The Official Russian Invasion of Ukraine Thread

940,530 Views | 10274 Replies | Last: 33 min ago by BearGoggles
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 9:34p, 7/24/23
movielover said:
But U2S says Ukraine will start receiving increased ammo supplies ... in 2025.

And that's one of his bright spots.

In the year 2025, if man is still alive
If woman can survive...

Seriously though, at the current rate, "the last Ukrainian" could be only a year or two away. It might not come to this, because Ukraine is going to start having problems manning the whole front, just like the Russians did last year when they had half the manpower stretched twice the current frontline distance. This is going to allow major breakthrough and advances by the Russians.

Quote:
While Americans were distracted with Barbie/Oppenheimer over the weekend, the MSM quietly shifted their Ukraine narrative.

Pro-Western analyst, LT. Gen. Kellogg, details how Ukraine's counter-offensive is "not going well". Admitting that Ukraine never had the numbers or any air support, both of which would be needed for a successful offensive.

Kellogg essentially admits that NATO sent Ukraine into a slaughter, lacking the adequate combat multipliers needed to conduct an assault. It was suicide. Completely against baseline US combat protocol to engage at such a disadvantage. Confirming the counter-offensive was a political move, not a tactical one.

Kellogg then expresses that the West and the US are going to look bad and have to answer questions about this failure. They will either have to escalate or look to peace negotiations, because this war is practically over. He admits that a war of attrition favors Russia.

And then he uses the new buzzword to describe Ukraine's colossal failure, "stalemate".


Reply Quote
2
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 10:04p, 7/24/23
It's all very sad and was avoidable.
Reply Quote
3
dimitrig
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 10:06p, 7/24/23
movielover said:
It's all very sad and was avoidable.


True, but Putin went ahead with it anyway.

Reply Quote
9
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dimitrig • 5:44a, 7/25/23
dimitrig said:
movielover said:
It's all very sad and was avoidable.

True, but Putin went ahead with it anyway.

A response that serious analysts fully expected.




Reply Quote
3
1 edit
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 9:08a, 7/25/23
Ukraine was not in NATO.
Reply Quote
7
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dimitrig • 9:20a, 7/25/23
dimitrig said:


True, but Putin went ahead with it anyway.



sycasey said:
Ukraine was not in NATO.


You just don't get it.

To be truly anti-war, you have to support Putin's unprovoked invasion of a sovereign neighbor because Putin pretended to care about nazis (in Ukraine only, certainly not in Russia) and oppression of Russian speaking people (again only in Ukraine, and nowhere near as oppressed as Russian speaking people in Russia).

That's what it means to be anti-war. Opposing an unprovoked invasion is jingoism. Supporting a sovereign nation in defense of its sovereignty and people is warmongering.

The anti-war pacificst crowd supports allowing invaders to have their way without any recriminations or opposition so long as they can make a colorable claim to eventual victory.

It's so simple, but for some reason you bleeding heart Rambos just don't get it.

Reply Quote
7
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 9:26a, 7/25/23
sycasey said:
Ukraine was not in NATO.

NATO has been in Ukraine since 2014, according to the head of NATO.



This is very silly, even by your standards.
Reply Quote
3
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 10:00a, 7/25/23
His only standard is name calling.
Reply Quote
3
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 10:14a, 7/25/23
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Ukraine was not in NATO.

NATO has been in Ukraine since 2014, according to the head of NATO.

1. "NATO in Ukraine" is not the same as "Ukraine in NATO."

2. This was after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, right?
Reply Quote
10
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 10:59a, 7/25/23
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Ukraine was not in NATO.

NATO has been in Ukraine since 2014, according to the head of NATO.

1. "NATO in Ukraine" is not the same as "Ukraine in NATO."

2. This was after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, right?


https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2007/04/01/nato-and-ukraine-at-the-crossroads/index.html

Towards a Membership Action Plan (NATOs words, some of which is not military action and are reforms or measures to maintain non-provocative image)

In January 2006, the defence ministers of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, meeting in Budapest, Hungary, announced that their countries were ready to support Ukraine on its path to NATO accession. Hungarian Defence Minister Ferenc Yukhas stated after the quadrilateral meeting that "we believe it is an important task for us to help Ukraine on its way to integration and accession to NATO." The four countries announced that they would organise a special committee to promote Ukrainian military reform.

