Despite Western sanctions, Russian ruble and banks are recovering

[homersapien 11,362]

24 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Another lib trying to twist the meaning of my words.  Your quote is out of context as I was referring to Biden not being aggressive enough to STOP the invasion, not for the invasion.  Words matter

 

Speaking of words, you need to explain the distinction between faulting Biden for  not "STOPPING" the invasion while not holding him blameless for the invasion, at least indirectly.

I don't see a lot of distinction there.

[I_M4_AU 7,796]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Speaking of words, you need to explain the distinction between faulting Biden for  not "STOPPING" the invasion while not holding him blameless for the invasion, at least indirectly.

I don't see a lot of distinction there.

Biden had opportunities to diplomatically stop the invasion before it happened, but to no avail.  Once Russia invaded, it was Putin’s war and Biden had little to do with the result.

I hope this helps.

[homersapien 11,362]

15 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Biden had opportunities to diplomatically stop the invasion before it happened, but to no avail.  Once Russia invaded, it was Putin’s war and Biden had little to do with the result.

I hope this helps.

How?  What could Biden have done "diplomatically" to stop the invasion?

While I can think of a few things Trump might have done and I can think of some things Obama might - and should have - done, but Biden, not so much.  So please tell.

[Leftfield 2,593]

19 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Please show me where I stated *definitely* by posting troops on the boarder then Putin wouldn’t have invaded.  It appears your board name is well deserved.

Just a few posts above this, you state: 

On 4/1/2022 at 1:18 PM, I_M4_AU said:

 Putin’s first reaction would not have been to invade Ukraine, but probably wanting to talk to Biden.

Am I misunderstanding, or are you misstating, your position? Because I'm certainly not misrepresenting.

As for staying out of Ukraine, you argued against that in another thread. Your position was that not going in only emboldens Putin, and that Biden is a coward and gullible for believing Putin's nuclear threats. Haven't finished my coffee so I'm too lazy to go digging for it right now.

[I_M4_AU 7,796]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Just a few posts above this, you state: 

Am I misunderstanding, or are you misstating, your position? Because I'm certainly not misrepresenting.

As for staying out of Ukraine, you argued against that in another thread. Your position was that not going in only emboldens Putin, and that Biden is a coward and gullible for believing Putin's nuclear threats. Haven't finished my coffee so I'm too lazy to go digging for it right now.

Do you think Putin would have invaded Ukraine when he only had, say, 80,000 troops on the Ukraine boarder?  So if Biden were to put troops in Poland when Russia had only a fraction of troops he was eventually going to use to invade, do you think he would have immediately invaded?  Or do you think he would want to talk to Biden to see what was going on?  I believe it would force talks in earnest instead of sitting back and letting Putin complete his planned attack.

As to the other thread, I did say Biden is being overly cautious (being cowardly) in believing Putin’s threats and that he should press the envelope until Putin reacted (again, I don’t think Putin would actually use nuclear weapons) and not let Putin have free reign in Ukraine without giving the Ukrainians weapons to bring the fight to Russia.   I tried to make it clear I did not want U.S. boots on the ground over there.  I think America/NATO could have pressed harder without triggering Putin.  Of course, that was weeks ago and now Zelenskyy is saying he will not give concessions to Russia.  They must get out unconditionally.

The longer this goes on, the more dangerous the situation is becoming.

Also realize the actions I was talking about was before the invasion which is a distinction some do not realize.  I wouldn’t want to guess what NATO/U.S. would do if Putin did use chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine.  That would be the way I think Putin would go if he feels cornered.

Did you see that the Pentagon first delayed a scheduled ICBM test because we didn’t want Russia upset and then cancelled the test altogether?  What message does that send?

[Leftfield 2,593]

30 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Do you think Putin would have invaded Ukraine when he only had, say, 80,000 troops on the Ukraine boarder?  So if Biden were to put troops in Poland when Russia had only a fraction of troops he was eventually going to use to invade, do you think he would have immediately invaded?  Or do you think he would want to talk to Biden to see what was going on?  I believe it would force talks in earnest instead of sitting back and letting Putin complete his planned attack.

Assuming Biden received permission to put troops in Poland, which I highly doubt (again, most countries thought Putin wouldn't invade), I don't really know if Putin would have invaded immediately, but I do believe he would have invaded at some point. The problem, as homer mentioned, is that Putin would have used our buildup as further evidence of western aggression. As difficult as it is to get China on our side or at least neutral, we would have had absolutely no shot at that point, and both Russia and China would have used that around the world as proof of our "imperialist" intentions. 

