That's just it: Putin disliked the 2014 overthrow BECAUSE it made Ukraine less corrupt and less likely to do what Russia wants. Yes, the US and its EU allies were also in favor of that change, but as far as I can tell it happened internally within Ukraine, not thanks to external interference.dajo9 said:Thank you for sharing more Putin propaganda with us. You are describing Ukraine before their 2014 revolution and before their democratic election of 2019. Not saying Ukraine is perfect but it is making huge strides towards openness and freedom.Anarchistbear said:dajo9 said:cbbass1 said:
For the Ukraine-Russia issue, I strongly encourage you to limit your weighting of U.S. legacy/corporate/mainstream media to 15% or less.
Yes, Putin put lots of troops at Ukraine's border. No, Putin has no interest in an invasion of Ukraine. He does, however, have an interest in
- letting the U.S. do what it does -- threaten, posture, and escalate;
- revealing how little the U.S. actually cares about its European allies and their interests;
- revealing how much more the U.S. cares about using its military might to bully other nations;
- revealing the degree to which the U.S. war hawks and defense industry titans drive an aggressive, belligerent U.S. foreign policy;
- driving a wedge between the U.S. and its NATO allies in Europe;
- showing that the U.S. & NATO are the aggressor in Eastern Europe -- not [so much] Russia;
- strengthening economic bonds between Russia and Europe... and China, and... ROW;
- revealing to the ROW that the U.S. is in steep decline as a nation, and no longer capable of being a responsible leader;
- making the case against the USD remaining as the world's reserve currency, just as the U.S. is in the terminal phase of a massive credit bubble.
If you read through the Joint Statement between the Russian Federation & China from a few days ago, it's clear that everything Putin & Xi are aiming for evaporates if Russia invades Ukraine.
Biden is, predictably, trying to bolster his approval ratings by hoping to do a modern version of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and trying to do what everyone thought JFK did in 1962 -- escalate, show strength, and get Kruschev to back down. [The reality was that installing Russian missiles in Cuba wasn't Kruschev's aggression -- it was a response to the U.S. previously installing Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey. The crisis ended when JFK & Kruschev both agreed to remove their missiles from each other's doorsteps.]
Former U.S. Intelligence Officer & Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter has a compelling article on what's happening. I think it's worth adding to your Foreign Policy reading list.
The Ultimate End of NATO
If I were Joe, I'd take the deal -- promise that NATO won't include Ukraine, and send everyone home to watch the rest of the Olympics in peace. But that's just me, apparently.
No, its not just you. Most conservatives today have also decided that what's most important is that Putin's view of the world be put forward and that we all appease Putin.
Nevermind that Putin has invaded 2 neighbors already and interfered in our election. Nevermind that even if we took the appeasement deal, as you suggest and which our ally Ukraine is opposed, Putin would continue his campaign to control Ukraine through a proxy, just as he does Belarus and other neighbors.
We need to stop appeasing Putin. We need to draw a hard line through sanctions and other financial means. We need to start supporting American interests and not white nationalist oligarch interests.
The Ukraine is a white nationalist oligarch regime, rated as the second most corrupt regime in Europe after Russia, which is why it is not being admitted to NATO. What you call is appeasement is the reality of the US and European alliance- nobody is fighting for Ukraine or admitting them to NATO. Working out some guarantee of sovereignty while admitting this is the goal of the French, Germans and Ukrainians. Let them do it.
Sanctions have been useless as a deterrent since Obama.The real leverage against Putin will only happen with energy politics. Germany- which has to be the only country in the world that put climate interests above its own interests- shut down their nuclear plants and stopped burning their coal. This was a mortal wound and a boon to Putin that now holds them hostage. The Nord pipeline only extends this dependence. They need to do something contrary.
WHY RUSSIA'S MILITARY ISN'T QUITE AS POWERFUL AS IT SEEMS
13,797 Views |
108 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by sycasey
cbbass1 said:
For the Ukraine-Russia issue, I strongly encourage you to limit your weighting of U.S. legacy/corporate/mainstream media to 15% or less.
Yes, Putin put lots of troops at Ukraine's border. No, Putin has no interest in an invasion of Ukraine. He does, however, have an interest in
- letting the U.S. do what it does -- threaten, posture, and escalate;
- revealing how little the U.S. actually cares about its European allies and their interests;
- revealing how much more the U.S. cares about using its military might to bully other nations;
- revealing the degree to which the U.S. war hawks and defense industry titans drive an aggressive, belligerent U.S. foreign policy;
- driving a wedge between the U.S. and its NATO allies in Europe;
- showing that the U.S. & NATO are the aggressor in Eastern Europe -- not [so much] Russia;
- strengthening economic bonds between Russia and Europe... and China, and... ROW;
- revealing to the ROW that the U.S. is in steep decline as a nation, and no longer capable of being a responsible leader;
- making the case against the USD remaining as the world's reserve currency, just as the U.S. is in the terminal phase of a massive credit bubble.
