sycasey said:
So as far as I can tell, Cal88's argument here is:
1. Everyone knew Russia would attack if Ukraine joined NATO, so we should not admit them.
2. NATO did not admit Ukraine.
3. Russia attacked anyway.
4. Something about Nazis.
Blah blah blah.
sycasey said:
So as far as I can tell, Cal88's argument here is:
1. Everyone knew Russia would attack if Ukraine joined NATO, so we should not admit them.
2. NATO did not admit Ukraine.
3. Russia attacked anyway.
4. Something about Nazis.
Blah blah blah.
sycasey said:
So as far as I can tell, Cal88's argument here is:
1. Everyone knew Russia would attack if Ukraine joined NATO, so we should not admit them.
2. NATO did not admit Ukraine.
3. Russia attacked anyway.
4. Something about Nazis.
Blah blah blah.
See below.Quote:
4. Something about Nazis.
So your position is that Russia was right to invade?Cal88 said:sycasey said:
So as far as I can tell, Cal88's argument here is:
1. Everyone knew Russia would attack if Ukraine joined NATO, so we should not admit them.
2. NATO did not admit Ukraine.
3. Russia attacked anyway.
4. Something about Nazis.
Blah blah blah.
The main challenge in responding to those kinds of statements is to establish whether they're a reflection of ignorance about the subject, or just plain stupidity.
While Ukraine was not formally a member of NATO, it's as if, in terms of the military investment that NATO has poured into Ukraine. Their armed forces have been extensively trained and equipped by NATO. Around 15,000 Ukrainian troops per year have been trained by NATO since 2013, that is a massive military involvement.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_06/20180724_1806-DEEP-background-ukraine.pdf
Before the start of the war, Ukraine had the best, deepest army in Europe, and was setting up plans to wage a massive military push to clear the Donbass from separatist rebel armies, a war they have been waging for 8 years, with a stretch goal to retake Crimea.
This, and the stated intent of Zelensky's government to acquire nuclear weapons, is what precipitated the Russian invasion. Ukraine has a very large stock of uranium and the technology to produce nuclear weapons, a large segment of Soviet MIC used to be concentrated in that state.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/16/ukraine-may-seek-nuclear-weapons-if-left-out-of-nato-diplomatSee below.Quote:
4. Something about Nazis.
After what was allowed to happen in Ukraine, good luck asking any country to give up their nuclear weapons like Ukraine did.sycasey said:So your position is that Russia was right to invade?Cal88 said:sycasey said:
So as far as I can tell, Cal88's argument here is:
1. Everyone knew Russia would attack if Ukraine joined NATO, so we should not admit them.
2. NATO did not admit Ukraine.
3. Russia attacked anyway.
4. Something about Nazis.
Blah blah blah.
The main challenge in responding to those kinds of statements is to establish whether they're a reflection of ignorance about the subject, or just plain stupidity.
While Ukraine was not formally a member of NATO, it's as if, in terms of the military investment that NATO has poured into Ukraine. Their armed forces have been extensively trained and equipped by NATO. Around 15,000 Ukrainian troops per year have been trained by NATO since 2013, that is a massive military involvement.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_06/20180724_1806-DEEP-background-ukraine.pdf
Before the start of the war, Ukraine had the best, deepest army in Europe, and was setting up plans to wage a massive military push to clear the Donbass from separatist rebel armies, a war they have been waging for 8 years, with a stretch goal to retake Crimea.
This, and the stated intent of Zelensky's government to acquire nuclear weapons, is what precipitated the Russian invasion. Ukraine has a very large stock of uranium and the technology to produce nuclear weapons, a large segment of Soviet MIC used to be concentrated in that state.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/16/ukraine-may-seek-nuclear-weapons-if-left-out-of-nato-diplomatSee below.Quote:
4. Something about Nazis.
JUST IN: SBU liquidated a member of the negotiating group of Ukraine Denis Kireev.
— Anonymous Operations (@AnonOpsSE) March 5, 2022
He was suspected of treason. Kireev was killed during the arrest. pic.twitter.com/hDFsYsH68L
So you think Russia was right to invade this territory. Correct?Cal88 said:
In response to posts above - I don't think Russians are committing a lot of war crimes, for the simple reason that the territories they've moved into are largely populated with pro-Russians. I can provide some evidence of this, both from mainstream and independent western media sources, of widespread local support for Russian troops in the Donbass and in places like Mariupol. I think Russia will have no problem integrating those Russophone regions either directly into Russia as they did with Crimea, or as part of a new friendly buffer state.
sycasey said:So your position is that Russia was right to invade?Cal88 said:sycasey said:
So as far as I can tell, Cal88's argument here is:
1. Everyone knew Russia would attack if Ukraine joined NATO, so we should not admit them.
2. NATO did not admit Ukraine.
3. Russia attacked anyway.
4. Something about Nazis.
Blah blah blah.
The main challenge in responding to those kinds of statements is to establish whether they're a reflection of ignorance about the subject, or just plain stupidity.
While Ukraine was not formally a member of NATO, it's as if, in terms of the military investment that NATO has poured into Ukraine. Their armed forces have been extensively trained and equipped by NATO. Around 15,000 Ukrainian troops per year have been trained by NATO since 2013, that is a massive military involvement.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_06/20180724_1806-DEEP-background-ukraine.pdf
Before the start of the war, Ukraine had the best, deepest army in Europe, and was setting up plans to wage a massive military push to clear the Donbass from separatist rebel armies, a war they have been waging for 8 years, with a stretch goal to retake Crimea.
This, and the stated intent of Zelensky's government to acquire nuclear weapons, is what precipitated the Russian invasion. Ukraine has a very large stock of uranium and the technology to produce nuclear weapons, a large segment of Soviet MIC used to be concentrated in that state.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/16/ukraine-may-seek-nuclear-weapons-if-left-out-of-nato-diplomatSee below.Quote:
4. Something about Nazis.
fixed it for ya.Cal88 said:
In response to posts above - I don't think Russians are committing a lot of war crimes, for the simple reason thatthe territories they've moved into are largely populated with pro-Russians.I will never criticize Putin or anything Russia does under his corrupt regime.