A month later, in February 2006, President Viktor Yushchenko reiterated in Brussels, Belgium, that Ukraine was ready to join the Membership Action Plan (MAP). In March, he followed this up with a decree setting up an interagency commission to prepare Ukraine for NATO accession. This body can set up task forces to deal with specific directions of cooperation between Ukraine and NATO, and is chaired by the relevant national coordinators.

The National Security and Defence Council is responsible for defining the strategic goals and conceptual approaches to Ukraine-NATO cooperation and submitting relevant proposals to the President. The Cabinet of Ministers is responsible for implementing the national policy of Ukraine-NATO cooperation, in particular with regard to the fulfilment of membership criteria.

Participation in the MAP would allow Ukraine to prepare better for NATO accession through technical assistance and practical advice from NATO. It would not, however, guarantee any future membership in the Alliance such an invitation would depend on the country's ability to meet membership criteria. In the MAP framework, Annual National Programmes are developed which focus on a number of requirements for aspirant countries, including in the political, economic, resource, legal and security fields. Aspirant countries are expected to demonstrate a functioning democratic political system based on a market economy; fair treatment of minority populations; commitment to the peaceful resolution of disputes with neighbours; the ability and willingness to make a military contribution to the Alliance; and a commitment to democratic civil-military relations and structures.

In March 2006, Ukrainian Defence Minister Anatoliy Grytsenko expressed the opinion that if Ukraine works effectively to meet these requirements, and the Allies agree, "the decision on granting membership to Ukraine could be taken in the nearest future. Ukraine will be granted a transition period to finish its preparatory work, which is about a year and a half or two years… That's why full-fledged membership is possible by 2010, but it is only a forecast. Life may bring changes into it."

Of course, one of the current major hurdles to Ukraine's joining the MAP is significant public reluctance to move further according to opinion polls, only some 20 per cent of the population actually support NATO membership, whereas some 54 per cent are opposed. Outdated and counterproductive stereotypes about NATO still hold sway over many in Ukraine. However, the Defence Minister also expressed confidence that by the time Ukraine has to make a decision on NATO accession, the public will be ready to support such a step...

There are plenty of good stories to tell about the practical benefits of ongoing cooperation with NATO. Since 1994, NATO and individual Allies have provided professional military training to some 8 500 Ukrainian officers. Moreover, between 2001 and 2006, NATO has supported the retraining of over 3 000 retired Ukrainian military personnel to help their transition to civilian life. In 2006 alone, nearly 800 servicemen were retrained, and 440 have already found new jobs. Since 2006, new professional courses have been launched for former military personnel in Kirovohrad, Melitopol, Chernihiv and Lviv. And language courses are ongoing in Odessa, Kyiv and Simferopol.

Reply Quote
2
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:03a, 7/25/23
https://www.cato.org/commentary/washington-helped-trigger-ukraine-war

Public Radio in 2019 featured U.S. officials preening about how such measures had strengthened Ukraine's deterrence capabilities.

In his article, Dorfman documented the extent of other provocative military measures Washington pursued with respect to Ukraine. The CIA "made a series of covert moves that have helped prepare the Ukrainian security services for the current crisis. Shortly after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, the agency initiated secret paramilitary training programs for Ukrainian special operations personnel in the U.S. and on Ukraine's former eastern front." (The eastern front was the Donbas region where Ukrainian forces were attempting to suppress Russianbacked separatist fighters.) Current and former intelligence officials clearly thought that those programs were especially clever initiatives, insisting that they "helped teach forces loyal to Kyiv the skills that have enabled it to mount an unexpectedly fierce resistance to the Russian onslaught."

An earlier article by Dorfman noted that coordination between the United States and Ukraine on intelligence matters also expanded greatly after 2014 (following U.S. support for the Maidan revolution that overthrew Ukraine's elected, proRussia president and Moscow's subsequent annexation of Crimea). "U.S. and Ukrainian intelligence have even participated in joint offensive cyber operations against Russian government targets, according to former officials. CIA officials have also regularly traveled to Ukraine on intelligence exchanges, and Ukrainian intelligence officials have made reciprocal visits to the U.S. to swap information." Dorfman quoted another "former senior official" who asserted that "in many ways the U.S.-Ukraine intelligence relationship "is about as robust" as Washington's intelligence collaboration with "just about anybody else in Europe." That last comment implicitly referred to NATO members.

