chazzed said:

---

A good article on how Cal88 and Fox News being in Putin's corner do America and the world no good:
https://www.thebulwark.com/fox-news-putin-propaganda-primetime/

---

I wonder what Ronald Reagan would think about his conservative movement having pivoted to taking Russia's side in a major world conflict.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Obviously a lot of Putin defenders will try to re-litigate what's already happened so that they can save face in light of how bad their prognostications have been over the last 8 months, but it's becoming harder and harder for them to pretend like Putin has been successful in Ukraine to this point.

---

I remember some people telling me that Russia had by far the strongest military in the region and would easily win any land war near their borders. These are the same people who were dead certain that Putin would not invade Ukraine, then that he would not try to take Kiev, because he was being a rational actor. Those same people are now asking me to trust them that we should appease Russia and cut a deal right now, because nuclear war is surely around the corner and it's really America's fault that all of this is happening.

I see no reason to listen to these people anymore.

sycasey said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Russia could stop having any logistical issues by just ending the invasion.

---

They tried, and reached an agreement with Zelenskyy -- but UK PM Boris Johnson, with the blessings of the U.S., said "No way."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/05/06/boris-johnson-pressured-zelenskyy-ditch-peace-talks-russia-ukrainian-paper

Putin would rather keep the Donbass & have both sides take the winter off, but the U.S. & NATO won't have it.

The U.S. & NATO are committed to fighting Russia "down to the last Ukrainian."

---

I don't see anything here that tells us Russia can't just withdraw. The only reason any agreement has to be negotiated is because they started the war.

---

Putin invaded because he saw Ukraine/NATO/U.S. as an expanding existential threat, from as far back as 2008, and made that clear repeatedly through diplomatic channels.

He knows that the U.S. & NATO won't stop until he's dead or out of power. Boris Johnson's trip to Ukraine proved it. IF Putin "just stopped," the U.S./NATO would re-take the Donbass, go back to persecuting the ethnic Russians there, and set up missiles on Russia's border, daring Putin to do something about it.

"Just stopping" would also leave Crimea to NATO, effectively abandoning Russia's entire Black Sea Navy, and ceding it to NATO/U.S. -- Just before Winter.

Putin won't stop because the U.S. won't stop.

Military domination of the Eurasian continent, including "regime change" in Russia, has been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy since 2000. The U.S. NeoCons aren't about to give up just when they see themselves on the threshold of another victory.

If you haven't read this, you should. It helps to put our last 22 years of foreign policy into context:

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski (1997)
https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/046509435X/

I picked it up & read it a couple days after 9/11/2001. Haven't been surprised by anything since.

---

What is the "existential threat" that Ukraine or NATO pose to Russia? You think NATO is going to invade Russia? If not, then the threats are not remotely equivalent. NATO is a voluntary military alliance, not an invasion of sovereign nations.

The U.S. and NATO would not "take" the Donbas or Crimea, Ukraine would keep them, based on national borders Russia already agreed to years ago. Ukraine is not in NATO! They probably wouldn't even be close to being in NATO, except Russia's invasions have accelerated the need for that in a lot of people's minds. Finland didn't want to be in NATO before the most recent invasion, and now they do. That's Russia's fault, not NATO's.

Your framing just seems incredibly off-base to me. False equivalencies everywhere.

---

What do you mean? Other than the U.S. being committed to "regime change" in Russia and/or their destruction for decades?

You should know by now that when people tell you who they are, in great detail, and what they're willing to do, you should believe them.

The U.S. NeoCons, and their mission to dominate the world militarily, economically, and politically, are as much of an enemy to peace, democracy, and prosperity as Putin is. Even more so, IMO.

These are the people who lied us into illegal wars in Afghanistan & Iraq, spent $trillions of U.S. Taxpayers' money, and killed millions throughout the world in their lust for global dominance. They clearly learned nothing from our experience in Vietnam.

It sickens me to see the West cheering for these people, as if they were somehow the "good guys." There are no "good guys."

The U.S. NeoCons started out in the Cheney administration, within the Republican Party. After Trump embarrassed them & cast them out of the Party in the 2016 campaign, they migrated over to the Democratic Party, and have been welcomed there with open arms by the Dem establishment, their "defense" industry sponsors, and MSNBC/CNN.

These people need to be held accountable for their war crimes & crimes against humanity. They have spared no expense, and have operated in secret, hiding their ambitions and actions from the American people who pay their bills, and never having to answer the question, "How are you gonna pay for that?"

The NeoCons screamed bloody murder when Biden followed through on Trump's plan to get U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. Since then, they've managed to re-assert themselves, and they currently fill the foreign policy vacuum that Biden has left for them.

