American Politics Discussion Thread

[greenline]

The most likely outcome is that absolutely nothing of note will change.

Alot of this is just theatre.

I thought Trump 47 was going to be this too at first, a lot of sound and no fury. But once the mass firings kicked off, I'm convinced that when he says he'll axe the Ukraine funding if Zelensky pisses him off, he means it.

[Charr Babies]

I mean I get simple logic of "there is no evidence Russia was threatened because they have nukes" is really hard to understand. Or "see troop deployment actions on NATO border since start of war to easily disprove they don't actually fear NATO".

Not hard to understand if you are willful. Just answer why the US was willing to go all out with Russia, what is the Cuban Missile Crisis. Why was the US scared shitless when Russia send a couple of nuke there. 

Yes, you are hearing that all the people doom speaking are wrong. Russia is not nuking over Ukraine or starting a war with Europe / the US over it. And yes if you let them threaten you this time, there is a good chance they are going to threaten you to get what they want another. This is very simple geopolitics / game theory. If you always give someone what they want because they threaten "GIVE ME WHAT I WANT OR I WILL NUKE YOU" they will probably keep doing it. If they haven't nuked you any of the other times you've "crossed a red line" sure they could this time. On the escalation ladder we are already pretty far, so if we keep doing what we have been doing (giving a wide variety of aid) what makes you think they would now? Russia has brought in foreign troops and that is probably the next serious step on the escalation ladder and they crossed it first. I don't think other than once treaty is signed, peace keeper from EU / NATO are likely mind you.

Sorry, wrong. US expansion caused the war. Stop being a condom and you won't get fuck'd.
Wake the fuck up and stop letting the US use you for a proxy war.

Exit strategy is yes to cause enough death that Russia will accept that Ukraine doesn't want to be invaded again and give in to let them have more serious security guarantees. As long as Ukraine gets security guarantees I believe it will make peace, but those are essential to it and Russia atm won't agree to those. How do you get Russia to agree to those? Again, you tend to focus just on the Ukraine side of the peace agreement, but there are two sides and both have to agree to peace. War is essentially aggressive diplomacy and slowly two sides move towards what is acceptable.

Easy to say when you are playing armchair general. No skin off your ass if more Europeans and Russia die. What's on Netflix tonight?

I believe they will keep fighting because for them 70% with security guarantees is better than 80% with none. Would you make peace if you just thought Russia would just come back again? No. Again from a long term future for your country both from people being willing to live in your country and businesses being willing to invest you need strong guarantees. Also, Russia has a habit of reinvading countries, so do you demobilize and stop foreign aid now so Russia can come back when its rearmed and you are weaker? OR do you keep fighting and hope to get the security guarantees. From a Ukrainian perspective, you can see why its pretty essential. So yes I think Ukraine will fight for at least few more years before they accept peace without those and I think its easy to understand why.

Wrong, US has a habit of invading other countries, on top of overthrowing governments. Care to put up a list where Russia has invaded as well as war crimes it has committed? Now, do the same with the US have have a good laugh at who is the lesser evil. Don't be a pawn. Show some backbone. EU should very much build up defensive capability so they don't get fucked by the US.

The amount Trump demands the EU to raise their protection fees to 5% is roughly equivalent to the US military budget. The EU could use that to rival the US. Don't be a condom.

I believe Ukraine would 100% accept a peace that gives security guarantees. And to be clear the mineral deal as currently presented is NOT a peace treaty with Russia. Nor does it have security guarantees atm. That isn't to say they might not still sign to try to get more aid later, but its not "sign mineral deal = peace". I think Ukraine would take a peace deal where THEY keep 80% of their land. There is a lot of difference between being bound to Europe and being bound to Russia. 

There is no guarantee the EU can give that is better than Trump's mineral deal. 
The mineral deal gives the US legit reasons to put boots/workers on the ground to work/protect its interest. Just like I mentioned about ethnic cleansing Gaza, suddenly the entire Middle East is national security.

[Mjmd]

I'm going to take this in pieces and do multiple posts.

Charr Babies

I mean I get simple logic of "there is no evidence Russia was threatened because they have nukes" is really hard to understand. Or "see troop deployment actions on NATO border since start of war to easily disprove they don't actually fear NATO".

Not hard to understand if you are willful. Just answer why the US was willing to go all out with Russia, what is the Cuban Missile Crisis. Why was the US scared shitless when Russia send a couple of nuke there. 