Once again, the United States was treating Ukraine as a fullfledged, albeit still informal, NATO strategic ally. One has to wonder whether U.S. leaders were so arrogant and obtuse that they believed such missions could be pursued without Russia learning about them. If so, it was a serious miscalculation, if not an epic blunder. Conversely, if policymakers in the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations realized that Moscow would get wind of the intelligence and military collaboration, then they embraced an extraordinarily reckless set of provocations.

Engaging in a mental exercise based on role reversal illustrates the inherent danger of Washington's policies. How would U.S. leaders (and the American people) react if China or some other major power engaged in evergrowing levels of intelligence and military cooperation with an antiU.S. government in Canada or Mexico? The answer is rather obvious: Washington would be warning Beijing to back off, and it would be threatening Ottawa or Mexico City with dire consequences if such collaboration continued. It is difficult to explain why U.S. officials and members of the foreign policy elite were unable or unwilling to comprehend that Moscow would have a similar reaction to Washington's provocations in Ukraine.

Predictably, such conduct ultimately produced a geopolitical explosion. U.S. and NATO officials used Ukraine as a strategic pawn against Russia and are now fuming with outrage at Moscow's decision to go to war. Russia's invasion was indeed a horrid overreaction, but it was far from being unprovoked. The Ukrainian people, unfortunately, are the ones paying a high price in blood for the gullibility of their country's leaders and the shocking arrogance of U.S. leaders.
Reply Quote
3
Big C
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:58p, 7/25/23

More than one thing can be true:

- Putin chose to attack Ukraine and bears responsibility.

- US/NATO are doing the right thing to help Ukraine since the attack

- US/NATO knew (or should have known) that talk of Ukraine in NATO would provoke Putin/Russia. Dumb.
Reply Quote
1
OdontoBear66
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Big C • 3:15p, 7/25/23
Big C said:

More than one thing can be true:

- Putin chose to attack Ukraine and bears responsibility.

- US/NATO are doing the right thing to help Ukraine since the attack

- US/NATO knew (or should have known) that talk of Ukraine in NATO would provoke Putin/Russia. Dumb.
Add one:

--The perceived weakness of Biden's international actions early on in his Presidency allowed thoughts of aggression by other world leaders. This one = action
Reply Quote
1
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to OdontoBear66 • 3:55p, 7/25/23
If tRump had won in 2020, Putin would control all of Eastern Europe by now and drawing up plans for a vacation home in Paris.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Reply Quote
6
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bearister • 4:12p, 7/25/23
bearister said:
If tRump had won in 2020, Putin would control all of Eastern Europe by now and drawing up plans for a vacation home in Paris.


Logic Fail.

1. Putin didn't invade when VSGDJT was POTUS.
2. President Trump spoke frequently with world leaders, especially when things got hot.
3. President Trump said "NO" to UniParty war plans with Iran at least four times.
4. President Trump didn't spend 45% of his time on vacation, letting amateur creatures like Jake Sullivan have control.
5. President Trump was firm, resolute, and his peace through economic strength philosophy included 5 peace deals in Israel.
6. President Trump told Putin thete would be SEVERE consequences if he invaded Ukraine; while Biden seemed to egg it along.
Reply Quote
3
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 4:23p, 7/25/23
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Ukraine was not in NATO.

NATO has been in Ukraine since 2014, according to the head of NATO.

1. "NATO in Ukraine" is not the same as "Ukraine in NATO."

2. This was after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, right?


https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2007/04/01/nato-and-ukraine-at-the-crossroads/index.html

Towards a Membership Action Plan (NATOs words, some of which is not military action and are reforms or measures to maintain non-provocative image)

In January 2006, the defence ministers of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, meeting in Budapest, Hungary, announced that their countries were ready to support Ukraine on its path to NATO accession. Hungarian Defence Minister Ferenc Yukhas stated after the quadrilateral meeting that "we believe it is an important task for us to help Ukraine on its way to integration and accession to NATO." The four countries announced that they would organise a special committee to promote Ukrainian military reform.

A month later, in February 2006, President Viktor Yushchenko reiterated in Brussels, Belgium, that Ukraine was ready to join the Membership Action Plan (MAP). In March, he followed this up with a decree setting up an interagency commission to prepare Ukraine for NATO accession. This body can set up task forces to deal with specific directions of cooperation between Ukraine and NATO, and is chaired by the relevant national coordinators.

The National Security and Defence Council is responsible for defining the strategic goals and conceptual approaches to Ukraine-NATO cooperation and submitting relevant proposals to the President. The Cabinet of Ministers is responsible for implementing the national policy of Ukraine-NATO cooperation, in particular with regard to the fulfilment of membership criteria.