We're careening toward World War, complete with nuclear confrontation in Ukraine. This (U.S. foreign policy) needs to be a #1 topic of discussion in the upcoming elections. Sadly, with our intentional U.S. & global economic meltdown, foreign policy is either on the back burner, or nowhere near the stovetop at all.

---

The Neocons suck, but I'm not seeing where they ever threatened to militarily invade Russia. Meanwhile, Russia is currently invading Ukraine. I don't see why the Neocons are still the big threat here, other than if your mindset is just to tie everything back to being the USA's fault.

---

At least you can acknowledge that Neocons suck.

What you don't apparently recognize -- but what the rest of the world understands very clearly -- is that the Neocons have been controlling U.S. foreign policy since 2001, and that they will do "whatever it takes" to remove anyone who challenges their quest for unipolar global hegemony.

In case you didn't read it before, here's the Neocon manifesto:
https://archive.org/details/RebuildingAmericasDefenses

And here's a "blast from the past" -- an article on candidate Hillary's zeal for "regime change" during the 2016 campaign:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/26/hillary-clintons-campaign-against-russia/

All you need to do is look at what "we" did Saddam Hussein in Iraq & Moammar Ghaddafi in Libya ("We came, we saw, he died.") for their attempts at selling oil in currencies other than USD, and for their opposition to U.S. hegemony.

"Regime change" isn't supposed to be an outward military threat. It works with massive doses of pro-U.S./pro-NATO/pro-EU/pro-Neoliberal messaging, and fostering dissent. This is exactly what we did in Ukraine leading up to the 2014 coup, and it's what we've been doing for decades in Russia.

Viktor Yanukovich looked at the Neoliberal austerity policies that EU membership required, and (correctly, I believe) decided against them for Ukraine. Remember that by 2014, Greece was on its 9th austerity package. The EU membership, and the terms of the IMF loans, absolutely crushed the Greek economy.

The threat to Russia from the U.S. & NATO isn't a direct military threat. It's the combined threat of Neoliberal austerity, western propaganda & pro-western movements with anti-Putin dissent.

Russia already went through U.S.-led austerity & "shock treatment" with Yeltsin, and it devastated Russia's economy & her people. That's why Putin has been, and continues to be, very popular in Russia. His invasion has backfired on him, but the way he saw it, he wasn't going to wait for the U.S. to show up on his doorstep in Ukraine.

The rise of authoritarian Fascists in Europe, Brazil, the U.S., and around the world is a direct result of the spread of Neoliberal economics and the austerity policies that go with them.

That's why I continue to assert that the war in Ukraine isn't the "good guys" vs the "bad guys." It's bad guys vs bad guys.

Ukraine was far better off before the 2014 coup, when they actually had a functioning-but-corrupt democracy (like ours). Like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and many others, our zeal for "regime change" is likely to result in a failed state. Again.

cbbass1 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Russia could stop having any logistical issues by just ending the invasion.

---

They tried, and reached an agreement with Zelenskyy -- but UK PM Boris Johnson, with the blessings of the U.S., said "No way."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/05/06/boris-johnson-pressured-zelenskyy-ditch-peace-talks-russia-ukrainian-paper

Putin would rather keep the Donbass & have both sides take the winter off, but the U.S. & NATO won't have it.

The U.S. & NATO are committed to fighting Russia "down to the last Ukrainian."

---

I don't see anything here that tells us Russia can't just withdraw. The only reason any agreement has to be negotiated is because they started the war.

---

Putin invaded because he saw Ukraine/NATO/U.S. as an expanding existential threat, from as far back as 2008, and made that clear repeatedly through diplomatic channels.

He knows that the U.S. & NATO won't stop until he's dead or out of power. Boris Johnson's trip to Ukraine proved it. IF Putin "just stopped," the U.S./NATO would re-take the Donbass, go back to persecuting the ethnic Russians there, and set up missiles on Russia's border, daring Putin to do something about it.

"Just stopping" would also leave Crimea to NATO, effectively abandoning Russia's entire Black Sea Navy, and ceding it to NATO/U.S. -- Just before Winter.

Putin won't stop because the U.S. won't stop.

Military domination of the Eurasian continent, including "regime change" in Russia, has been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy since 2000. The U.S. NeoCons aren't about to give up just when they see themselves on the threshold of another victory.

If you haven't read this, you should. It helps to put our last 22 years of foreign policy into context:

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski (1997)
https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/046509435X/

I picked it up & read it a couple days after 9/11/2001. Haven't been surprised by anything since.

---

What is the "existential threat" that Ukraine or NATO pose to Russia? You think NATO is going to invade Russia? If not, then the threats are not remotely equivalent. NATO is a voluntary military alliance, not an invasion of sovereign nations.