Was Russia right or wrong to invade?Cal88 said:sycasey said:So your position is that Russia was right to invade?Cal88 said:sycasey said:
So as far as I can tell, Cal88's argument here is:
1. Everyone knew Russia would attack if Ukraine joined NATO, so we should not admit them.
2. NATO did not admit Ukraine.
3. Russia attacked anyway.
4. Something about Nazis.
Blah blah blah.
The main challenge in responding to those kinds of statements is to establish whether they're a reflection of ignorance about the subject, or just plain stupidity.
While Ukraine was not formally a member of NATO, it's as if, in terms of the military investment that NATO has poured into Ukraine. Their armed forces have been extensively trained and equipped by NATO. Around 15,000 Ukrainian troops per year have been trained by NATO since 2013, that is a massive military involvement.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_06/20180724_1806-DEEP-background-ukraine.pdf
Before the start of the war, Ukraine had the best, deepest army in Europe, and was setting up plans to wage a massive military push to clear the Donbass from separatist rebel armies, a war they have been waging for 8 years, with a stretch goal to retake Crimea.
This, and the stated intent of Zelensky's government to acquire nuclear weapons, is what precipitated the Russian invasion. Ukraine has a very large stock of uranium and the technology to produce nuclear weapons, a large segment of Soviet MIC used to be concentrated in that state.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/16/ukraine-may-seek-nuclear-weapons-if-left-out-of-nato-diplomatSee below.Quote:
4. Something about Nazis.
My position is no different than that of the 70+ notable geopolitical analysts and politicians that I've listed above, people like Chomsky, Mearsheimer, Gary Hart, Bill Bradley, Sam Nunn, Jeffrey Sachs, former US and UK ambassadors to Russia, former US intel analysts, all of whom have stated that the current policies will precipitate a Russian military response that would wreck Ukraine.
I think we (NATO) could have easily prevented the war, simply by pushing Zelensky's govt to adopt Minsk II, as opposed to actively campaigning against it.
French philosopher Montesquieu stated: "those responsible for wars aren't those that start them, but those that actively make these wars unavoidable" (Les responsables des guerres ne sont pas ceux qui les declenchent, mais ceux qui les ont rendues inevitables… )
Basically NATO has been using Ukraine as a fodder in order to bleed Russia, and people like Lindsay Graham, Victoria Nuland or Macron are more than happy to fight Russia up to the last Ukrainian.
My position is that this war shouldn't have been started, and it needs to be stopped.
He's not going to break character.sycasey said:Was Russia right or wrong to invade?Cal88 said:sycasey said:So your position is that Russia was right to invade?Cal88 said:sycasey said:
So as far as I can tell, Cal88's argument here is:
1. Everyone knew Russia would attack if Ukraine joined NATO, so we should not admit them.
2. NATO did not admit Ukraine.
3. Russia attacked anyway.
4. Something about Nazis.
Blah blah blah.
The main challenge in responding to those kinds of statements is to establish whether they're a reflection of ignorance about the subject, or just plain stupidity.
While Ukraine was not formally a member of NATO, it's as if, in terms of the military investment that NATO has poured into Ukraine. Their armed forces have been extensively trained and equipped by NATO. Around 15,000 Ukrainian troops per year have been trained by NATO since 2013, that is a massive military involvement.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_06/20180724_1806-DEEP-background-ukraine.pdf
Before the start of the war, Ukraine had the best, deepest army in Europe, and was setting up plans to wage a massive military push to clear the Donbass from separatist rebel armies, a war they have been waging for 8 years, with a stretch goal to retake Crimea.
This, and the stated intent of Zelensky's government to acquire nuclear weapons, is what precipitated the Russian invasion. Ukraine has a very large stock of uranium and the technology to produce nuclear weapons, a large segment of Soviet MIC used to be concentrated in that state.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/16/ukraine-may-seek-nuclear-weapons-if-left-out-of-nato-diplomatSee below.Quote:
4. Something about Nazis.
My position is no different than that of the 70+ notable geopolitical analysts and politicians that I've listed above, people like Chomsky, Mearsheimer, Gary Hart, Bill Bradley, Sam Nunn, Jeffrey Sachs, former US and UK ambassadors to Russia, former US intel analysts, all of whom have stated that the current policies will precipitate a Russian military response that would wreck Ukraine.
I think we (NATO) could have easily prevented the war, simply by pushing Zelensky's govt to adopt Minsk II, as opposed to actively campaigning against it.
French philosopher Montesquieu stated: "those responsible for wars aren't those that start them, but those that actively make these wars unavoidable" (Les responsables des guerres ne sont pas ceux qui les declenchent, mais ceux qui les ont rendues inevitables… )
Basically NATO has been using Ukraine as a fodder in order to bleed Russia, and people like Lindsay Graham, Victoria Nuland or Macron are more than happy to fight Russia up to the last Ukrainian.
My position is that this war shouldn't have been started, and it needs to be stopped.
sycasey said:Was Russia right or wrong to invade?Cal88 said:sycasey said:So your position is that Russia was right to invade?Cal88 said:sycasey said:
So as far as I can tell, Cal88's argument here is:
1. Everyone knew Russia would attack if Ukraine joined NATO, so we should not admit them.
2. NATO did not admit Ukraine.
3. Russia attacked anyway.
4. Something about Nazis.
Blah blah blah.
The main challenge in responding to those kinds of statements is to establish whether they're a reflection of ignorance about the subject, or just plain stupidity.
While Ukraine was not formally a member of NATO, it's as if, in terms of the military investment that NATO has poured into Ukraine. Their armed forces have been extensively trained and equipped by NATO. Around 15,000 Ukrainian troops per year have been trained by NATO since 2013, that is a massive military involvement.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_06/20180724_1806-DEEP-background-ukraine.pdf
Before the start of the war, Ukraine had the best, deepest army in Europe, and was setting up plans to wage a massive military push to clear the Donbass from separatist rebel armies, a war they have been waging for 8 years, with a stretch goal to retake Crimea.
