Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Russia - Ukraine “peace negotiations”

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 145K
  • Politics 
Calheel said:
I think you are vastly overstating here. The US did not give weapons to Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968. We were fine fomenting dissent, but we never took the step of sending US weapons to Eastern Bloc countries. The idea that any American president would arm a country on the border of Russia would have been a complete non-starter until this millennium.
Click to expand...
World of difference in Russia in 2022-25 compared to the Soviet Union in 1956 or 1968.

World of difference between Ukraine in 2022 and Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.

It was called the Iron Curtain for good reasons.

For all real purposes, the Warsaw Pact “nations” were subsets of the Soviet Union in ‘56 and ‘68.

In 2022-25, Ukraine is an independent nation.
 
Zoo_View said:
World of difference in Russia in 2022-25 compared to the Soviet Union in 1956 or 1968.

World of difference between Ukraine in 2022 and Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.

It was called the Iron Curtain for good reasons.

For all real purposes, the Warsaw Pact “nations” were subsets of the Soviet Union in ‘56 and ‘68.

In 2022-25, Ukraine is an independent nation.
Click to expand...
Sure. But Russia still has nukes. We just don’t see them as the same threat we did during the Cold War.

But my point remains that no US President has felt comfortable arming former Soviet/Eastern Bloc countries with offensive weapons to target Russia.

I think Cford was envisioning a more muscular foreign policy against Russia than what has ever existed.
 
Calheel said:
I think you are vastly overstating here. The US did not give weapons to Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968. We were fine fomenting dissent, but we never took the step of sending US weapons to Eastern Bloc countries. The idea that any American president would arm a country on the border of Russia would have been a complete non-starter until this millennium.
Click to expand...
We armed the mujahideen. Afghanistan was absolutely on the border of the Soviet Union.
 
CRHeel94 said:
Russia would have never invaded Ukraine under Reagan. He would have bared his fangs the moment the Russians showed signs of aggression.
Click to expand...
The Soviet Union OWNED Ukraine when Reagan was POTUS.

Let’s not pretend that Reagan was this colossus striding the global stage in the ‘80’s. The Soviet Union was cratering due to its economic system and decades of American and NATO opposition. Reagan continued decades of American policy.

If Reagan was such a badass, why was his reaction to the Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon basically a shoulder shrug?
 
Calheel said:
Sure. But Russia still has nukes. We just don’t see them as the same threat we did during the Cold War.

But my point remains that no US President has felt comfortable arming former Soviet/Eastern Bloc countries with offensive weapons to target Russia.

I think Cford was envisioning a more muscular foreign policy against Russia than what has ever existed.
Click to expand...
Yeah,. Entirely possible that I was. Like I said, you and several other older posters on here are probably way more knowledgeable about it than I am because you guys grew up in it and lived it. So I definitely defer to your expertise more so than mine. It’s entirely possible that I’ve had a much more romanticized stronger version of American foreign policy with regard to Russia than has been the actual reality. Still, hard for me to square what I think I know about Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, and George W. Bush- as well as the top people in their respective administrations- with the notion that they would not have come to Ukraine’s defense in the same way that we have done, or even more so. I definitely don’t mean to imply that those presidents would have committed United States troops or boots on the ground, or anything like that. Not at all. I just mean that I think that those three would have turned on the weaponry spigot full blast if they knew that they could essentially cripple Russia for mere peanuts without risking American blood.
 
Zoo_View said:
The Soviet Union OWNED Ukraine when Reagan was POTUS.

Let’s not pretend that Reagan was this colossus striding the global stage in the ‘80’s. The Soviet Union was cratering due to its economic system and decades of American and NATO opposition. Reagan continued decades of American policy.

If Reagan was such a badass, why was his reaction to the Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon basically a shoulder shrug?
Click to expand...
Yeah, see this is where I definitely have to defer to people like you and several other older posters, because I wasn’t even alive then. All I know is what I’ve read and heard growing up about Ronald Reagan, but I have to keep in mind that I was hearing it from people and from sources that essentially deified Ronald Reagan.
 
Calheel said:
I think you are vastly overstating here. The US did not give weapons to Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968. We were fine fomenting dissent, but we never took the step of sending US weapons to Eastern Bloc countries. The idea that any American president would arm a country on the border of Russia would have been a complete non-starter until this millennium.
Click to expand...
He may indeed be overstating, but those two examples are poor. Hungary's 56 revolution lasted 11 days. There was no time for the US to give weapons had we wanted. The Prague Spring was never an armed conflict at all; it was a diplomatic/intellectual affair for months until one night the Soviet troops came in and took over.

Not to mention the fact that neither country shared a border with a NATO country, though that's tangential at this point.

Those two episodes say nothing about American policy because they were over too quickly for Americans even to have gotten involved. No matter what American policy was, it would have ended the same.
 
superrific said:
He may indeed be overstating, but those two examples are poor. Hungary's 56 revolution lasted 11 days. There was no time for the US to give weapons had we wanted. The Prague Spring was never an armed conflict at all; it was a diplomatic/intellectual affair for months until one night the Soviet troops came in and took over.

Not to mention the fact that neither country shared a border with a NATO country, though that's tangential at this point.

Those two episodes say nothing about American policy because they were over too quickly for Americans even to have gotten involved. No matter what American policy was, it would have ended the same.
Click to expand...
Fair points.

That said, the current arming of Ukraine -- at least in degree -- is unprecedented for America. Given that, it is hard to say what any former American president would have done if that person could have been transported to 2022. I suspect the policy would have mirrored Biden's but maybe Reagan would be a little more cowboyish.
 
I’m too old to start a revolution, but if China were to invade the U.S. tomorrow I’d probably fight on their side.
 
ZenMode said:
I think the world knows that Trump is an anomaly and not a reflection of the US government going forward.

Brace Yourself Here We Go GIF by MOODMAN
Click to expand...

Possibly, but trade networks and supply chains are being restructured as we speak that are going to be very expensive to undo. The damage is lasting.

And it's true that there are a lot of racists and fucking idiots in America. If you don't realize that, you're one of the latter.
 
UNCatTech said:
That's not the impression I'm getting. They seem to be preparing for thus to be the new normal for US leadership.
Click to expand...
The Trump portion of my post wasn't supposed to be there. It was something from yesterday that I didn't notice. Disregard.

I was responding to the claims of misogyny, racism etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top