The U.S. and NATO would not "take" the Donbas or Crimea, Ukraine would keep them, based on national borders Russia already agreed to years ago. Ukraine is not in NATO! They probably wouldn't even be close to being in NATO, except Russia's invasions have accelerated the need for that in a lot of people's minds. Finland didn't want to be in NATO before the most recent invasion, and now they do. That's Russia's fault, not NATO's.

Your framing just seems incredibly off-base to me. False equivalencies everywhere.

---

What do you mean? Other than the U.S. being committed to "regime change" in Russia and/or their destruction for decades?

You should know by now that when people tell you who they are, in great detail, and what they're willing to do, you should believe them.

The U.S. NeoCons, and their mission to dominate the world militarily, economically, and politically, are as much of an enemy to peace, democracy, and prosperity as Putin is. Even more so, IMO.

These are the people who lied us into illegal wars in Afghanistan & Iraq, spent $trillions of U.S. Taxpayers' money, and killed millions throughout the world in their lust for global dominance. They clearly learned nothing from our experience in Vietnam.

It sickens me to see the West cheering for these people, as if they were somehow the "good guys." There are no "good guys."

The U.S. NeoCons started out in the Cheney administration, within the Republican Party. After Trump embarrassed them & cast them out of the Party in the 2016 campaign, they migrated over to the Democratic Party, and have been welcomed there with open arms by the Dem establishment, their "defense" industry sponsors, and MSNBC/CNN.

These people need to be held accountable for their war crimes & crimes against humanity. They have spared no expense, and have operated in secret, hiding their ambitions and actions from the American people who pay their bills, and never having to answer the question, "How are you gonna pay for that?"

The NeoCons screamed bloody murder when Biden followed through on Trump's plan to get U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. Since then, they've managed to re-assert themselves, and they currently fill the foreign policy vacuum that Biden has left for them.

We're careening toward World War, complete with nuclear confrontation in Ukraine. This (U.S. foreign policy) needs to be a #1 topic of discussion in the upcoming elections. Sadly, with our intentional U.S. & global economic meltdown, foreign policy is either on the back burner, or nowhere near the stovetop at all.

---

The Neocons suck, but I'm not seeing where they ever threatened to militarily invade Russia. Meanwhile, Russia is currently invading Ukraine. I don't see why the Neocons are still the big threat here, other than if your mindset is just to tie everything back to being the USA's fault.

---

At least you can acknowledge that Neocons suck.

What you don't apparently recognize -- but what the rest of the world understands very clearly -- is that the Neocons have been controlling U.S. foreign policy since 2001, and that they will do "whatever it takes" to remove anyone who challenges their quest for unipolar global hegemony.

In case you didn't read it before, here's the Neocon manifesto:
https://archive.org/details/RebuildingAmericasDefenses

And here's a "blast from the past" -- an article on candidate Hillary's zeal for "regime change" during the 2016 campaign:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/26/hillary-clintons-campaign-against-russia/

All you need to do is look at what "we" did Saddam Hussein in Iraq & Moammar Ghaddafi in Libya ("We came, we saw, he died.") for their attempts at selling oil in currencies other than USD, and for their opposition to U.S. hegemony.

"Regime change" isn't supposed to be an outward military threat. It works with massive doses of pro-U.S./pro-NATO/pro-EU/pro-Neoliberal messaging, and fostering dissent. This is exactly what we did in Ukraine leading up to the 2014 coup, and it's what we've been doing for decades in Russia.

Viktor Yanukovich looked at the Neoliberal austerity policies that EU membership required, and (correctly, I believe) decided against them for Ukraine. Remember that by 2014, Greece was on its 9th austerity package. The EU membership, and the terms of the IMF loans, absolutely crushed the Greek economy.

The threat to Russia from the U.S. & NATO isn't a direct military threat. It's the combined threat of Neoliberal austerity, western propaganda & pro-western movements with anti-Putin dissent.

Russia already went through U.S.-led austerity & "shock treatment" with Yeltsin, and it devastated Russia & her people. That's why Putin has been, and continues to be, very popular in Russia. His invasion has backfired on him, but the way he saw it, he wasn't going to wait for the U.S. to show up on his doorstep in Ukraine.

The rise of authoritarian Fascists in Europe, Brazil, the U.S., and around the world is a direct result of the spread of Neoliberal economics and the austerity policies that go with them.

That's why I continue to assert that the war in Ukraine isn't the "good guys" vs the "bad guys." It's bad guys vs bad guys.

Ukraine was far better off before the 2014 coup, when they actually had a functioning-but-corrupt democracy (like ours). Like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and many others, our zeal for "regime change" is likely to result in a failed state. Again.