This, and the stated intent of Zelensky's government to acquire nuclear weapons, is what precipitated the Russian invasion. Ukraine has a very large stock of uranium and the technology to produce nuclear weapons, a large segment of Soviet MIC used to be concentrated in that state.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/16/ukraine-may-seek-nuclear-weapons-if-left-out-of-nato-diplomatSee below.Quote:
4. Something about Nazis.
My position is no different than that of the 70+ notable geopolitical analysts and politicians that I've listed above, people like Chomsky, Mearsheimer, Gary Hart, Bill Bradley, Sam Nunn, Jeffrey Sachs, former US and UK ambassadors to Russia, former US intel analysts, all of whom have stated that the current policies will precipitate a Russian military response that would wreck Ukraine.
I think we (NATO) could have easily prevented the war, simply by pushing Zelensky's govt to adopt Minsk II, as opposed to actively campaigning against it.
French philosopher Montesquieu stated: "those responsible for wars aren't those that start them, but those that actively make these wars unavoidable" (Les responsables des guerres ne sont pas ceux qui les declenchent, mais ceux qui les ont rendues inevitables… )
Basically NATO has been using Ukraine as a fodder in order to bleed Russia, and people like Lindsay Graham, Victoria Nuland or Macron are more than happy to fight Russia up to the last Ukrainian.
My position is that this war shouldn't have been started, and it needs to be stopped.
🇺🇦 The Truth Comes Out 🇺🇦
— Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil (@ivan_8848) August 2, 2022
What does the United States want?
Sen. Graham: I like the path we’re on. With U.S. weapons and money, 🇺🇦Ukraine will fight Russia to the last 🇺🇦Ukrainian. pic.twitter.com/YyJObPMxeM
I see, so you think this was just going to happen anyway. No amount of different decisions made within Russia would have prevented it.Cal88 said:
I really wish it never happened, much more so than you might think. Right or wrong, it was inevitable, just as the US would have invaded Cuba in 1963 had the Soviets not backed down their aggressive military expansion on America's front porch. Had Russia not intervened last year, there might have been an even bigger and more devastating total war later this decade. That conflict became inevitable, for the reasons I and 70+ reasonable people who are more qualified to judge than you or I have highlighted above.
Right, so you think NATO has culpability in this war. Does Russia? How much?Cal88 said:
The simple implementation of the Minsk Accords would have prevented this war.
Instead of requiring their implementation, and fostering measures that would have reconciled Donbass rebels and reintegrated that region into the national Ukrainian fold within a bicultural, decentralized framework, not unlike the ones in place in countries like Belgium, Spain or Canada that make large accommodation for their ethno-linguistic minorities, NATO has actively blocked Minsk II, arming Ukraine to the brim and egging them on to escalate the conflict, putting them through an unwinnable war against Russia.
Cal88 said:sycasey said:Was Russia right or wrong to invade?Cal88 said:sycasey said:So your position is that Russia was right to invade?Cal88 said:sycasey said:
So as far as I can tell, Cal88's argument here is:
1. Everyone knew Russia would attack if Ukraine joined NATO, so we should not admit them.
2. NATO did not admit Ukraine.
3. Russia attacked anyway.
4. Something about Nazis.
Blah blah blah.
The main challenge in responding to those kinds of statements is to establish whether they're a reflection of ignorance about the subject, or just plain stupidity.
While Ukraine was not formally a member of NATO, it's as if, in terms of the military investment that NATO has poured into Ukraine. Their armed forces have been extensively trained and equipped by NATO. Around 15,000 Ukrainian troops per year have been trained by NATO since 2013, that is a massive military involvement.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_06/20180724_1806-DEEP-background-ukraine.pdf
Before the start of the war, Ukraine had the best, deepest army in Europe, and was setting up plans to wage a massive military push to clear the Donbass from separatist rebel armies, a war they have been waging for 8 years, with a stretch goal to retake Crimea.
This, and the stated intent of Zelensky's government to acquire nuclear weapons, is what precipitated the Russian invasion. Ukraine has a very large stock of uranium and the technology to produce nuclear weapons, a large segment of Soviet MIC used to be concentrated in that state.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/16/ukraine-may-seek-nuclear-weapons-if-left-out-of-nato-diplomatSee below.Quote:
4. Something about Nazis.
My position is no different than that of the 70+ notable geopolitical analysts and politicians that I've listed above, people like Chomsky, Mearsheimer, Gary Hart, Bill Bradley, Sam Nunn, Jeffrey Sachs, former US and UK ambassadors to Russia, former US intel analysts, all of whom have stated that the current policies will precipitate a Russian military response that would wreck Ukraine.
I think we (NATO) could have easily prevented the war, simply by pushing Zelensky's govt to adopt Minsk II, as opposed to actively campaigning against it.
French philosopher Montesquieu stated: "those responsible for wars aren't those that start them, but those that actively make these wars unavoidable" (Les responsables des guerres ne sont pas ceux qui les declenchent, mais ceux qui les ont rendues inevitables… )
Basically NATO has been using Ukraine as a fodder in order to bleed Russia, and people like Lindsay Graham, Victoria Nuland or Macron are more than happy to fight Russia up to the last Ukrainian.
My position is that this war shouldn't have been started, and it needs to be stopped.
I really wish it never happened, much more so than you might think. Right or wrong, it was inevitable, just as the US would have invaded Cuba in 1963 had the Soviets not backed down their aggressive military expansion on America's front porch. Had Russia not intervened last year, there might have been an even bigger and more devastating total war later this decade. That conflict became inevitable, for the reasons I and 70+ reasonable people who are more qualified to judge than you or I have highlighted above.
You're approaching geopolitics as a sports fan and a homer, which I understand will be the default position of the general public, particularly in the current social media and MSM jingoistic environment where the conflict is reduced to one-sided cliches that completely ignore local context and history. I am providing a more reasoned analysis based on these factors, as a well-travelled Cal grad should.