If you read through the Joint Statement between the Russian Federation & China from a few days ago, it's clear that everything Putin & Xi are aiming for evaporates if Russia invades Ukraine.
Biden is, predictably, trying to bolster his approval ratings by hoping to do a modern version of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and trying to do what everyone thought JFK did in 1962 -- escalate, show strength, and get Kruschev to back down. [The reality was that installing Russian missiles in Cuba wasn't Kruschev's aggression -- it was a response to the U.S. previously installing Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey. The crisis ended when JFK & Kruschev both agreed to remove their missiles from each other's doorsteps.]
Former U.S. Intelligence Officer & Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter has a compelling article on what's happening. I think it's worth adding to your Foreign Policy reading list.
The Ultimate End of NATO
If I were Joe, I'd take the deal -- promise that NATO won't include Ukraine,and send everyone home to watch the rest of the Olympics in peace. But that's just me, apparently.
Wow, this is some real bull**** right here.
Sadly, your knowledge of geo-politics reads like an article from Zero Hedge.
sycasey said:
That "Ultimate End of NATO" article reads like pure propaganda, pushing the Russian interest. The 2014 Ukrainian revolution was a "coup" by the US? What? Seems more like the Ukrainian population themselves were dissatisfied with the current government and overthrew it.
He also says "the Russian military would defeat any force NATO can assemble in a stand-up conventional fight." Again, what? Either NATO is the big bully or it isn't.
Agreed.
Scott Ritter loses all credibility with that last claim.
dajo9 said:Thank you for sharing more Putin propaganda with us. You are describing Ukraine before their 2014 revolution and before their democratic election of 2019. Not saying Ukraine is perfect but it is making huge strides towards openness and freedom.Anarchistbear said:dajo9 said:cbbass1 said:
For the Ukraine-Russia issue, I strongly encourage you to limit your weighting of U.S. legacy/corporate/mainstream media to 15% or less.
Yes, Putin put lots of troops at Ukraine's border. No, Putin has no interest in an invasion of Ukraine. He does, however, have an interest in
- letting the U.S. do what it does -- threaten, posture, and escalate;
- revealing how little the U.S. actually cares about its European allies and their interests;
- revealing how much more the U.S. cares about using its military might to bully other nations;
- revealing the degree to which the U.S. war hawks and defense industry titans drive an aggressive, belligerent U.S. foreign policy;
- driving a wedge between the U.S. and its NATO allies in Europe;
- showing that the U.S. & NATO are the aggressor in Eastern Europe -- not [so much] Russia;
- strengthening economic bonds between Russia and Europe... and China, and... ROW;
- revealing to the ROW that the U.S. is in steep decline as a nation, and no longer capable of being a responsible leader;
- making the case against the USD remaining as the world's reserve currency, just as the U.S. is in the terminal phase of a massive credit bubble.
If you read through the Joint Statement between the Russian Federation & China from a few days ago, it's clear that everything Putin & Xi are aiming for evaporates if Russia invades Ukraine.
Biden is, predictably, trying to bolster his approval ratings by hoping to do a modern version of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and trying to do what everyone thought JFK did in 1962 -- escalate, show strength, and get Kruschev to back down. [The reality was that installing Russian missiles in Cuba wasn't Kruschev's aggression -- it was a response to the U.S. previously installing Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey. The crisis ended when JFK & Kruschev both agreed to remove their missiles from each other's doorsteps.]
Former U.S. Intelligence Officer & Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter has a compelling article on what's happening. I think it's worth adding to your Foreign Policy reading list.
The Ultimate End of NATO
If I were Joe, I'd take the deal -- promise that NATO won't include Ukraine, and send everyone home to watch the rest of the Olympics in peace. But that's just me, apparently.
No, its not just you. Most conservatives today have also decided that what's most important is that Putin's view of the world be put forward and that we all appease Putin.
Nevermind that Putin has invaded 2 neighbors already and interfered in our election. Nevermind that even if we took the appeasement deal, as you suggest and which our ally Ukraine is opposed, Putin would continue his campaign to control Ukraine through a proxy, just as he does Belarus and other neighbors.
We need to stop appeasing Putin. We need to draw a hard line through sanctions and other financial means. We need to start supporting American interests and not white nationalist oligarch interests.
The Ukraine is a white nationalist oligarch regime, rated as the second most corrupt regime in Europe after Russia, which is why it is not being admitted to NATO. What you call is appeasement is the reality of the US and European alliance- nobody is fighting for Ukraine or admitting them to NATO. Working out some guarantee of sovereignty while admitting this is the goal of the French, Germans and Ukrainians. Let them do it.