Participation in the MAP would allow Ukraine to prepare better for NATO accession through technical assistance and practical advice from NATO. It would not, however, guarantee any future membership in the Alliance such an invitation would depend on the country's ability to meet membership criteria. In the MAP framework, Annual National Programmes are developed which focus on a number of requirements for aspirant countries, including in the political, economic, resource, legal and security fields. Aspirant countries are expected to demonstrate a functioning democratic political system based on a market economy; fair treatment of minority populations; commitment to the peaceful resolution of disputes with neighbours; the ability and willingness to make a military contribution to the Alliance; and a commitment to democratic civil-military relations and structures.

In March 2006, Ukrainian Defence Minister Anatoliy Grytsenko expressed the opinion that if Ukraine works effectively to meet these requirements, and the Allies agree, "the decision on granting membership to Ukraine could be taken in the nearest future. Ukraine will be granted a transition period to finish its preparatory work, which is about a year and a half or two years… That's why full-fledged membership is possible by 2010, but it is only a forecast. Life may bring changes into it."

Of course, one of the current major hurdles to Ukraine's joining the MAP is significant public reluctance to move further according to opinion polls, only some 20 per cent of the population actually support NATO membership, whereas some 54 per cent are opposed. Outdated and counterproductive stereotypes about NATO still hold sway over many in Ukraine. However, the Defence Minister also expressed confidence that by the time Ukraine has to make a decision on NATO accession, the public will be ready to support such a step...

There are plenty of good stories to tell about the practical benefits of ongoing cooperation with NATO. Since 1994, NATO and individual Allies have provided professional military training to some 8 500 Ukrainian officers. Moreover, between 2001 and 2006, NATO has supported the retraining of over 3 000 retired Ukrainian military personnel to help their transition to civilian life. In 2006 alone, nearly 800 servicemen were retrained, and 440 have already found new jobs. Since 2006, new professional courses have been launched for former military personnel in Kirovohrad, Melitopol, Chernihiv and Lviv. And language courses are ongoing in Odessa, Kyiv and Simferopol.


So someone had a plan to try to get Ukraine into NATO someday . . . which means they were not in NATO. Thanks!
Reply Quote
6
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Big C • 4:24p, 7/25/23
Big C said:

More than one thing can be true:

- Putin chose to attack Ukraine and bears responsibility.

- US/NATO are doing the right thing to help Ukraine since the attack

- US/NATO knew (or should have known) that talk of Ukraine in NATO would provoke Putin/Russia. Dumb.

-Russia should have known that attacking Ukraine and taking its territory would provoke them and other countries into joining NATO. Dumb.
Reply Quote
5
OdontoBear66
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bearister • 4:32p, 7/25/23
bearister said:
If tRump had won in 2020, Putin would control all of Eastern Europe by now and drawing up plans for a vacation home in Paris.
Putin never pushed hard when Trump was President. Now every nasty world leader is pushing harder with the old one. Not that I have any love at all for Trump, but the Big Guy shows weakness starting in his dash from Afghanistan.
Reply Quote
2
Big C
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 4:32p, 7/25/23
sycasey said:
Big C said:

More than one thing can be true:

- Putin chose to attack Ukraine and bears responsibility.

- US/NATO are doing the right thing to help Ukraine since the attack

- US/NATO knew (or should have known) that talk of Ukraine in NATO would provoke Putin/Russia. Dumb.

-Russia should have known that attacking Ukraine and taking its territory would provoke them and other countries into joining NATO. Dumb.

Absolutely. Nobody needs to twist my arm for me to say that Putin/Russia are dumber than US/NATO. Pretty low bar for us, though.
Reply Quote
1
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to OdontoBear66 • 5:05p, 7/25/23
OdontoBear66 said:
bearister said:
If tRump had won in 2020, Putin would control all of Eastern Europe by now and drawing up plans for a vacation home in Paris.
Putin never pushed hard when Trump was President. Now every nasty world leader is pushing harder with the old one. Not that I have any love at all for Trump, but the Big Guy shows weakness starting in his dash from Afghanistan.
So Trump showed strength by cowering before Putin in Helsinki? Or was it when he said he wanted to exit Afghanistan but was too weak to do so, thus prolonging a pointless forever war?

The reason Putin didn't "push hard" when Trump was President is because he had someone furthering his agenda and didn't feel the need to accelerate his plans. Once it became clear that Trump was a loser and would never win again, he made his move.