We probably both agree that more effort should have been done to avoid this war in the first place (at least I hope so), unless you side with those, like Lindsey Graham and McCain, are very happy to see Ukraine fighting an unwinnable war in order to weaken Russia, and to keep the MIC cash spigot wide open.🇺🇦 The Truth Comes Out 🇺🇦
— Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil (@ivan_8848) August 2, 2022
What does the United States want?
Sen. Graham: I like the path we’re on. With U.S. weapons and money, 🇺🇦Ukraine will fight Russia to the last 🇺🇦Ukrainian. pic.twitter.com/YyJObPMxeM
Unlike Graham, I don't like the path we're on. It breaks my heart that tens of thousands of Ukrainian men are going to be sacrificed for this policy, including some of my own extended family.
We are well beyond the point where there can be any doubt as to what is going on with Cal88. He isn't going to break character and comment on right or wrong when it comes to Putin or Russia. He only comments on sentiment/motivation/blame when it has to do with everyone else.Big C said:Cal88 said:sycasey said:Was Russia right or wrong to invade?Cal88 said:sycasey said:So your position is that Russia was right to invade?Cal88 said:sycasey said:
So as far as I can tell, Cal88's argument here is:
1. Everyone knew Russia would attack if Ukraine joined NATO, so we should not admit them.
2. NATO did not admit Ukraine.
3. Russia attacked anyway.
4. Something about Nazis.
Blah blah blah.
The main challenge in responding to those kinds of statements is to establish whether they're a reflection of ignorance about the subject, or just plain stupidity.
While Ukraine was not formally a member of NATO, it's as if, in terms of the military investment that NATO has poured into Ukraine. Their armed forces have been extensively trained and equipped by NATO. Around 15,000 Ukrainian troops per year have been trained by NATO since 2013, that is a massive military involvement.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_06/20180724_1806-DEEP-background-ukraine.pdf
Before the start of the war, Ukraine had the best, deepest army in Europe, and was setting up plans to wage a massive military push to clear the Donbass from separatist rebel armies, a war they have been waging for 8 years, with a stretch goal to retake Crimea.
This, and the stated intent of Zelensky's government to acquire nuclear weapons, is what precipitated the Russian invasion. Ukraine has a very large stock of uranium and the technology to produce nuclear weapons, a large segment of Soviet MIC used to be concentrated in that state.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/16/ukraine-may-seek-nuclear-weapons-if-left-out-of-nato-diplomatSee below.Quote:
4. Something about Nazis.
My position is no different than that of the 70+ notable geopolitical analysts and politicians that I've listed above, people like Chomsky, Mearsheimer, Gary Hart, Bill Bradley, Sam Nunn, Jeffrey Sachs, former US and UK ambassadors to Russia, former US intel analysts, all of whom have stated that the current policies will precipitate a Russian military response that would wreck Ukraine.
I think we (NATO) could have easily prevented the war, simply by pushing Zelensky's govt to adopt Minsk II, as opposed to actively campaigning against it.
French philosopher Montesquieu stated: "those responsible for wars aren't those that start them, but those that actively make these wars unavoidable" (Les responsables des guerres ne sont pas ceux qui les declenchent, mais ceux qui les ont rendues inevitables… )
Basically NATO has been using Ukraine as a fodder in order to bleed Russia, and people like Lindsay Graham, Victoria Nuland or Macron are more than happy to fight Russia up to the last Ukrainian.
My position is that this war shouldn't have been started, and it needs to be stopped.
I really wish it never happened, much more so than you might think. Right or wrong, it was inevitable, just as the US would have invaded Cuba in 1963 had the Soviets not backed down their aggressive military expansion on America's front porch. Had Russia not intervened last year, there might have been an even bigger and more devastating total war later this decade. That conflict became inevitable, for the reasons I and 70+ reasonable people who are more qualified to judge than you or I have highlighted above.
You're approaching geopolitics as a sports fan and a homer, which I understand will be the default position of the general public, particularly in the current social media and MSM jingoistic environment where the conflict is reduced to one-sided cliches that completely ignore local context and history. I am providing a more reasoned analysis based on these factors, as a well-travelled Cal grad should.
We probably both agree that more effort should have been done to avoid this war in the first place (at least I hope so), unless you side with those, like Lindsey Graham and McCain, are very happy to see Ukraine fighting an unwinnable war in order to weaken Russia, and to keep the MIC cash spigot wide open.🇺🇦 The Truth Comes Out 🇺🇦
— Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil (@ivan_8848) August 2, 2022
What does the United States want?
Sen. Graham: I like the path we’re on. With U.S. weapons and money, 🇺🇦Ukraine will fight Russia to the last 🇺🇦Ukrainian. pic.twitter.com/YyJObPMxeM
Unlike Graham, I don't like the path we're on. It breaks my heart that tens of thousands of Ukrainian men are going to be sacrificed for this policy, including some of my own extended family.
Well stated. That said, it might help your case if you would assign Putin his share of the blame. IMO, that would be "most all" of the blame, as he is the one who attacked. If you think he deserves, say 49% of the blame, at least say that. Say something bad about the man. Insult his mother. Something. Anything. Because otherwise, these other posters can call you a Putin fanboy and it looks like you are tacitly admitting it.
As poster sycasey often reminds us, two things can be true. Putin can be the bad guy that's largely responsible for this and it could've been a strategic error to talk of Ukraine being in NATO and there can also be bad guys in Ukraine.
Okay, that's three things, but you get the idea.
Quote:
Russia's ministry of defense has blamed sabotage for the Tuesday morning explosions and damage to the military facility in the Dzhankoi area of northern Crimea, state news agency RIA Novosti reported.
Stupid Russians decided to put massive artillery/ammo storage right at the hub of Crimea's railway infrastructure.
— Jay in Kyiv (@JayinKyiv) August 16, 2022
Ukraine just had to hit the thing to kill the flood of weapons into southern Ukraine, destroy ALOT of Russian ammo and paralyze Russian rail operations in Crimea. pic.twitter.com/i116kCFZME
Audio on to understand how much large ammo these stupid Russians just lost in Crimea. pic.twitter.com/VQDtfX5ksr
— Jay in Kyiv (@JayinKyiv) August 16, 2022
Before February 24th, 2 days ago, today.