Sanctions have been useless as a deterrent since Obama.The real leverage against Putin will only happen with energy politics. Germany- which has to be the only country in the world that put climate interests above its own interests- shut down their nuclear plants and stopped burning their coal. This was a mortal wound and a boon to Putin that now holds them hostage. The Nord pipeline only extends this dependence. They need to do something contrary.
Putin does not get a say on who is in and who is out of NATO. There is no guarantee of sovereignty from this deal. Putin will continue to try to insert a proxy into Ukraine. The U.S. and NATO need to be firm with Putin who has already invaded neighbors twice and interfered in our elections. The reason why Putin is vulnerable to sanctions is because he runs his country as an oligarchy. This isn't about sanctioning Russia. It's about sanctioning Putin and his oligarch friends. No appeasement.
It's not propaganda. There are many independent reports on this
https://www.coe.int/en/web/corruption/completed-projects/enpi/newsroom-enpi/-/asset_publisher/F0LygN4lv4rX/content/ukraine-most-corrupt-country-in-europe-after-russia?inheritRedirect=false
If NATO had any interest in Ukraine as a partner they'd admit them. They don't have an interest because they don't reflect " "European values"- they are oligarchal, corrupt, and non secula. Neither France, Germany or the US is pushing for NATO admittance.
Seems like most of Ritter's articles these days are posted on RT. Of course they are.DiabloWags said:sycasey said:
That "Ultimate End of NATO" article reads like pure propaganda, pushing the Russian interest. The 2014 Ukrainian revolution was a "coup" by the US? What? Seems more like the Ukrainian population themselves were dissatisfied with the current government and overthrew it.
He also says "the Russian military would defeat any force NATO can assemble in a stand-up conventional fight." Again, what? Either NATO is the big bully or it isn't.
Agreed.
Scott Ritter loses all credibility with that last claim.
https://twitter.com/RealScottRitter/status/1490822315399020546?s=20&t=03SoKWM4Fbr4rjJc7qq77w
Everyone should read for themselves
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/12/17/ukraine-russia-corruption-putin-democracy-oligarchs/
Quote:
Why Ukraine's Fight Against Corruption Scares Russia
The country's democratization and ongoing efforts to fight entrenched graft and cronyism are a threat to Putin's model of governance.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/12/17/ukraine-russia-corruption-putin-democracy-oligarchs/
1. Tell Putin we have absolutely no plans on the horizon to let Ukraine into NATO.
2. Tell Putin we will roll out a sliding scale of sanctions on his ass, depending on what he does in Ukraine. Stick to that.
3. Tell Putin to knock off the cyber attacks because, if we want to work on it, we can give it back to him ten times over.
4. Tell Putin we can work on common interests, such as trade and anti-terrorism.
5. Move on. Wake me up if the S O B continues westward.
Unleash the Babushka Battalion!
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2022/2/14/babushka-battalion-ready-to-protect-ukraine-from-russia
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2022/2/14/babushka-battalion-ready-to-protect-ukraine-from-russia
sycasey said:
So how are you so sure Putin doesn't want to invade Ukraine when he already invaded Ukraine once before?
Are you calling the annexation of Crimea in 2014 an "invasion"?
The annexation was a response to the U.S.-backed coup that ousted Yanukovich and installed Yatsulyek(sp?). U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland headed the operation, and arranged funding for Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias to provide the firepower needed to make it happen. All this was suspected, but finally revealed in the WikiLeaks documents & recordings. Nuland was famous for saying, "Yats [Yatsulyek] is our guy," and "F*** the EU!"
Putin wasn't going to simply hand over his entire warm-water navy, which is in Sevastopol (Crimea), to some U.S. puppet. So he annexed Crimea. Did he do anything beyond that? No.
If Putin was going to expand Westward, he would've done it already.
Like I said at the beginning of my post, it's best to limit your intake of CNN, MSNBC, and other corporate-sponsored media. Most of U.S. media has an endless stream of retired generals and active defense industry lobbyists offering their opinions on what should be done. This is in addition to the defense contractors sponsoring news & opinion shows.DiabloWags said:
Wow, this is some real bull**** right here.
Sadly, your knowledge of geo-politics reads like an article from Zero Hedge.
If you don't look outside that bubble, you'll miss a lot.
As for my knowledge of geopolitics -- when Trump won in 2016, I posted, "Trump is Putin's revenge for Boris Yeltsin."
And I'm standing by it.
Yes. One country took over another country's territory and occupied it. That's an invasion.cbbass1 said:sycasey said:
So how are you so sure Putin doesn't want to invade Ukraine when he already invaded Ukraine once before?
Are you calling the annexation of Crimea in 2014 an "invasion"?
You want to justify it on Putin's behalf? Fine, you do you. But don't tell me it's not an invasion.