Putin loved it when Trump hired Manafort, who had furthered Putin's corrupt attempts to take over Ukraine and was pushing for the "peace plan" which would allow Putin to have his way with Ukraine. This has been pretty well documented (see here, here and here). If you think this shows strength by Trump, I guess we "moderates" have very different opinions on what it means to be strong. I think a US POTUS shows strength when he represents and furthers US interests and doesn't kowtow to foreign powers who hold us in contempt. But maybe that's. just me.




Reply Quote
6
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 5:16p, 7/25/23
sycasey said:
Big C said:

More than one thing can be true:

- Putin chose to attack Ukraine and bears responsibility.

- US/NATO are doing the right thing to help Ukraine since the attack

- US/NATO knew (or should have known) that talk of Ukraine in NATO would provoke Putin/Russia. Dumb.

-Russia should have known that attacking Ukraine and taking its territory would provoke them and other countries into joining NATO.
Dumb.


Don't you realize Ukraine is likely permanently wrecked? 10-12 million citizens have left, upwards of 400K future Father's have been killed, 2 million ethnic Russians moved to Russia, and Russia controls the most valuable land in the east (despite Blackrocks plans).

Russia now reportedly unleashing a huge offensive on the Lyman Slovyansk Axis.

Reply Quote
3
2 edits
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 5:19p, 7/25/23
President Trump told Putin if he invaded Ukraine he would launch missiles on Moscow.

Your disingenuous post ccomplish nothing. Both Trump and Democrats competed to see who could be tougher on Putin. You ignore these facts. Trump also sent Javelin missiles to Ukraine; Obama sent pillows.

Ditto for "Big C". "Dumb" Putin has a stockpile of ammunition and tanks, superior integrated air
defenses, new partnerships with Iran (drones) and China, and an enviable manufacturing base. Meanwhile, "smart" NATO / US (Rome) has run out of ammo, and after 18 months still hasn't come up with a "surge capacity".

According to Colonel McGregor, our Military of 1991 was far superior. We've gone backwards, and we didn't even allow Billions of dollars spent in / for Ukraine to be audited, a clear sign of massive graft.
Reply Quote
3
2 edits
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 5:51p, 7/25/23
movielover said:
sycasey said:
Big C said:

More than one thing can be true:

- Putin chose to attack Ukraine and bears responsibility.

- US/NATO are doing the right thing to help Ukraine since the attack

- US/NATO knew (or should have known) that talk of Ukraine in NATO would provoke Putin/Russia. Dumb.

-Russia should have known that attacking Ukraine and taking its territory would provoke them and other countries into joining NATO.
Dumb.


Don't you realize Ukraine is likely permanently wrecked?

Permanently? Was the rest of Europe permanently wrecked after World War 1 and 2? No. Rebuilding is always possible.

But yes, it does suck that Putin decided to create so much violence and destruction.
Reply Quote
8
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 6:22p, 7/25/23
movielover said:
bearister said:
If tRump had won in 2020, Putin would control all of Eastern Europe by now and drawing up plans for a vacation home in Paris.


Logic Fail.

1. Putin didn't invade when VSGDJT was POTUS.
OK, I can figure out DJT is Donald Jehosaphat Trump, but VSG?
Very Special Grifter?
Viewing Spectral Ghosts?
Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy?
Vanderbilt Student Governor?

<movielover mode on>
Virtual Son of God?
<movielover mode off>
Reply Quote
1
dimitrig
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 6:27p, 7/25/23
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
movielover said:
bearister said:
If tRump had won in 2020, Putin would control all of Eastern Europe by now and drawing up plans for a vacation home in Paris.


Logic Fail.

1. Putin didn't invade when VSGDJT was POTUS.
OK, I can figure out DJT is Donald Jehosaphat Trump, but VSG?
Very Special Grifter?
Viewing Spectral Ghosts?
Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy?
Vanderbilt Student Governor?

<movielover mode on>
Virtual Son of God?
<movielover mode off>


Very Stable Genius
Reply Quote
blungld
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 6:27p, 7/25/23
So was Ukraine accepted by or only minutes from being accepted by NATO and this possibility represented such a scary scary reality that Russia literally had no choice but to invade and move Ukraine closer to NATO and the NATO borders closer to Russia in the north?

Or was Ukraine never going to be accepted by NATO until meddling US & Europe leapt to poor Ukraine's aid making the war bigger and scarier and then retroactively justifying Russia's invasion?