— Jay in Kyiv (@JayinKyiv) August 16, 2022
Crimea ammo depot. pic.twitter.com/WXRuYbzUXd
Unit2Sucks said:We are well beyond the point where there can be any doubt as to what is going on with Cal88. He isn't going to break character and comment on right or wrong when it comes to Putin or Russia. He only comments on sentiment/motivation/blame when it has to do with everyone else.Big C said:Cal88 said:sycasey said:Was Russia right or wrong to invade?Cal88 said:sycasey said:So your position is that Russia was right to invade?Cal88 said:sycasey said:
So as far as I can tell, Cal88's argument here is:
1. Everyone knew Russia would attack if Ukraine joined NATO, so we should not admit them.
2. NATO did not admit Ukraine.
3. Russia attacked anyway.
4. Something about Nazis.
Blah blah blah.
The main challenge in responding to those kinds of statements is to establish whether they're a reflection of ignorance about the subject, or just plain stupidity.
While Ukraine was not formally a member of NATO, it's as if, in terms of the military investment that NATO has poured into Ukraine. Their armed forces have been extensively trained and equipped by NATO. Around 15,000 Ukrainian troops per year have been trained by NATO since 2013, that is a massive military involvement.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_06/20180724_1806-DEEP-background-ukraine.pdf
Before the start of the war, Ukraine had the best, deepest army in Europe, and was setting up plans to wage a massive military push to clear the Donbass from separatist rebel armies, a war they have been waging for 8 years, with a stretch goal to retake Crimea.
This, and the stated intent of Zelensky's government to acquire nuclear weapons, is what precipitated the Russian invasion. Ukraine has a very large stock of uranium and the technology to produce nuclear weapons, a large segment of Soviet MIC used to be concentrated in that state.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/16/ukraine-may-seek-nuclear-weapons-if-left-out-of-nato-diplomatSee below.Quote:
4. Something about Nazis.
My position is no different than that of the 70+ notable geopolitical analysts and politicians that I've listed above, people like Chomsky, Mearsheimer, Gary Hart, Bill Bradley, Sam Nunn, Jeffrey Sachs, former US and UK ambassadors to Russia, former US intel analysts, all of whom have stated that the current policies will precipitate a Russian military response that would wreck Ukraine.
I think we (NATO) could have easily prevented the war, simply by pushing Zelensky's govt to adopt Minsk II, as opposed to actively campaigning against it.
French philosopher Montesquieu stated: "those responsible for wars aren't those that start them, but those that actively make these wars unavoidable" (Les responsables des guerres ne sont pas ceux qui les declenchent, mais ceux qui les ont rendues inevitables… )
Basically NATO has been using Ukraine as a fodder in order to bleed Russia, and people like Lindsay Graham, Victoria Nuland or Macron are more than happy to fight Russia up to the last Ukrainian.
My position is that this war shouldn't have been started, and it needs to be stopped.
I really wish it never happened, much more so than you might think. Right or wrong, it was inevitable, just as the US would have invaded Cuba in 1963 had the Soviets not backed down their aggressive military expansion on America's front porch. Had Russia not intervened last year, there might have been an even bigger and more devastating total war later this decade. That conflict became inevitable, for the reasons I and 70+ reasonable people who are more qualified to judge than you or I have highlighted above.
You're approaching geopolitics as a sports fan and a homer, which I understand will be the default position of the general public, particularly in the current social media and MSM jingoistic environment where the conflict is reduced to one-sided cliches that completely ignore local context and history. I am providing a more reasoned analysis based on these factors, as a well-travelled Cal grad should.
We probably both agree that more effort should have been done to avoid this war in the first place (at least I hope so), unless you side with those, like Lindsey Graham and McCain, are very happy to see Ukraine fighting an unwinnable war in order to weaken Russia, and to keep the MIC cash spigot wide open.🇺🇦 The Truth Comes Out 🇺🇦
— Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil (@ivan_8848) August 2, 2022
What does the United States want?
Sen. Graham: I like the path we’re on. With U.S. weapons and money, 🇺🇦Ukraine will fight Russia to the last 🇺🇦Ukrainian. pic.twitter.com/YyJObPMxeM
Unlike Graham, I don't like the path we're on. It breaks my heart that tens of thousands of Ukrainian men are going to be sacrificed for this policy, including some of my own extended family.
Well stated. That said, it might help your case if you would assign Putin his share of the blame. IMO, that would be "most all" of the blame, as he is the one who attacked. If you think he deserves, say 49% of the blame, at least say that. Say something bad about the man. Insult his mother. Something. Anything. Because otherwise, these other posters can call you a Putin fanboy and it looks like you are tacitly admitting it.
As poster sycasey often reminds us, two things can be true. Putin can be the bad guy that's largely responsible for this and it could've been a strategic error to talk of Ukraine being in NATO and there can also be bad guys in Ukraine.
Okay, that's three things, but you get the idea.
For example, Russia is continuing to get their ammo dumps blown up because they have a terrible military full of untrained, underpaid people who don't want to be there and have no interest in attacking Ukraine. Rather than adopting "realism" - which is that leaving your freaking munitions stashes completely exposed along a major railway line will result in losses - they blame the Beastie Boys.Quote:
Russia's ministry of defense has blamed sabotage for the Tuesday morning explosions and damage to the military facility in the Dzhankoi area of northern Crimea, state news agency RIA Novosti reported.
Don't get me wrong. Sabotage is an anthemic song but it's not the reason Putin's army is trash and continuing to step on its dick.
Sorry, where was I? Oh right, Cal88 has spilled a lot of ink extolling the virtuosity of Putin's military and ignoring their many war crimes so that he can focus on the issue he and Putin clearly care deeply about - Nazis in Ukraine but the reality is that Putin's army is garbage and Ukraine is doing far better than Cal88 and Putin's other yes men give them credit for.
There are numerous examples like this.Stupid Russians decided to put massive artillery/ammo storage right at the hub of Crimea's railway infrastructure.