You might remember Scott Ritter from the George W Bush admin's build-up to the Iraq War. He was one of the weapons inspectors who was telling the truth -- that Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs.DiabloWags said:sycasey said:
That "Ultimate End of NATO" article reads like pure propaganda, pushing the Russian interest. The 2014 Ukrainian revolution was a "coup" by the US? What? Seems more like the Ukrainian population themselves were dissatisfied with the current government and overthrew it.
He also says "the Russian military would defeat any force NATO can assemble in a stand-up conventional fight." Again, what? Either NATO is the big bully or it isn't.
Agreed.
Scott Ritter loses all credibility with that last claim.
Who do you think is telling the truth now -- the guy who told the truth back then, or the people who lied us into a completely unnecessary & illegal war, and are keeping us there, and profiting handsomely from the entire venture?
I'll wait.
It doesn't matter who he is. The problem is that his argument doesn't hold water. On the one hand, he wants to argue that the US and its NATO allies are the big, bad bullies in Eastern Europe and that Russia is just defending its own interests against their unwarranted aggressions. On the other hand, he also wants to claim that Russia has the strongest military in the region and would easily be able to defeat NATO if they wanted.cbbass1 said:You might remember Scott Ritter from the George W Bush admin's build-up to the Iraq War. He was one of the weapons inspectors who was telling the truth -- that Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs.DiabloWags said:sycasey said:
That "Ultimate End of NATO" article reads like pure propaganda, pushing the Russian interest. The 2014 Ukrainian revolution was a "coup" by the US? What? Seems more like the Ukrainian population themselves were dissatisfied with the current government and overthrew it.
He also says "the Russian military would defeat any force NATO can assemble in a stand-up conventional fight." Again, what? Either NATO is the big bully or it isn't.
Agreed.
Scott Ritter loses all credibility with that last claim.
Who do you think is telling the truth now -- the guy who told the truth back then, or the people who lied us into a completely unnecessary & illegal war, and are keeping us there, and profiting handsomely from the entire venture?
I'll wait.
These two notions seem contradictory to me.
OK, I'll give you that one. To the extent that the Russian military was involved; more like a "soft" invasion.sycasey said:Yes. One country took over another country's territory and occupied it. That's an invasion.cbbass1 said:sycasey said:
So how are you so sure Putin doesn't want to invade Ukraine when he already invaded Ukraine once before?
Are you calling the annexation of Crimea in 2014 an "invasion"?
You want to justify it on Putin's behalf? Fine, you do you. But don't tell me it's not an invasion.
The real question is, what are we going to do about the invasion at the northern border? If you can't prevent truckers in Canadian Tuxedoes from entering, do you even have a country?
Biden needs to build a moat and fill it with crocodiles or piranhas. Didn't he learn anything from his predecessor?
Biden needs to build a moat and fill it with crocodiles or piranhas. Didn't he learn anything from his predecessor?
Unit2Sucks said:
The real question is, what are we going to do about the invasion at the northern border? If you can't prevent truckers in Canadian Tuxedoes from entering, do you even have a country?
Biden needs to build a moat and fill it with crocodiles or piranhas. Didn't he learn anything from his predecessor?
Those Canadian truckers gave up like,,,
* I figured they were going to have to shoot a handful of them varmints…..or, at a minimum, get a few Chinooks to lift a rig off the bridge and dump it in the drink along with a few captured protestors.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
This is a serious charge. A US official arranged funding for neo-Nazi militias? I'm going to have to ask you to cite your source here.cbbass1 said:
U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland headed the operation, and arranged funding for Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias to provide the firepower needed to make it happen.
Calling this a "coup" also implies that the impetus for overthrowing the Ukrainian government came from the US or from other outside interests. What's your evidence for that? I have little doubt that US officials had their preferences for who took over leadership after the existing President had been forced out, but as far as I can tell, the revolution itself happened organically within Ukraine.
U.S. defense of NATO, such as it is, depends on nuclear deterrent, rather than ground forces.sycasey said:It doesn't matter who he is. The problem is that his argument doesn't hold water. On the one hand, he wants to argue that the US and its NATO allies are the big, bad bullies in Eastern Europe and that Russia is just defending its own interests against their unwarranted aggressions. On the other hand, he also wants to claim that Russia has the strongest military in the region and would easily be able to defeat NATO if they wanted.cbbass1 said:You might remember Scott Ritter from the George W Bush admin's build-up to the Iraq War. He was one of the weapons inspectors who was telling the truth -- that Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs.DiabloWags said:sycasey said:
That "Ultimate End of NATO" article reads like pure propaganda, pushing the Russian interest. The 2014 Ukrainian revolution was a "coup" by the US? What? Seems more like the Ukrainian population themselves were dissatisfied with the current government and overthrew it.