Delaying the ICBM test sends the same message - we will not escalate the situation unless absolutely necessary. You can call that a coward move, and certainly it sucks for Ukraine, but I call it playing the long game. So far Putin has looked worse and worse every day in this war. His support is eroding, both inside and outside of Russia, as the truth emerges of what's going on. If Putin is removed from power by the Russian people, that makes the situation drastically better for us, and potentially Ukraine, than if we remove him by force or heavy influence. Either of the latter causes enormous resentment on the part of Russia and countries hostile to us. That resentment lingers for generations, and would translate to Ukraine in many respects. 

[I_M4_AU 7,796]

40 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You can call that a coward move

I do, but it is what it is. I’m glad I don’t have to make those type of decisions and so are you.  Glad I don’t make those decisions I mean.

42 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

If Putin is removed from power by the Russian people, that makes the situation drastically better for us, and potentially Ukraine, than if we remove him by force or heavy influence. Either of the latter causes enormous resentment on the part of Russia and countries hostile to us. That resentment lingers for generations, and would translate to Ukraine in many respects. 

Putin only has his loyalist around him now.  I am not sure he will be removed by the Russian people, but it could happen.  Who, then would fill the void in power?  The devil you know or the devil you don’t.

The best way out is to have Ukraine capitulate to save face for Russia, otherwise it’s going to get ugly.

46 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

The problem, as homer mentioned, is that Putin would have used our buildup as further evidence of western aggression.

This is baked into the cake.  They and China will always do this.

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

Under Obama-Biden during the 1st partial Russian invasion of Ukraine  they provided helmets, medical supplies, etc. but no defensive weaponry. Under Trump defensive weaponry was provided to Ukraine and that is partly why Ukraine was able to slow down the invasion. Before somebody brings up the fact that he delayed the aid because of the Hunter Biden issue whether delayed or not we actually gave military defensive weapons. When Russians were building up forces in Belarus and on Russian border near Ukraine Biden did a good job with intelligence on the False Flag narrative.  At the same time he could have and should have been providing the defensive weaponry in quantity before the invasion. All the blame can't be placed on Biden but certain things he and Europe has done made it appear to the Russians that it would be easy and quick.  The weak way we left Afghanistan was like putting blood in the water around sharks. Leaving Afghanistan was the correct decision Trump also was for it but the way it was done was the problem. It also caught a lot of our fellow countries in Afghanistan off guard and hurt our ability to work with them.

The Europeans going all in on Green including shutting down Nuclear plants so they were reliant on Russian Energy and Russia had income coming in to finance the invasion.  Biden's hurting the energy industry in the US with regulations stopping or delaying Pipe Lines and new energy leases. Impact on creating LNG Facilities and shipping centers. This energy Policy prevented us from being in a position to help Europe when invasion started. No energy is green each has some cost to the environment but Wind and Solar are cleaner then fossil fuels even Gas with our environmental controls, but until enough Green is available including cheap long term energy storage for when sun isn't shining and wind isn't blowing we will have to use the cleanest fossil fuel gas as a stop gap. If we are going to use it then it should be done in places with strict environmental controls not in Countries like Russia.   10 or 15 years ago Europe was producing more natural gas then Russia as they were fracking with tight environmental standards as opposed to where they are currently getting their gas.  

NATO is more unified then it has been for a long time some people give Biden credit for that but i believe it was the Russian invasion of Ukraine that caused the impetus. Trump was caustic in trying to get the Europeans especially the German's to live up the the 2% requirement for defense budget. At least he pushed it when previous Presidents of both parties did not.  Biden did not push it when he came into office. After Russian invasion even Germany says they are increasing defense budget and will adhere to the 2%.

A better armed Ukraine before the invasion, less reliance on Russian oil and Gas, a more militarily prepared force in each of the NATO countries probably would have given Russia pause but even if they still invaded the amount of damage a well armed Ukrainian  Military would have done up front might have stopped them in their tracks.

 

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,362]

On 4/3/2022 at 12:58 PM, I_M4_AU said:

Did you see that the Pentagon first delayed a scheduled ICBM test because we didn’t want Russia upset and then cancelled the test altogether?  What message does that send?

Wow, what a classical "begging the question" fallacy. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by homersapien