For me it's support Ukraine, support Israel (and support Taiwan). In both cases we are supporting democratically elected governments against non-democratic terrorist entities. In both case we are only being asked for weapons and financing, but the causes are just and the people who are fighting them are willing to shed their own blood.

This is much better than what we did in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan where we used our military force. Ultimately these became imperial wars whereas Ukraine and Israel are not.

I think that's the key. It's both moral and practical. The practicality is that it is much cheaper (in the largest sense of the word) to supply money than it is to supply people. Proxy wars have been around for over 3,000 years and probably longer. There's a reason ...

bbauska wrote:I would hope that other people on Redscape would say what their position is concerning support for countries and declarations of war. Let me know what you would do concerning Ukraine and Israel. Also explain the differences if any?

War is horrible, but I do support UKR in their fight against the Russian invasion. There are many, many good reasons to support UKR from it's the right thing, to Real Politic reasons. The down side is the substantial cost, which should not be dismissed, but I think is outweighed by the benefits to the national interest.

I don't think Israel's case is as clear. First, it's asymmetric. How much material help do they need to fight these terrorists? Israel is vastly more powerful and it's not clear how much support they actually need. Second, Israel is not a developing nation. Third, there are no front lines, they are trying to pry out terrorists in a city with mostly innocent people. How does material support help that cause? Or more specifically, how does material support help that cause while minimizing or eliminating injuries to children? I don't think we have a clear answer to that question. I readily admit that I find the mess in Israel too disturbing. It's hard for me to discuss rationally.

Ukraine is not a developing nation, either.

As for the Hamas elected region of Gaza, I see that they brought this upon themselves. The terrorist attack on Israel NEEDS response so it NEVER happens again. The people of Gaza voted for this terrorist group, and are getting the fruits of such election. I "feel" bad for them, but it is not a surprise.

The Israeli government offered to let anyone come through checkpoints and into camps. HAMAS was the entity prohibiting travel. If anyone who wishes to leave and be identified exiting should be fine. That is unless you are a terrorist. You would get nabbed at the border and dealt with properly.

Has Hamas released hostages? Let me re-phrase... INNOCENT HOSTAGES? Emphatically NO.. They have not.

Who is the bad guy there, anyway?

I see Putin and Hamas on the same side as the aggressor. Shame on them. I hope they all get what they deserve.

Yeah, I'm kind of in the same boat as George. Hamas v Israel is clear-cut to me in favor of Israel. But Palestinian civilians--especially innocent children--getting caught in the cross-fire...I guess I have a hard time assessing what's right. What's necessary for Israel's self-defense, whether the civilian casualties are unavoidable, whether other tactics could be used..Just unknowns there. "I readily admit that I find the mess in Israel too disturbing. It's hard for me to discuss rationally." Yep.

I have to admit, my initial reaction to condemnation of what was going on in Gaza by leftists/young people was that they were being one-sided and naive, that Israel has a right to protect itself, that they were being manipulated by Hamas. But I'm starting to wonder whether Israel has lost its way here...

https://twitter.com/amanpour/status/175 ... r=amanpour

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/01 ... -intl-cmd/

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2 ... e-children

Still hopeful for a 2 state solution that will allow Palestinians to put their energy and focus into developing a new state rather than in eternal conflict with Israel, which is neither good for them nor Israel.

freeman3 wrote:Still hopeful for a 2 state solution that will allow Palestinians to put their energy and focus into developing a new state rather than in eternal conflict with Israel, which is neither good for them nor Israel.

Fine with a two state solution, except I would like to know what Israel should do if rocket fire comes from this "second state"? Is that a declaration of war, considering Gaza is Hamas and Hamas is Gaza? Politically it became one in the same when Hamas was elected.

If rockets were launched, in my mind it is a declaration of war from one nation to another, and retribution is valid and should be expected.

Well, theres not much point in a 2 state solution if that were to continue to happen. The point is peace which the Palestinians would have to be willing to accept. Clearly, as yet, they haven't been willing to accept it. But hopefully they will (and hopefully Israel is willing to accept a 2 state solution.). That's a lot of hopes.

bbauska wrote:Ukraine is not a developing nation, either.

"According to the definition from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Ukraine is a developing country because of its lower economic performance."

https://www.worlddata.info/europe/ukraine/index.php#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20definition%20from,the%20lower%20middle%2Dincome%20countries.

freeman3 wrote:Well, theres not much point in a 2 state solution if that were to continue to happen. The point is peace which the Palestinians would have to be willing to accept. Clearly, as yet, they haven't been willing to accept it. But hopefully they will (and hopefully Israel is willing to accept a 2 state solution.). That's a lot of hopes.