— Jay in Kyiv (@JayinKyiv) August 16, 2022
Ukraine just had to hit the thing to kill the flood of weapons into southern Ukraine, destroy ALOT of Russian ammo and paralyze Russian rail operations in Crimea. pic.twitter.com/i116kCFZMEAudio on to understand how much large ammo these stupid Russians just lost in Crimea. pic.twitter.com/VQDtfX5ksr
— Jay in Kyiv (@JayinKyiv) August 16, 2022Before February 24th, 2 days ago, today.
— Jay in Kyiv (@JayinKyiv) August 16, 2022
Crimea ammo depot. pic.twitter.com/WXRuYbzUXd
Cal88 said:
The simple implementation of the Minsk Accords would have prevented this war.
Instead of requiring their implementation, and fostering measures that would have reconciled Donbass rebels and reintegrated that region into the national Ukrainian fold within a bicultural, decentralized framework, not unlike the ones in place in countries like Belgium, Spain or Canada that make large accommodation for their ethno-linguistic minorities, NATO has actively blocked Minsk II, arming Ukraine to the brim and egging them on to escalate the conflict, putting them through an unwinnable war against Russia.
golden sloth said:Cal88 said:
The simple implementation of the Minsk Accords would have prevented this war.
Instead of requiring their implementation, and fostering measures that would have reconciled Donbass rebels and reintegrated that region into the national Ukrainian fold within a bicultural, decentralized framework, not unlike the ones in place in countries like Belgium, Spain or Canada that make large accommodation for their ethno-linguistic minorities, NATO has actively blocked Minsk II, arming Ukraine to the brim and egging them on to escalate the conflict, putting them through an unwinnable war against Russia.
No, the only thing that would have prevented this war is Russia deciding they dont want to conquer a separate sovereign country.
Honestly, I think the truest statement is that Russia can't actually "win" this war.dimitrig said:
I don't necessarily believe anything the media writes about what is going on over there. There is a fog of war that makes things uncertain.
However, one thing Cal88 is wrong about is that Ukraine can't win the war. They absolutely can if there is a will of the people to do so and so far the will to fight seems strong.
I expect that this will go down as a military disaster for Russia. Their best bet is to declare that they have achieved their primary objectives and sue for peace. Anything else will result in a lot of dead Russians for no reason - just like Afghanistan.
I remember the days when quoting a story from Al Jazeera would have made you a laughingstock.Cal88 said:sycasey said:
So as far as I can tell, Cal88's argument here is:
1. Everyone knew Russia would attack if Ukraine joined NATO, so we should not admit them.
2. NATO did not admit Ukraine.
3. Russia attacked anyway.
4. Something about Nazis.
Blah blah blah.
The main challenge in responding to those kinds of statements is to establish whether they're a reflection of ignorance about the subject, or just plain stupidity.
While Ukraine was not formally a member of NATO, it's as if, in terms of the military investment that NATO has poured into Ukraine. Their armed forces have been extensively trained and equipped by NATO. Around 15,000 Ukrainian troops per year have been trained by NATO since 2013, that is a massive military involvement.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_06/20180724_1806-DEEP-background-ukraine.pdf
Before the start of the war, Ukraine had the best, deepest army in Europe, and was setting up plans to wage a massive military push to clear the Donbass from separatist rebel armies, a war they have been waging for 8 years, with a stretch goal to retake Crimea.
This, and the stated intent of Zelensky's government to acquire nuclear weapons, is what precipitated the Russian invasion. Ukraine has a very large stock of uranium and the technology to produce nuclear weapons, a large segment of Soviet MIC used to be concentrated in that state.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/16/ukraine-may-seek-nuclear-weapons-if-left-out-of-nato-diplomatSee below.Quote:
4. Something about Nazis.
sycasey said:Honestly, I think the truest statement is that Russia can't actually "win" this war.dimitrig said:
I don't necessarily believe anything the media writes about what is going on over there. There is a fog of war that makes things uncertain.
However, one thing Cal88 is wrong about is that Ukraine can't win the war. They absolutely can if there is a will of the people to do so and so far the will to fight seems strong.
I expect that this will go down as a military disaster for Russia. Their best bet is to declare that they have achieved their primary objectives and sue for peace. Anything else will result in a lot of dead Russians for no reason - just like Afghanistan.
Can they win territory? Yes, probably. But can they actually "win" control of Ukraine, in the long term? No, I don't think so. Their only chance of that was a blitzkrieg that toppled the capital and chased out the leadership in one fell swoop . . . basically exactly what Putin tried at the start of this, sending his tanks towards Kyiv. That attempt has obviously failed. Now the war is going to be an extended quagmire with little end in sight. Even if they somehow manage to get Zelensky out, the Russians will never have true control; the population will remember the invasion and want the occupiers out at the first opportunity.
Eastern Oregon Bear said:I remember the days when quoting a story from Al Jazeera would have made you a laughingstock.Cal88 said:sycasey said:
So as far as I can tell, Cal88's argument here is:
1. Everyone knew Russia would attack if Ukraine joined NATO, so we should not admit them.
2. NATO did not admit Ukraine.
3. Russia attacked anyway.
4. Something about Nazis.
Blah blah blah.
The main challenge in responding to those kinds of statements is to establish whether they're a reflection of ignorance about the subject, or just plain stupidity.
While Ukraine was not formally a member of NATO, it's as if, in terms of the military investment that NATO has poured into Ukraine. Their armed forces have been extensively trained and equipped by NATO. Around 15,000 Ukrainian troops per year have been trained by NATO since 2013, that is a massive military involvement.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_06/20180724_1806-DEEP-background-ukraine.pdf
Before the start of the war, Ukraine had the best, deepest army in Europe, and was setting up plans to wage a massive military push to clear the Donbass from separatist rebel armies, a war they have been waging for 8 years, with a stretch goal to retake Crimea.