Or was pure and ethical Russia really really worried about possible Nazis in another country even though they have collaborated with fascists, Nazis, dictators, and authoritarians for decades and have the same if not greater presence of white supremacist, fascist, authoritarians and mafia oligarchs in their own country and sort of like it that way?

Or was Russia invading because it doesn't respect sovereignty of other nations, Putin wanted to flex his authority, and he saw reclaiming "lost" USSR territories as a right and an ego project and as an economic necessity? DING DING DING DING. Good answer. It's not that hard. I knew you could do it Putin88.
Reply Quote
7
dimitrig
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to blungld • 6:39p, 7/25/23
blungld said:
So was Ukraine accepted by or only minutes from being accepted by NATO and this possibility represented such a scary scary reality that Russia literally had no choice but to invade and move Ukraine closer to NATO and the NATO borders closer to Russia in the north?

Or was Ukraine never going to be accepted by NATO until meddling US & Europe leapt to poor Ukraine's aid making the war bigger and scarier and then retroactively justifying Russia's invasion?

Or was pure and ethical Russia really really worried about possible Nazis in another country even though they have collaborated with fascists, Nazis, dictators, and authoritarians for decades and have the same if not greater presence of white supremacist, fascist, authoritarians and mafia oligarchs in their own country and sort of like it that way?

Or was Russia invading because it doesn't respect sovereignty of other nations, Putin wanted to flex his authority, and he saw reclaiming "lost" USSR territories as a right and an ego project and as an economic necessity? DING DING DING DING. Good answer. It's not that hard. I knew you could do it Putin88.


Putin thought it would be easy like Crimea. He would go in, the eastern provinces would welcome him and Ukraine would capitulate once their leadership was killed or had fled.

He did not expect that the West would intervene, which is why it is sort of amusing that Cal88 keeps citing Ukraine's relationship with NATO as a reason for the invasion. If Putin had expected the reaction he got from the West he would have approached this invasion differently - perhaps not at all.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dimitrig • 8:06p, 7/25/23
dimitrig said:
blungld said:
So was Ukraine accepted by or only minutes from being accepted by NATO and this possibility represented such a scary scary reality that Russia literally had no choice but to invade and move Ukraine closer to NATO and the NATO borders closer to Russia in the north?

Or was Ukraine never going to be accepted by NATO until meddling US & Europe leapt to poor Ukraine's aid making the war bigger and scarier and then retroactively justifying Russia's invasion?

Or was pure and ethical Russia really really worried about possible Nazis in another country even though they have collaborated with fascists, Nazis, dictators, and authoritarians for decades and have the same if not greater presence of white supremacist, fascist, authoritarians and mafia oligarchs in their own country and sort of like it that way?

Or was Russia invading because it doesn't respect sovereignty of other nations, Putin wanted to flex his authority, and he saw reclaiming "lost" USSR territories as a right and an ego project and as an economic necessity? DING DING DING DING. Good answer. It's not that hard. I knew you could do it Putin88.

Putin thought it would be easy like Crimea. He would go in, the eastern provinces would welcome him and Ukraine would capitulate once their leadership was killed or had fled.

He did not expect that the West would intervene, which is why it is sort of amusing that Cal88 keeps citing Ukraine's relationship with NATO as a reason for the invasion. If Putin had expected the reaction he got from the West he would have approached this invasion differently - perhaps not at all.

The current Ukrainian govt and Russia were on a collision course, because the Kiev regime wanted to reconquer Crimea by force. Russia would have gone to war for Crimea regardless, no ifs, ands, or buts.

NATO had built up Ukraine into the largest army in Europe, Ukraine's land army was bigger than that of France, Germany and the UK combined. Ukraine military buildup culminated in early '22, when they were primed to crush the rebels in the Donbass - with Crimea being the next target.

This forced Russia's hand, they went in with a show of force and a primary goal of extracting a Minsk+ type of agreement (Donbass, Crimea and Ukrainian neutrality), which a rational Ukrainian government who looks out for the best interest of its people would have adopted, the alternative being military escalation with Russia, which they are certain to lose. The Zelensky government however was neither rational nor driven by the best interest of its people, it is a combination of highly corrupt opportunists (Zel's bunch) and bona fide nazi nutjob militias.

Putin thought his gambit would work, and that he would extract a quick political settlement, however he also planned for the contingency of a long war, clearly having prepared for full-on sanctions and a long war against a well-armed but ultimately inferior opponent.