Yes, you are hearing that all the people doom speaking are wrong. Russia is not nuking over Ukraine or starting a war with Europe / the US over it. And yes if you let them threaten you this time, there is a good chance they are going to threaten you to get what they want another. This is very simple geopolitics / game theory. If you always give someone what they want because they threaten "GIVE ME WHAT I WANT OR I WILL NUKE YOU" they will probably keep doing it. If they haven't nuked you any of the other times you've "crossed a red line" sure they could this time. On the escalation ladder we are already pretty far, so if we keep doing what we have been doing (giving a wide variety of aid) what makes you think they would now? Russia has brought in foreign troops and that is probably the next serious step on the escalation ladder and they crossed it first. I don't think other than once treaty is signed, peace keeper from EU / NATO are likely mind you.

Sorry, wrong. US expansion caused the war. Stop being a condom and you won't get fuck'd.
Wake the fuck up and stop letting the US use you for a proxy war.

As I've gone over about FIVE times now. 1) Technology makes where nukes are no longer matter. The tech situation during Cuban missile crisis isn't even remotely similar. Now nukes can reach anywhere in the world and their are nuke armed subs probably off everyones borders (a very comforting thought). 2) There is a vast difference between nukes going in and nukes COULD go in. There was 0 proof nukes would have been put in Ukraine. 

Ukraine WANTING and WILLINGLY wanting to join NATO is NOT a justification for war morally. Again, geopolitically I can understand why Russia tried, but geopolitically AND morally we shouldn't let them. It is a proxy war, but Ukraine is willing to fight it so they won't be controlled by Russia. That is their choice (which also answers the next part of your statement).

[Mjmd]

Charr Babies

Wrong, US has a habit of invading other countries, on top of overthrowing governments. Care to put up a list where Russia has invaded as well as war crimes it has committed? Now, do the same with the US have have a good laugh at who is the lesser evil. Don't be a pawn. Show some backbone. EU should very much build up defensive capability so they don't get fucked by the US.

The amount Trump demands the EU to raise their protection fees to 5% is roughly equivalent to the US military budget. The EU could use that to rival the US. Don't be a condom.

I believe Ukraine would 100% accept a peace that gives security guarantees. And to be clear the mineral deal as currently presented is NOT a peace treaty with Russia. Nor does it have security guarantees atm. That isn't to say they might not still sign to try to get more aid later, but its not "sign mineral deal = peace". I think Ukraine would take a peace deal where THEY keep 80% of their land. There is a lot of difference between being bound to Europe and being bound to Russia. 

There is no guarantee the EU can give that is better than Trump's mineral deal. 
The mineral deal gives the US legit reasons to put boots/workers on the ground to work/protect its interest. Just like I mentioned about ethnic cleansing Gaza, suddenly the entire Middle East is national security.

Heh look logically fallacy America bad distraction is here! As a reminder this conversation is about RUSSIA AND UKRAINE. As for what Russia has done, will you believe any of it? Seems unlikely. However, I can tell you Ukraine did try (/ is trying) to choose which side to be on. Mind you I suspect a large part of that is some of the things Russia did happened to Ukraine while they were controlled by them. 

He is demanding they raise their defense spending. Protection fee would be them paying us (which ironically the amount they are paying us via weapon buying is likely to go down; see defense contractor stock prices US vs EU since Vance speech over in EU). While total spending could rival the US they won't be equal to (even if adjusted PPP although even at 2% its close), but neither do they need to. They just need to be have capabilities to defeat Russia, which is an easier ask.

Again, mineral deal does not equal peace treaty. If tomorrow they sign it it will not end the war. Again, I admitted they might in order to give us an interest in protecting them. I don't disagree with that. It isn't a firm security guarantee though. Its a "maybe we will". That is a lot to bet future of a country on. I would rather have NATO and EU membership as well as EU peace keepers in a demilitarized zone if I'm giving up territory and not getting war reparations from country who attacked me and will probably want to again.

[Charr Babies]

As I've gone over about FIVE times now. 1) Technology makes where nukes are no longer matter. The tech situation during Cuban missile crisis isn't even remotely similar. Now nukes can reach anywhere in the world and their are nuke armed subs probably off everyones borders (a very comforting thought). 2) There is a vast difference between nukes going in and nukes COULD go in. There was 0 proof nukes would have been put in Ukraine. 
Ukraine WANTING and WILLINGLY wanting to join NATO is NOT a justification for war morally. Again, geopolitically I can understand why Russia tried, but geopolitically AND morally we shouldn't let them. It is a proxy war, but Ukraine is willing to fight it so they won't be controlled by Russia. That is their choice (which also answers the next part of your statement).

Again, I feel bad for Ukraine, the almost innocent bystander, a condom. Blame it on US aggression! 