I'm done with a 2-state solution. I had been a proponent of a 2-state solution for 50 years. People who purposefully burn babies, take them hostage, rape women while they crush their bones, mutilate their breasts and genitals, parade the fact on social media, brag about it to their parents, cheer it on in the streets as the raped women are paraded about, etc. are not eligible for a state of their own. They certainly won't be given the chance to do it ever again. All surveys show that over 70% of Palestinians support these actions.

This is a sick society nurtured by the UN for 4 generations and 75 years. Their children are trained to hate and there doesn't seem to be any going back. The Arab and Muslim world refuses to take them in. We have to defend ourselves and owe them nothing. They are not redeemable.

Still don't know how UKR is going to end.

geojanes wrote:Still don't know how UKR is going to end.

The current trajectory is that Trump is elected and Ukraine is in a position where they have to accept a deal that will hopefully not cede territory permanently ...

Some of the old sweats on this site might remember me. I used to post pretty often...hell...is it 13 years ago now? Great Heavens! I used to get into it with ricky and Minister X and GMTom and Mach. Those were the days.

I also used to live and work in Russia. That chapter of my life has closed but I retain the memories and experience.

One thing to understand is that Russia's tolerance for conflict is much higher than the West's right now. They aren't afraid to use everything just short of triggering Article 5 to get their way. Assassins, special forces blowing up ammo dumps in NATO countries (already happened pre-invasion), cyber attacks...all valid and cherished tools from Vova's toolbox. Ratcheting up our own willingness to hit back harder is the one thing that will bring the Russians to the bargaining table in good faith. Just plain diplomacy and dialogue doesn't cut it with Russians, they see that as weakness.

Comparing the two candidate's platforms on Russia/Ukraine is frustrating. Harris wants to maintain the status quo of support for Ukraine which is better than nothing but doesn't go far enough and ensures a prolonged struggle and billions spent. Trump's platform is nebulous; he promises a quick solution but is short on details of how he would do it. If Trump's plan involves making any concessions or ceding of territory to Russia, that will guarantee more bad behavior from Russia in the future. Neither candidate is willing to to reveal too much because this issue is a loser at the ballot box. Neither wants to address the issue head on. How does this end? What's the best case scenario of an off-ramp?

The Ukrainians are forcing the issue into the media with the Kursk incursion. It won't be long until someone asks Harris and Trump, "Hey, what about this attack into Russian sovereign territory?" and they'll have to endorse it or condemn it or look stupid.

Seems very familiar.Only 77 of your posts came up. Center-right worked for the government? State dept? There was someone like that here, I think. Just not sure that was you.

Anyway, the Kursk incursion was a brilliant move by Ukraine--they had to do something to switch things up--a war of attrition favors Russia. Making Russians directly feel the cost of war stirs things up and might help Ukraine's negotiating position.

I don't think Putin will accept anything less than Ukraine not being in NATO and some territory. With all the sacrifices he needs a win.

China is another wild-card. They just reiterated three principles" for de-escalating the situation: "no expansion of the battlefield, no escalation of fighting, and no fueling the flame." They said this since almost the beginning. They've also helped to keep Russia afloat economically. But at some point will they make a decision to put more pressure on Russia because they feel the situation is getting out of control and supporting Russia no longer suits their interests (concerns about an escalating war perhaps outweighing their desire for freedom of movement with regard Taiwan, which they see as analogous to Ukraine).

Clearly, Trump is a puppet of Russia and under their control. He's acted that way with regard to policy on Ukraine, not supporting NATO, etc. ,there is the trip to Russia in 1987 where Trump came back spent and spent$100,000 on ads decrying the US spending money on overseas bases and Trump started to get involved politically--looks like classic KGB "soft" recruitment of Westerners- (not agents but whom they could control through financial means, dirt, etc--), financial connections through Deutsche Bank, selling condos to Russians,etc. So if Trump is elected that would not just be bad just for Ukraine but could destabilize all of Europe. Without the US propping up NATO who will deter Russia? Or will Russia undermine/coopt weaker European states?

I suspect Harris would continue Biden's policy but I wouldn't expect her to be aggressive. She doesn't have a background in foreign policy and I think she'll be cautious as a result.

Obviously, we would like to make the conflict so costly for Russia they will agree to a deal that is acceptable to us/Ukraine without unduly risking escalation. If Harris is elected and she has enough support in Congress hopefully they'll give Ukraine enough weaponry/freedom to use that Russia will be forced to come to the table. That's the hope, anyway.

Good to hear from you! We truly did have a lot of great discussions here back in the day.

Addendum: It is mysterious as to why the West has been so passive with regard to Russian interference in their politics: Trump, hacking of emails in 2016 favorable to Trump and probably other interference, corruption of other US elected officials, Brexit (weakening NATO), support of the far-right in Italy and France and corruption of German politicians (Angela Merkel, et al.) It's another Cold War that has gone unnoticed....