This, and the stated intent of Zelensky's government to acquire nuclear weapons, is what precipitated the Russian invasion. Ukraine has a very large stock of uranium and the technology to produce nuclear weapons, a large segment of Soviet MIC used to be concentrated in that state.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/16/ukraine-may-seek-nuclear-weapons-if-left-out-of-nato-diplomatSee below.Quote:
4. Something about Nazis.
Cal88 said:Eastern Oregon Bear said:I remember the days when quoting a story from Al Jazeera would have made you a laughingstock.Cal88 said:sycasey said:
So as far as I can tell, Cal88's argument here is:
1. Everyone knew Russia would attack if Ukraine joined NATO, so we should not admit them.
2. NATO did not admit Ukraine.
3. Russia attacked anyway.
4. Something about Nazis.
Blah blah blah.
The main challenge in responding to those kinds of statements is to establish whether they're a reflection of ignorance about the subject, or just plain stupidity.
While Ukraine was not formally a member of NATO, it's as if, in terms of the military investment that NATO has poured into Ukraine. Their armed forces have been extensively trained and equipped by NATO. Around 15,000 Ukrainian troops per year have been trained by NATO since 2013, that is a massive military involvement.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_06/20180724_1806-DEEP-background-ukraine.pdf
Before the start of the war, Ukraine had the best, deepest army in Europe, and was setting up plans to wage a massive military push to clear the Donbass from separatist rebel armies, a war they have been waging for 8 years, with a stretch goal to retake Crimea.
This, and the stated intent of Zelensky's government to acquire nuclear weapons, is what precipitated the Russian invasion. Ukraine has a very large stock of uranium and the technology to produce nuclear weapons, a large segment of Soviet MIC used to be concentrated in that state.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/16/ukraine-may-seek-nuclear-weapons-if-left-out-of-nato-diplomatSee below.Quote:
4. Something about Nazis.
From the horse's mouth, a Ukrainian news outlet:
https://uawire.org/zelensky-ukraine-may-reconsider-its-nuclear-status
This is a partisan RW American source, but that site, and the author, are consistently pro-NATO, I think he does a solid job as a journalist here:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/president-zelensky-suggests-ukraine-may-pursue-nuclear-weapons-to-counter-russia-putin-responds
Another analysis by an anti-nuclear war activist scientist, from the left:
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/03/ukraine-nukes/
Bottom line, there is no doubt that Zelensky has stated before the war his desire to rescind the non-proliferation treaty Ukraine signed in the 90s and acquire nuclear weapons. And unlike say Iran or a second-rate tech country, Ukraine has some of the world's best expertise on nuclear weapons, a large stockpile of nuclear fuel and missiles whose range can be extended to reach the west Russian heartland
Big C said:Cal88 said:sycasey said:Was Russia right or wrong to invade?Cal88 said:sycasey said:So your position is that Russia was right to invade?Cal88 said:sycasey said:
So as far as I can tell, Cal88's argument here is:
1. Everyone knew Russia would attack if Ukraine joined NATO, so we should not admit them.
2. NATO did not admit Ukraine.
3. Russia attacked anyway.
4. Something about Nazis.
Blah blah blah.
The main challenge in responding to those kinds of statements is to establish whether they're a reflection of ignorance about the subject, or just plain stupidity.
While Ukraine was not formally a member of NATO, it's as if, in terms of the military investment that NATO has poured into Ukraine. Their armed forces have been extensively trained and equipped by NATO. Around 15,000 Ukrainian troops per year have been trained by NATO since 2013, that is a massive military involvement.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_06/20180724_1806-DEEP-background-ukraine.pdf
Before the start of the war, Ukraine had the best, deepest army in Europe, and was setting up plans to wage a massive military push to clear the Donbass from separatist rebel armies, a war they have been waging for 8 years, with a stretch goal to retake Crimea.
This, and the stated intent of Zelensky's government to acquire nuclear weapons, is what precipitated the Russian invasion. Ukraine has a very large stock of uranium and the technology to produce nuclear weapons, a large segment of Soviet MIC used to be concentrated in that state.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/16/ukraine-may-seek-nuclear-weapons-if-left-out-of-nato-diplomatSee below.Quote:
4. Something about Nazis.
My position is no different than that of the 70+ notable geopolitical analysts and politicians that I've listed above, people like Chomsky, Mearsheimer, Gary Hart, Bill Bradley, Sam Nunn, Jeffrey Sachs, former US and UK ambassadors to Russia, former US intel analysts, all of whom have stated that the current policies will precipitate a Russian military response that would wreck Ukraine.
I think we (NATO) could have easily prevented the war, simply by pushing Zelensky's govt to adopt Minsk II, as opposed to actively campaigning against it.
French philosopher Montesquieu stated: "those responsible for wars aren't those that start them, but those that actively make these wars unavoidable" (Les responsables des guerres ne sont pas ceux qui les declenchent, mais ceux qui les ont rendues inevitables… )
Basically NATO has been using Ukraine as a fodder in order to bleed Russia, and people like Lindsay Graham, Victoria Nuland or Macron are more than happy to fight Russia up to the last Ukrainian.
My position is that this war shouldn't have been started, and it needs to be stopped.
I really wish it never happened, much more so than you might think. Right or wrong, it was inevitable, just as the US would have invaded Cuba in 1963 had the Soviets not backed down their aggressive military expansion on America's front porch. Had Russia not intervened last year, there might have been an even bigger and more devastating total war later this decade. That conflict became inevitable, for the reasons I and 70+ reasonable people who are more qualified to judge than you or I have highlighted above.
You're approaching geopolitics as a sports fan and a homer, which I understand will be the default position of the general public, particularly in the current social media and MSM jingoistic environment where the conflict is reduced to one-sided cliches that completely ignore local context and history. I am providing a more reasoned analysis based on these factors, as a well-travelled Cal grad should.
We probably both agree that more effort should have been done to avoid this war in the first place (at least I hope so), unless you side with those, like Lindsey Graham and McCain, are very happy to see Ukraine fighting an unwinnable war in order to weaken Russia, and to keep the MIC cash spigot wide open.🇺🇦 The Truth Comes Out 🇺🇦
— Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil (@ivan_8848) August 2, 2022
What does the United States want?