He also says "the Russian military would defeat any force NATO can assemble in a stand-up conventional fight." Again, what? Either NATO is the big bully or it isn't.
Agreed.
Scott Ritter loses all credibility with that last claim.
Who do you think is telling the truth now -- the guy who told the truth back then, or the people who lied us into a completely unnecessary & illegal war, and are keeping us there, and profiting handsomely from the entire venture?
I'll wait.
These two notions seem contradictory to me.
It's true. Russia has the strongest conventional military force in the region. If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself. That's why Biden is proposing sanctions instead of military action (which would be extremely unpopular in Ukraine and in the U.S.).
Q: If NATO exists to defend Europe from the USSR & the Warsaw Pact, then why does NATO still exist?
After the Soviet Union collapsed, SoS James Baker promised Mikhail Gorbachev that if Gorbachev would allow the reunification of Germany, then the U.S. & NATO would not "take advantage" of the collapse, and would not expand Eastward.
That wasn't in writing, and Baker got skewered for making the promise, but it was said, for better or worse.
Since then, the U.S. & NATO have pushed Eastward. Putin was tolerating it, and U.S.-Russia relations were pretty cordial & cooperative in the Obama years, but when Hillary started her campaign, she was aligning herself with Kissinger & the NeoCons, & started taking a more confrontational view toward Russia. When she threatened Putin with "regime change," Putin took it seriously.
It wasn't until the U.S.-backed coup in 2014 that Putin responded by annexing Crimea to save his navy at Sevastopol.
Check it out for myself? No. Cite your source. What makes you think the Russian military is so much stronger than the combined NATO forces (which would include the US) if they truly wanted to commit to a ground war?cbbass1 said:U.S. defense of NATO, such as it is, depends on nuclear deterrent, rather than ground forces.sycasey said:It doesn't matter who he is. The problem is that his argument doesn't hold water. On the one hand, he wants to argue that the US and its NATO allies are the big, bad bullies in Eastern Europe and that Russia is just defending its own interests against their unwarranted aggressions. On the other hand, he also wants to claim that Russia has the strongest military in the region and would easily be able to defeat NATO if they wanted.cbbass1 said:You might remember Scott Ritter from the George W Bush admin's build-up to the Iraq War. He was one of the weapons inspectors who was telling the truth -- that Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs.DiabloWags said:sycasey said:
That "Ultimate End of NATO" article reads like pure propaganda, pushing the Russian interest. The 2014 Ukrainian revolution was a "coup" by the US? What? Seems more like the Ukrainian population themselves were dissatisfied with the current government and overthrew it.
He also says "the Russian military would defeat any force NATO can assemble in a stand-up conventional fight." Again, what? Either NATO is the big bully or it isn't.
Agreed.
Scott Ritter loses all credibility with that last claim.
Who do you think is telling the truth now -- the guy who told the truth back then, or the people who lied us into a completely unnecessary & illegal war, and are keeping us there, and profiting handsomely from the entire venture?
I'll wait.
These two notions seem contradictory to me.
It's true. Russia has the strongest conventional military force in the region. If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself.
They're already there.sycasey said:Check it out for myself? No. Cite your source. What makes you think the Russian military is so much stronger than the combined NATO forces (which would include the US) if they truly wanted to commit to a ground war?cbbass1 said:U.S. defense of NATO, such as it is, depends on nuclear deterrent, rather than ground forces.sycasey said:It doesn't matter who he is. The problem is that his argument doesn't hold water. On the one hand, he wants to argue that the US and its NATO allies are the big, bad bullies in Eastern Europe and that Russia is just defending its own interests against their unwarranted aggressions. On the other hand, he also wants to claim that Russia has the strongest military in the region and would easily be able to defeat NATO if they wanted.cbbass1 said:You might remember Scott Ritter from the George W Bush admin's build-up to the Iraq War. He was one of the weapons inspectors who was telling the truth -- that Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs.DiabloWags said:sycasey said:
That "Ultimate End of NATO" article reads like pure propaganda, pushing the Russian interest. The 2014 Ukrainian revolution was a "coup" by the US? What? Seems more like the Ukrainian population themselves were dissatisfied with the current government and overthrew it.
He also says "the Russian military would defeat any force NATO can assemble in a stand-up conventional fight." Again, what? Either NATO is the big bully or it isn't.
Agreed.
Scott Ritter loses all credibility with that last claim.
Who do you think is telling the truth now -- the guy who told the truth back then, or the people who lied us into a completely unnecessary & illegal war, and are keeping us there, and profiting handsomely from the entire venture?
I'll wait.
These two notions seem contradictory to me.
It's true. Russia has the strongest conventional military force in the region. If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself.
It would take weeks for the U.S. to match what Russia has.