And that's where we are today. Many are still under the illusion of Ukraine's military option being viable. The more lucid elements however are starting to realize that Ukraine cannot win this war of attrition, while those who have fully bought into the slava ukrainii cult are still clinging to the Hollywood script that was sold to the masses.
Reply Quote
3
blungld
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dimitrig • 8:07p, 7/25/23
But…but…but Putin88 can post a Chomsky tweet who is Liberal that sounds like something that agrees with something Putin88 would say so that means Putin88 knows more about everything than other Liberals and Putin88 is right about everything in Russia/Ukraine and if anyone disagrees then they are war mongers who don't care about human life and want the war to go until the last Ukrainian is dead unlike Putin88 who loves humanity and is level headed and knows all and can show us tweets why Russia had to invade and why it is that they should be there and be the ones to kill every last Ukrainian as they liberate them. Thanks Russia. Thanks Putin88.
Reply Quote
7
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to blungld • 8:26p, 7/25/23
blungld said:
But…but…but Putin88 can post a Chomsky tweet who is Liberal that sounds like something that agrees with something Putin88 would say so that means Putin88 knows more about everything than other Liberals and Putin88 is right about everything in Russia/Ukraine and if anyone disagrees then they are war mongers who don't care about human life and want the war to go until the last Ukrainian is dead unlike Putin88 who loves humanity and is level headed and knows all and can show us tweets why Russia had to invade and why it is that they should be there and be the ones to kill every last Ukrainian as they liberate them. Thanks Russia. Thanks Putin88.

There is a lot of truth in this clunky derisive monologue, so that's one positive there.

The events on the ground are vindicating my analyses and predictions, in time reality is going to catch up, even with the hardcore fantasists.

Meanwhile, you haven't responded to any of my questions above, which weren't rhetorical. Here's a second attempt:

  • Should Ukraine continue to fight a war of attrition it is almost certain to lose? For how long?
  • Do you believe that most new conscripts are willingly drafted?
  • Wouldn't Ukraine have been better off just abiding by Minsk Agreements, or signing a peace deal conceding Crimea, the Donbass and the land bridge to Russia, and adopting neutrality back in March 22, 16 months and 200,000+ Ukrainian lives ago?
  • How many more lives are needed until they start working on a realistic and reasonable settlement?
  • Should Ukrainians in the south and east be allowed to use their own language in their media, education system, businesses and public administration without any prejudice?
  • Should all monuments and urban thoroughfares recently built and named to the glory of the OUN/UPA be destroyed, abolished, renamed and the dozens of WW2-era figures they honor be publicly and officially repudiated by the Ukrainian government and local officials? Should the nationalist ideology be modified to include minorities?
Reply Quote
3
Big C
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 8:58p, 7/25/23
movielover said:
President Trump told Putin if he invaded Ukraine he would launch missiles on Moscow.

Your disingenuous post ccomplish nothing. Both Trump and Democrats competed to see who could be tougher on Putin. You ignore these facts. Trump also sent Javelin missiles to Ukraine; Obama sent pillows.

Ditto for "Big C". "Dumb" Putin has a stockpile of ammunition and tanks, superior integrated air
defenses, new partnerships with Iran (drones) and China, and an enviable manufacturing base. Meanwhile, "smart" NATO / US (Rome) has run out of ammo, and after 18 months still hasn't come up with a "surge capacity".

According to Colonel McGregor, our Military of 1991 was far superior. We've gone backwards, and we didn't even allow Billions of dollars spent in / for Ukraine to be audited, a clear sign of massive graft.

Oh stop.

1. Everybody knows Putin owns Trump. Everybody knows that.

2, "Dumb" is an insult with many meanings that gets tossed around casually (like I did). What's dumb about Putin is the decision he made to attack Ukraine, which has basically no upside for Russia, but great cost. Okay, somebody is going to counter that with an asinine argument like "Russia has basically no unemployment now!" LOL.
Reply Quote
6
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:55p, 7/25/23
Reply Quote
3
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:08p, 7/25/23
RFK Jr. spanks Hannity (not hard) and Bear Insider Progressive wing in minutes. Succinct and factual.

Reply Quote
3
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Big C • 10:11p, 7/25/23
Big C said:
movielover said:
President Trump told Putin if he invaded Ukraine he would launch missiles on Moscow.

Your disingenuous post ccomplish nothing. Both Trump and Democrats competed to see who could be tougher on Putin. You ignore these facts. Trump also sent Javelin missiles to Ukraine; Obama sent pillows.

