar, or a Bitcoin standard by default of efficiency.

The Ukrainian and Russian economies taking bitcoin and others as a means to success are proofs in the pudding.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/08/ukraine-legalizes-bitcoin-and-cryptocurrencies.html

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/russia-eyes-bitcoin-for-international-trade-in-2023%3A-report

We mentioned grand strategy in this thread and its a massive play against our economies, and economic disruption has created new opportunities that are being exploited. No need to get panties in a wad twk. I'm not looking to derail. And won't engage further on the topic.

This isn't a bitcoin discussion thread.

Elon needs to focus on space/car stuff.

I know he has his politics detractors now (primarily on the left), and while I assume he means well, this public move shows, again, that his ego is a bit unchecked right now. I just don't want him to get too cynical/frustrated/burnt out/become too controversial to be taken seriously about other stuff I care about.

Now, if he offers to personally pay Putin x billion dollars/doge coins etc. to just simmer down, and global energy prices can recede until poopy pants is no longer nominally president, awesome, but that's not what I saw as an offer.

If you're talking about negotiations you have to also try to put on your adversary's perspective.

A lease situation in Sevastopol is tolerable (but not ideal) as long as they have reasonable confidence in the reliability of their counterparty. That's why Ukraine drifting to the west prompted such a strong response.

What we think Russia needs and what they think they need aren't necessarily aligned. I'm not saying we should cede them control of the Black Sea. I'm saying they can't afford to lose their ability to control it. Part of sea control from a doctrinal standpoint is not only securing it for your purposes, but also denying it to your enemies. Russia views NATO as an enemy and the Black Sea as critical geography; therefore they cannot lose their ability to control it because that de facto gives NATO the ability to deny it to them.

"He started a conversation"....thats what is so important these days.


In all honesty, it seems like his idea is, as pointed out, a non-starter for many reason but at least someone is coming out w/ ideas that don't involve $$Billions$$....wish our administration would have some suggestions beyond sending the money I earn to a war that may never end....