So you mean it would take the US longer to mobilize, not that Russia actually has more military might overall? I could see that.cbbass1 said:They're already there.sycasey said:Check it out for myself? No. Cite your source. What makes you think the Russian military is so much stronger than the combined NATO forces (which would include the US) if they truly wanted to commit to a ground war?cbbass1 said:U.S. defense of NATO, such as it is, depends on nuclear deterrent, rather than ground forces.sycasey said:It doesn't matter who he is. The problem is that his argument doesn't hold water. On the one hand, he wants to argue that the US and its NATO allies are the big, bad bullies in Eastern Europe and that Russia is just defending its own interests against their unwarranted aggressions. On the other hand, he also wants to claim that Russia has the strongest military in the region and would easily be able to defeat NATO if they wanted.cbbass1 said:You might remember Scott Ritter from the George W Bush admin's build-up to the Iraq War. He was one of the weapons inspectors who was telling the truth -- that Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs.DiabloWags said:sycasey said:
That "Ultimate End of NATO" article reads like pure propaganda, pushing the Russian interest. The 2014 Ukrainian revolution was a "coup" by the US? What? Seems more like the Ukrainian population themselves were dissatisfied with the current government and overthrew it.
He also says "the Russian military would defeat any force NATO can assemble in a stand-up conventional fight." Again, what? Either NATO is the big bully or it isn't.
Agreed.
Scott Ritter loses all credibility with that last claim.
Who do you think is telling the truth now -- the guy who told the truth back then, or the people who lied us into a completely unnecessary & illegal war, and are keeping us there, and profiting handsomely from the entire venture?
I'll wait.
These two notions seem contradictory to me.
It's true. Russia has the strongest conventional military force in the region. If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself.
It would take weeks for the U.S. to match what Russia has.
However, that doesn't support the idea that the US is the aggressor in this situation. If Russia has more military currently "at the ready" in Eastern Europe, that sounds to me like they are the aggressors.
Here ya go.sycasey said:This is a serious charge. A US official arranged funding for neo-Nazi militias? I'm going to have to ask you to cite your source here.cbbass1 said:
U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland headed the operation, and arranged funding for Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias to provide the firepower needed to make it happen.
Calling this a "coup" also implies that the impetus for overthrowing the Ukrainian government came from the US or from other outside interests. What's your evidence for that? I have little doubt that US officials had their preferences for who took over leadership after the existing President had been forced out, but as far as I can tell, the revolution itself happened organically within Ukraine.
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/10/nyt-discovers-ukraines-neo-nazis-at-war/
..and..
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/04/20/ukraines-neo-nazi-imperative/
And here's the recording of the conversation between Victoria Nuland & U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. Their conversation, which was figuring out who would be in the post-coup government, was on Feb 4th. The Maidan Union and the Right Sector began their invasion of Parliament on Feb 18th.
cbbass1 said:sycasey said:
So how are you so sure Putin doesn't want to invade Ukraine when he already invaded Ukraine once before?
Are you calling the annexation of Crimea in 2014 an "invasion"?
The annexation was a response to the U.S.-backed coup that ousted Yanukovich and installed Yatsulyek(sp?). U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland headed the operation, and arranged funding for Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias to provide the firepower needed to make it happen. All this was suspected, but finally revealed in the WikiLeaks documents & recordings. Nuland was famous for saying, "Yats [Yatsulyek] is our guy," and "F*** the EU!"
Putin wasn't going to simply hand over his entire warm-water navy, which is in Sevastopol (Crimea), to some U.S. puppet. So he annexed Crimea. Did he do anything beyond that? No.
If Putin was going to expand Westward, he would've done it already.
How old were you when you decided that pushing propaganda from an ex KGB Russian dictator was a good look for you?
I notice all of your articles are from the same source, and again, there isn't evidence here for the US backing neo-Nazi militias, only that they exist in Ukraine and are a problem.cbbass1 said:Here ya go.sycasey said:This is a serious charge. A US official arranged funding for neo-Nazi militias? I'm going to have to ask you to cite your source here.cbbass1 said:
U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland headed the operation, and arranged funding for Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias to provide the firepower needed to make it happen.
Calling this a "coup" also implies that the impetus for overthrowing the Ukrainian government came from the US or from other outside interests. What's your evidence for that? I have little doubt that US officials had their preferences for who took over leadership after the existing President had been forced out, but as far as I can tell, the revolution itself happened organically within Ukraine.
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/10/nyt-discovers-ukraines-neo-nazis-at-war/
..and..
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/04/20/ukraines-neo-nazi-imperative/
I think you're a little bit down a rabbit hole here. Your sources want to point at one thing and claim that it's evidence for another thing, but it's not.
It only takes 1.bearister said:
Why Russia's military isn't quite as powerful as it seems - Sandboxx
Hahahahaaaa!dajo9 said:
How old were you when you decided that pushing propaganda from an ex KGB Russian dictator was a good look for you?