Ditto for "Big C". "Dumb" Putin has a stockpile of ammunition and tanks, superior integrated air
defenses, new partnerships with Iran (drones) and China, and an enviable manufacturing base. Meanwhile, "smart" NATO / US (Rome) has run out of ammo, and after 18 months still hasn't come up with a "surge capacity".

According to Colonel McGregor, our Military of 1991 was far superior. We've gone backwards, and we didn't even allow Billions of dollars spent in / for Ukraine to be audited, a clear sign of massive graft.

Oh stop.

1. Everybody knows Putin owns Trump. Everybody knows that.

2, "Dumb" is an insult with many meanings that gets tossed around casually (like I did). What's dumb about Putin is the decision he made to attack Ukraine, which has basically no upside for Russia, but great cost. Okay, somebody is going to counter that with an asinine argument like "Russia has basically no unemployment now!" LOL.


"No upside for Russia":

1. Currently has 20% of Ukraine.
2. The most valuable 20%.
3. Gained 2 Million citizens.
4. Now the world's strongest Military?
5. Military expanded and upgraded.
6. Expanded relationships w Iran and China.
7. Ukraine on life support.
8. NATO / America humbled, military stockpiles depleted.
Etc.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:07a, 7/26/23
Here's a great essay in Foreign Affairs about Putin's options 500 plus days into his 3 day war.
Quote:
Governments start wars in pursuit of various objectives, from conquering territory to changing the regime of a hostile state to supporting a beleaguered ally. Once a war begins, the stakes are immediately raised. It is one of the paradoxes of war that even as its original objectives drift out of reach or are cast aside, the necessity of not being seen as the loser only grows in importancesuch importance, in fact, that even if winning is no longer possible, governments will still persevere to show that they have not been beaten.

The problem with losing goes beyond the failure to achieve objectives or even having to explain the expenditures of blood and treasure for little gain: loss casts doubt on the wisdom and competence of the government. Failure in war can cause a government to fall. That is often why governments keep on fighting wars: an admission of defeat could make it harder to hold on to power.

All of these dynamics are evident in Russia's war against Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin set as his objectives the "denazification" and "demilitarization" of Ukraine. By the first, he presumably meant regime change, in which case the war has clearly been a failure. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's position is as strong as ever. As for demilitarization, Ukraine is on its way to becoming the most militarized country in Europe. Many of the Russian speakers in Ukraine on whose behalf Putin claimed to be acting now prefer to speak Ukrainian, while the Russian-speaking areas of the Donbas have been battered, deindustrialized, and depopulated because of this ruinous war.
Although we are still seeing slow, grinding progress in the offensive, Ukraine has retaken almost as much land in the last month plus as Russia has in all of 2023 and Ukraine still hasn't deployed their top brigades. It's hard to imagine Russia's offensive capabilities increasing without Wagner so I expect them to continue to focus on destroying Ukraine's civil infrastructure (including historical districts and heritage like in Odessa) and do their best to make it hard for Ukraine to recover once the war is over and Russia is forced to retreat.



Although the shills love to focus on Ukraine's mobilization efforts, Russia continues to struggle and recognizes they may have to fight to the last Russian in order to maintain this corrupt criminal invasion.





There is an endless parade of videos from mobilized Russians complaining to the tsar about their conditions (this is a long tradition in Russia - see here for more detail). This isn't propaganda and it's not made up - these are actual videos of orcs and loved ones complaining.




As always, be prepared for a vigorous propaganda response fed from the never-ending supply that is being industriously created by the Kremlin. I recently learned about a POW who talked about how he was forced to create Putin's propaganda while in captivity. He just released a book as well. Here's another recent example where the UN concluded that Russia's propaganda about Ukrainian HIMARS causing an explosion which led to the deaths of 50 POWs was false. There were numerous instances like this which I noticed in this thread before I availed myself of the ignore function.

I guess the good news for Putin is that a few years ago he rammed through a new law to provide himself for lifetime immunity for any and all crimes he commits - whether before, during or after his time in office. Trump must be incredibly jealous that Putin both got away with billions in grift (perhaps as much as $200B) and has complete immunity from domestic legal process. Hopefully for the benefit of the Russian people he will one day be forced to pay for his crimes and they will regain some of the huge amounts of dosh that he and his Oligarch cronies have liberated from the pockets of Russian workers.
Reply Quote
3
First Page Last Page
Page 178 of 294 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.