Sen. Graham: I like the path we’re on. With U.S. weapons and money, 🇺🇦Ukraine will fight Russia to the last 🇺🇦Ukrainian. pic.twitter.com/YyJObPMxeM
Unlike Graham, I don't like the path we're on. It breaks my heart that tens of thousands of Ukrainian men are going to be sacrificed for this policy, including some of my own extended family.
Well stated. That said, it might help your case if you would assign Putin his share of the blame. IMO, that would be "most all" of the blame, as he is the one who attacked. If you think he deserves, say 49% of the blame, at least say that. Say something bad about the man. Insult his mother. Something. Anything. Because otherwise, these other posters can call you a Putin fanboy and it looks like you are tacitly admitting it.
As poster sycasey often reminds us, two things can be true. Putin can be the bad guy that's largely responsible for this and it could've been a strategic error to talk of Ukraine being in NATO and there can also be bad guys in Ukraine.
Okay, that's three things, but you get the idea.
By that, you mean Russia annexing Crimea? Do you think the people in that province wanted anything to do with the post-MaidanQuote:
Ukraine wanted its nukes back after Russia invaded them the first time? Shocking!
Consider the case of Chechnya, where Russia had a far more brutal ethnic war, levelling much of Grozny and other cities to the ground. They've managed to bring that nation back completely into the Russian federal fold through an economic rebuilding program. And Chechens aren't even Slavs, they're a Muslim Caucasian-Turkic tribe, with a completely foreign language, whereas Russians and Ukrainians are very closely related ethnicities and languages, like say Nowegian and Swedish.Quote:
Tons of Ukrainians who didn't hate Putin ten years ago, now despise him. Same with a lot of the ethnic Russians who live in Ukraine. Yes, even if Russia "wins" a lot of the territory, what then? This is a disaster for Ukraine and doesn't seem to have an upside for Russia, either.
Cal88 said:By that, you mean Russia annexing Crimea?Quote:
Ukraine wanted its nukes back after Russia invaded them the first time? Shocking!
Big C said:Cal88 said:
I really wish it never happened, much more so than you might think. Right or wrong, it was inevitable, just as the US would have invaded Cuba in 1963 had the Soviets not backed down their aggressive military expansion on America's front porch. Had Russia not intervened last year, there might have been an even bigger and more devastating total war later this decade. That conflict became inevitable, for the reasons I and 70+ reasonable people who are more qualified to judge than you or I have highlighted above.
You're approaching geopolitics as a sports fan and a homer, which I understand will be the default position of the general public, particularly in the current social media and MSM jingoistic environment where the conflict is reduced to one-sided cliches that completely ignore local context and history. I am providing a more reasoned analysis based on these factors, as a well-travelled Cal grad should.
We probably both agree that more effort should have been done to avoid this war in the first place (at least I hope so), unless you side with those, like Lindsey Graham and McCain, are very happy to see Ukraine fighting an unwinnable war in order to weaken Russia, and to keep the MIC cash spigot wide open.🇺🇦 The Truth Comes Out 🇺🇦
— Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil (@ivan_8848) August 2, 2022
What does the United States want?
Sen. Graham: I like the path we’re on. With U.S. weapons and money, 🇺🇦Ukraine will fight Russia to the last 🇺🇦Ukrainian. pic.twitter.com/YyJObPMxeM
Unlike Graham, I don't like the path we're on. It breaks my heart that tens of thousands of Ukrainian men are going to be sacrificed for this policy, including some of my own extended family.
Well stated. That said, it might help your case if you would assign Putin his share of the blame. IMO, that would be "most all" of the blame, as he is the one who attacked. If you think he deserves, say 49% of the blame, at least say that. Say something bad about the man. Insult his mother. Something. Anything. Because otherwise, these other posters can call you a Putin fanboy and it looks like you are tacitly admitting it.
As poster sycasey often reminds us, two things can be true. Putin can be the bad guy that's largely responsible for this and it could've been a strategic error to talk of Ukraine being in NATO and there can also be bad guys in Ukraine.
Okay, that's three things, but you get the idea.
That after picture looks like an artist's (or architect's) rendition, not a real photograph. I could be wrong though.Cal88 said:By that, you mean Russia annexing Crimea? Do you think the people in that province wanted anything to do with the post-MaidanQuote:
Ukraine wanted its nukes back after Russia invaded them the first time? Shocking!KievKyiv regime?
In the west, when a province or a state within a federal entity wants to secede, they get to vote it out, such as the case with Quebec, Scotland, or Slovakia. Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and join Russia, and it wasn't even close.
Russia is basically doing in Ukraine what NATO has done in Yugoslavia in the 90s, cut up and balkanize the country along ethnic lines that suit their geopolitical regional goals. For parts like Slovenia, Croatia or Bosnia, this turned out fairly well, but not so well for Serbia, which has been reduced to a landlocked leftover small Yugoslav core. I think the same scenario will play out in Ukraine, with eventually down the line Poland and Hungary wanting a piece of the action.Consider the case of Chechnya, where Russia had a far more brutal ethnic war, levelling much of Grozny and other cities to the ground.Quote:
Tons of Ukrainians who didn't hate Putin ten years ago, now despise him. Same with a lot of the ethnic Russians who live in Ukraine. Yes, even if Russia "wins" a lot of the territory, what then? This is a disaster for Ukraine and doesn't seem to have an upside for Russia, either.
Grozny before and after:
Yeah, a lot of those guys were bad guys. Saddam was definitely a bad guy.Cal88 said:
Anytime the US has a designated enemy/target, be it Saddam, Noriega, Chavez, Assad or further back Mossadegh in 1950s Iran, the head of that nation automatically becomes a cartoon villain, bloodthirsty trillionaire dictator who gases his population. In every case, the great majority of Americans will rally around the flag and internalize the image of the target country leader that the State Dept and MSM has drawn up for them.
Video for aesthetic pleasure. pic.twitter.com/H3pz1WhwBp
— Special Kherson Cat 🐈🇺🇦 (@bayraktar_1love) August 17, 2022