Classic.
concordtom said:It only takes 1.bearister said:
Why Russia's military isn't quite as powerful as it seems - Sandboxx
Putin is too much a man of the flesh to want to end civilization. He digs his Black Sea palace, his women and his $200B+.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
So anyone who disagrees with U.S. NeoCon propaganda is pushing Russian propaganda?dajo9 said:cbbass1 said:sycasey said:
So how are you so sure Putin doesn't want to invade Ukraine when he already invaded Ukraine once before?
Are you calling the annexation of Crimea in 2014 an "invasion"?
The annexation was a response to the U.S.-backed coup that ousted Yanukovich and installed Yatsulyek(sp?). U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland headed the operation, and arranged funding for Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias to provide the firepower needed to make it happen. All this was suspected, but finally revealed in the WikiLeaks documents & recordings. Nuland was famous for saying, "Yats [Yatsulyek] is our guy," and "F*** the EU!"
Putin wasn't going to simply hand over his entire warm-water navy, which is in Sevastopol (Crimea), to some U.S. puppet. So he annexed Crimea. Did he do anything beyond that? No.
If Putin was going to expand Westward, he would've done it already.
How old were you when you decided that pushing propaganda from an ex KGB Russian dictator was a good look for you?
I don't think it's that binary. Take a more impartial look at the bigger picture.
Or go ahead & beat the war drums. You'll have plenty of company. Two nations with big egos & nuclear weapons. What could go wrong?
Isn't that exactly what he's about to do???cbbass1 said:
....he annexed Crimea. Did he do anything beyond that? No.
If Putin was going to expand Westward, he would've done it already.
Not sure how you can make him seem docile and merely looking after his navy when he's about to go full on into Ukraine. And for what?
cbbass1 said:So anyone who disagrees with U.S. NeoCon propaganda is pushing Russian propaganda?dajo9 said:cbbass1 said:sycasey said:
So how are you so sure Putin doesn't want to invade Ukraine when he already invaded Ukraine once before?
Are you calling the annexation of Crimea in 2014 an "invasion"?
The annexation was a response to the U.S.-backed coup that ousted Yanukovich and installed Yatsulyek(sp?). U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland headed the operation, and arranged funding for Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias to provide the firepower needed to make it happen. All this was suspected, but finally revealed in the WikiLeaks documents & recordings. Nuland was famous for saying, "Yats [Yatsulyek] is our guy," and "F*** the EU!"
Putin wasn't going to simply hand over his entire warm-water navy, which is in Sevastopol (Crimea), to some U.S. puppet. So he annexed Crimea. Did he do anything beyond that? No.
If Putin was going to expand Westward, he would've done it already.
How old were you when you decided that pushing propaganda from an ex KGB Russian dictator was a good look for you?
I don't think it's that binary. Take a more impartial look at the bigger picture.
Or go ahead & beat the war drums. You'll have plenty of company. Two nations with big egos & nuclear weapons. What could go wrong?
The impartial, bigger-picture evidence suggests that Russia is gearing up for war in Ukraine, not the US. They have far more military build-up there and have already invaded once.
cbbass1 said:So anyone who disagrees with U.S. NeoCon propaganda is pushing Russian propaganda?dajo9 said:cbbass1 said:sycasey said:
So how are you so sure Putin doesn't want to invade Ukraine when he already invaded Ukraine once before?
Are you calling the annexation of Crimea in 2014 an "invasion"?
The annexation was a response to the U.S.-backed coup that ousted Yanukovich and installed Yatsulyek(sp?). U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland headed the operation, and arranged funding for Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias to provide the firepower needed to make it happen. All this was suspected, but finally revealed in the WikiLeaks documents & recordings. Nuland was famous for saying, "Yats [Yatsulyek] is our guy," and "F*** the EU!"
Putin wasn't going to simply hand over his entire warm-water navy, which is in Sevastopol (Crimea), to some U.S. puppet. So he annexed Crimea. Did he do anything beyond that? No.
If Putin was going to expand Westward, he would've done it already.
How old were you when you decided that pushing propaganda from an ex KGB Russian dictator was a good look for you?
I don't think it's that binary. Take a more impartial look at the bigger picture.
Or go ahead & beat the war drums. You'll have plenty of company. Two nations with big egos & nuclear weapons. What could go wrong?
I'm one of the biggest anti-war people on this board. Nobody is beating war drums except for Putin while people like you throw around the word "neo-con" like it's some kind of excuse to betray your country.
dajo9 said:cbbass1 said:So anyone who disagrees with U.S. NeoCon propaganda is pushing Russian propaganda?dajo9 said:cbbass1 said:sycasey said:
So how are you so sure Putin doesn't want to invade Ukraine when he already invaded Ukraine once before?