I know things are little hard for an armchair general to understand real military matters, but a little critical thinking goes a long way.

What technology makes it irrelevant where nukes are installed? Please tell. 
By your "logic", are they all wasting money and effort to developed various missile defenses systems against missiles from different range and speed? 
By your "logic", it makes no difference if you have 5 minutes or hours of warning.    
By your "logic", since there are nuke near you, it makes no difference if there are more, within 5 minutes range, to overwhelm the defense system. 
By your "logic", if it makes no difference where nukes are, we could save a lot of money, resources, and effort by disarming all existing nukes and mutually agreeing to install them right inside each other's strategically selected enemy territories. 

That would save a lot of rocket fuel, making nuclear wars environmentally friendly. A win-win.

[Charr Babies]

Again, mineral deal does not equal peace treaty. If tomorrow they sign it it will not end the war.

Yada Yada Yada.

Again. 

There is no guarantee the EU can give that is better than Trump's mineral deal.

[Mjmd]

As I've gone over about FIVE times now. 1) Technology makes where nukes are no longer matter. The tech situation during Cuban missile crisis isn't even remotely similar. Now nukes can reach anywhere in the world and their are nuke armed subs probably off everyones borders (a very comforting thought). 2) There is a vast difference between nukes going in and nukes COULD go in. There was 0 proof nukes would have been put in Ukraine. 
Ukraine WANTING and WILLINGLY wanting to join NATO is NOT a justification for war morally. Again, geopolitically I can understand why Russia tried, but geopolitically AND morally we shouldn't let them. It is a proxy war, but Ukraine is willing to fight it so they won't be controlled by Russia. That is their choice (which also answers the next part of your statement).

Again, I feel bad for Ukraine, the almost innocent bystander, a condom. Blame it on US aggression! 

What technology makes it irrelevant where nukes are installed? Please tell. 
By your "logic", are they all wasting money and effort to developed various missile defenses systems against missiles from different range and speed? 
By your "logic", it makes no difference if you have 5 minutes or hours of warning.    
By your "logic", since there are nuke near you, it makes no difference if there are more, within 5 minutes range, to overwhelm the defense system. 
By your "logic", if it makes no difference where nukes are, we could save a lot of money, resources, and effort by disarming all existing nukes and mutually agreeing to install them right inside each other's strategically selected enemy territories. 

That would save a lot of rocket fuel, making nuclear wars environmentally friendly. A win-win.

Again, you have no proof of US aggression. It was just a country wanting to join a DEFENSIVE alliance (which as stated their 100% is proof Russia does not consider a threat via actual troop and material deployments). There also wasn't any proof nukes would even have gone in!!! (something you keep ignoring). You just want to believe America to blame for everything. Sometimes we aren't. It is possible. 

- It actually really is pointless to try to build an "iron dome" for the US. It is such a waste of money. You can maybe protect a couple major cities for oodles and oodles of cost, but there is a reason most of nuclear theory is around mutual destruction (its much cheaper). There are a lot of technical issues to try to stop incoming especially if countries do more on multiple nukes per missile. And obviously any defense system even with a single warhead per missile can be overwhelmed and even a a couple nuke hits out of many getting through means the target is destroyed. So ya nuke defense is pretty pointless. It just makes the civilians feel better. Just practice duck and cover for the same effect and less cost.
- Pretty much only matters for getting your own counterstrike off. Again, with nuclear subs it really doesn't matter (and again no proof they would have been) as that is kind of their job to guarantee a counterstrike along with being anywhere.
- Again, pretty impossible to defend.
- I think this falls under slippery slope. There are some obvious maintenance and trust us we won't steal them issues with this. I would love some more nuclear de-armament though.

I feel like in general you might need to look into the technical aspects and game theory around nuclear weapons as you seem to think defense is possible.

[Mjmd]

Again, mineral deal does not equal peace treaty. If tomorrow they sign it it will not end the war.

Yada Yada Yada.

Again. 

There is no guarantee the EU can give that is better than Trump's mineral deal.

I like how you yada yada facts. Am I wrong. Does that deal stop the war?

The deal guarantees $0 aid. We might, but how much and when? So ya its pretty easy for the EU to beat that. They have to provide something and now. Edit: and again Ukraine might do both. Its not mutual exclusive.

[Charr Babies]

Again, you have no proof of US aggression. It was just a country wanting to join a DEFENSIVE alliance (which as stated their 100% is proof Russia does not consider a threat via actual troop and material deployments). There also wasn't any proof nukes would even have gone in!!! (something you keep ignoring). 