Are you calling the annexation of Crimea in 2014 an "invasion"?
The annexation was a response to the U.S.-backed coup that ousted Yanukovich and installed Yatsulyek(sp?). U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland headed the operation, and arranged funding for Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias to provide the firepower needed to make it happen. All this was suspected, but finally revealed in the WikiLeaks documents & recordings. Nuland was famous for saying, "Yats [Yatsulyek] is our guy," and "F*** the EU!"
Putin wasn't going to simply hand over his entire warm-water navy, which is in Sevastopol (Crimea), to some U.S. puppet. So he annexed Crimea. Did he do anything beyond that? No.
If Putin was going to expand Westward, he would've done it already.
How old were you when you decided that pushing propaganda from an ex KGB Russian dictator was a good look for you?
I don't think it's that binary. Take a more impartial look at the bigger picture.
Or go ahead & beat the war drums. You'll have plenty of company. Two nations with big egos & nuclear weapons. What could go wrong?
I'm one of the biggest anti-war people on this board. Nobody is beating war drums except for Putin while people like you throw around the word "neo-con" like it's some kind of excuse to betray your country.
Dajo, let's say, worst case scenario, the b _ _ _ _ _ d Putin sends troops into Ukraine and flat-out annexes it. What do you think we should do?
Because I say no possible way should we put US (or "NATO") troops in there. Sanctions only and shine an international spotlight on it (not that he cares, but maybe more Russians protest). It just isn't in our vital interest to do more.
If he continues westward after that (which I'm almost positive he would not), that's the time to use direct force.
BTW, eff Putin: There's just so much more that a decent world could be concentrating on now.
He's not "about" to do anything of the sort. The only people who seem to think that an invasion is "imminent" are U.S. corporate media & the Biden administration. They were the ones talking about false flag operations & going into Alex Jones / conspiracy territory. And they're the only ones with a compelling financial interest in escalation & conflict.concordtom said:Isn't that exactly what he's about to do???cbbass1 said:
....he annexed Crimea. Did he do anything beyond that? No.
If Putin was going to expand Westward, he would've done it already.
Not sure how you can make him seem docile and merely looking after his navy when he's about to go full on into Ukraine. And for what?
cbbass1 said:
They were the ones talking about false flag operations & going into Alex Jones / conspiracy territory.
As opposed to you, who alleged a US coup in Ukraine without a shred of evidence.
Big C said:dajo9 said:cbbass1 said:So anyone who disagrees with U.S. NeoCon propaganda is pushing Russian propaganda?dajo9 said:cbbass1 said:sycasey said:
So how are you so sure Putin doesn't want to invade Ukraine when he already invaded Ukraine once before?
Are you calling the annexation of Crimea in 2014 an "invasion"?
The annexation was a response to the U.S.-backed coup that ousted Yanukovich and installed Yatsulyek(sp?). U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland headed the operation, and arranged funding for Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias to provide the firepower needed to make it happen. All this was suspected, but finally revealed in the WikiLeaks documents & recordings. Nuland was famous for saying, "Yats [Yatsulyek] is our guy," and "F*** the EU!"
Putin wasn't going to simply hand over his entire warm-water navy, which is in Sevastopol (Crimea), to some U.S. puppet. So he annexed Crimea. Did he do anything beyond that? No.
If Putin was going to expand Westward, he would've done it already.
How old were you when you decided that pushing propaganda from an ex KGB Russian dictator was a good look for you?
I don't think it's that binary. Take a more impartial look at the bigger picture.
Or go ahead & beat the war drums. You'll have plenty of company. Two nations with big egos & nuclear weapons. What could go wrong?
I'm one of the biggest anti-war people on this board. Nobody is beating war drums except for Putin while people like you throw around the word "neo-con" like it's some kind of excuse to betray your country.
Dajo, let's say, worst case scenario, the b _ _ _ _ _ d Putin sends troops into Ukraine and flat-out annexes it. What do you think we should do?
Because I say no possible way should we put US (or "NATO") troops in there. Sanctions only and shine an international spotlight on it (not that he cares, but maybe more Russians protest). It just isn't in our vital interest to do more.
If he continues westward after that (which I'm almost positive he would not), that's the time to use direct force.
BTW, eff Putin: There's just so much more that a decent world could be concentrating on now.
I don't support American troops fighting in Ukraine
Featured Stories
See All
Friday Night Lights Week 6
by Bradley Connelly
Bears’ Touch On Playing Style and Team Chemistry at ACC Media Day
by Ian Firstenberg
The Rodcast: Meet the Bigs
by Rod Benson
Bears Can't Hold Early Lead, Rolled by Duke, 45-21
by Jim McGill
Together Again
by Cal Athletics