There are at least five NATO countries with nukes pointing at Russia. Why not Ukraine, when and if? And don't try to steer away from the fact that it's not just nukes we have to worry about when you have full-power enemy military bases minutes away. We can decommission the 800+ military bases and save a trillion. Yes, I keep ignoring it because it is such a stupid question. That's when you get Yada Yada Yada. 

Anyone who is not prejudice can easily see it is US(NATO) aggression. Whether you agree Russia should feel threatened matter to no one who matters. Even the Trump (administration) has hinted at how the previous regime, from Clinton to bloody jo is responsible. 

Here's a recent video US NATO RUSSIA 101 - Jeffrey Sachs at European Parliament. It doesn't matter you deny everything the guy says. I am not interested to debate against willful ignorance.

- It actually really is pointless to try to build an "iron dome" for the US. It is such a waste of money. You can maybe protect a couple major cities for oodles and oodles of cost, but there is a reason most of nuclear theory is around mutual destruction (its much cheaper). There are a lot of technical issues to try to stop incoming especially if countries do more on multiple nukes per missile. And obviously any defense system even with a single warhead per missile can be overwhelmed and even a a couple nuke hits out of many getting through means the target is destroyed. So ya nuke defense is pretty pointless. It just makes the civilians feel better. Just practice duck and cover for the same effect and less cost.
- Pretty much only matters for getting your own counterstrike off. Again, with nuclear subs it really doesn't matter (and again no proof they would have been) as that is kind of their job to guarantee a counterstrike along with being anywhere.
- Again, pretty impossible to defend.
- I think this falls under slippery slope. There are some obvious maintenance and trust us we won't steal them issues with this. I would love some more nuclear de-armament though.

Sorry, I'm not buying your logic or lack thereof. I am not an armchair general so we don't share the same kind of logic. Maybe you can sell it to your government. You may even get a Nobel.  And don't try to steer away from the fact that it's not just nukes we have to worry about when you have full-power enemy military bases minutes away.

I feel like in general you might need to look into the technical aspects and game theory around nuclear weapons as you seem to think defense is possible.

OMG, I am barely literate, and now you're bluffing me with your Game Theory!? Toss those books aside. We're in a revolution, or at least a revolutionary reform. But I know who understands game theory—probably most, if not all, leaders. If they all know politics and game theory, there would be no missteps, no hot or cold war. We all live in peace. 

I like how you yada yada facts. Am I wrong. Does that deal stop the war?

Yes I love it. Yada Yada Yada away with strawmen and red herrings. The point is - There is no guarantee the EU can give that is better than Trump's mineral deal.

[Mjmd]

Ah the indisputable logic of "well they could". Not a justification for war (not morally). You can justify literally anything with this logic and its not the first time this logic has been used for invasions! Honest guys its in self defense is practically the Roman expansion moto. You'll note we don't' have nukes in ALL NATO countries; its just 5 and none in the former eastern bloc. And about those fierce NATO military bases on Russia's border. Ya Russia personnel and equipment have been redeployed away from them. Come on its part of my logical proof that Russia ISN'T seriously concerned about NATO. You can see them NOT defending that border. Again, conventional full scale military invasions against a nuclear armed state aren't a thing.

Ukraine WILLINGLY joining a defensive alliance. Aggression. Russia INVADING a country. Not aggression. YOUR LOGIC IS TOO POWERFRUL!!!! Trump blames Biden for everything regardless if its true or false, so Trump blaming Biden isn't really proof.

1.5 hour video will have to watch tomorrow. Is there a specific part you are referencing.

I mean its not hard logic. The Israeli iron dome gets to cover a small area against non ballistic missiles with a single warhead with a good success rate of 90% (according to Israel). When you are dealing with conventional missiles, its not ideal to let 1/10 through, but you aren't losing an entire city like with a nuke......

I did not call you barely literate. I just stated that it seemed like you didn't know nukes can't be defended against. You also seem to think giving into someone every time they say "do this or else I nuke" is a valid geopolitical viewpoint. Past those fairly simple points I don't claim to know much either. Its a complicated, fascinating, and horrifying field of thought on which many papers have been written. 

Again, you seem to be missing the mineral deal is not mutually exclusive with the EU also doing something. Both things can happen. And ya it won't stop the war, which you seem to be implying. I will argue again its not hard for the EU to do better. They have promised more aid since Friday, but haven't made it official, but again assuming its some amount of aid and soon it is better than an unknown amount at an unknown time. Again, Ukraine may still do the mineral deal as well to maybe get US to do future aid.