---

That certainly is a lot of words. Your argument seems to rest on the premise that economic and political influence is equal to or worse than military invasion and killing civilians. I don't think I can agree with that premise.

So at this point I'm going to return to the conclusion of my previous post . . .

sycasey said:

---

I see no reason to listen to these people anymore.

---

sycasey said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

The Neocons suck, but I'm not seeing where they ever threatened to militarily invade Russia. Meanwhile, Russia is currently invading Ukraine. I don't see why the Neocons are still the big threat here, other than if your mindset is just to tie everything back to being the USA's fault.

---

At least you can acknowledge that Neocons suck.

What you don't apparently recognize -- but what the rest of the world understands very clearly -- is that the Neocons have been controlling U.S. foreign policy since 2001, and that they will do "whatever it takes" to remove anyone who challenges their quest for unipolar global hegemony.

In case you didn't read it before, here's the Neocon manifesto:
https://archive.org/details/RebuildingAmericasDefenses

And here's a "blast from the past" -- an article on candidate Hillary's zeal for "regime change" during the 2016 campaign:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/26/hillary-clintons-campaign-against-russia/

All you need to do is look at what "we" did Saddam Hussein in Iraq & Moammar Ghaddafi in Libya ("We came, we saw, he died.") for their attempts at selling oil in currencies other than USD, and for their opposition to U.S. hegemony.

"Regime change" isn't supposed to be an outward military threat. It works with massive doses of pro-U.S./pro-NATO/pro-EU/pro-Neoliberal messaging, and fostering dissent. This is exactly what we did in Ukraine leading up to the 2014 coup, and it's what we've been doing for decades in Russia.

Viktor Yanukovich looked at the Neoliberal austerity policies that EU membership required, and (correctly, I believe) decided against them for Ukraine. Remember that by 2014, Greece was on its 9th austerity package. The EU membership, and the terms of the IMF loans, absolutely crushed the Greek economy.

The threat to Russia from the U.S. & NATO isn't a direct military threat. It's the combined threat of Neoliberal austerity, western propaganda & pro-western movements with anti-Putin dissent.

Russia already went through U.S.-led austerity & "shock treatment" with Yeltsin, and it devastated Russia & her people. That's why Putin has been, and continues to be, very popular in Russia. His invasion has backfired on him, but the way he saw it, he wasn't going to wait for the U.S. to show up on his doorstep in Ukraine.

The rise of authoritarian Fascists in Europe, Brazil, the U.S., and around the world is a direct result of the spread of Neoliberal economics and the austerity policies that go with them.

That's why I continue to assert that the war in Ukraine isn't the "good guys" vs the "bad guys." It's bad guys vs bad guys.

Ukraine was far better off before the 2014 coup, when they actually had a functioning-but-corrupt democracy (like ours). Like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and many others, our zeal for "regime change" is likely to result in a failed state. Again.

---

That certainly is a lot of words. Your argument seems to rest on the premise that economic and political influence is equal to or worse than military invasion and killing civilians. I don't think I can agree with that premise.

So at this point I'm going to return to the conclusion of my previous post . . .

sycasey said:

---

I see no reason to listen to these people anymore.

---

---

U.S. economic & political influence is the preferred alternative to military force, but if it doesn't have the desired result, then we'll use military force, either by proxy or directly, without hesitation.

This is why the U.S., thru Boris Johnson, blew up the peace deal between Putin & Zelensky, which would've saved thousands of lives on both sides, and kept hundreds of thousands, if not millions, from freezing this winter. The U.S. has been clear for months that they want a long, protracted war, without regard for lives lost (whether civilian or military), or food & resources destroyed, or expense.

This is also why the U.S. sabotaged the Nordstream 2 pipeline. Germany was looking to make a deal with Russia & subvert the sanctions. Biden even said, weeks ago, "That won't happen."

The U.S. is still planning to "win" a nuclear war in order to achieve its policy aims. The Neocons do not care how many people die.

Putin is a ruthless sociopath, and his invasion of Ukraine was & is awful. But he knows who he's up against, and he knows that the U.S. won't stop its aggression until Russia rejects Putin (or he dies) & Russia becomes another Neoliberal client state.

cbbass1 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

The Neocons suck, but I'm not seeing where they ever threatened to militarily invade Russia. Meanwhile, Russia is currently invading Ukraine. I don't see why the Neocons are still the big threat here, other than if your mindset is just to tie everything back to being the USA's fault.

---

At least you can acknowledge that Neocons suck.

What you don't apparently recognize -- but what the rest of the world understands very clearly -- is that the Neocons have been controlling U.S. foreign policy since 2001, and that they will do "whatever it takes" to remove anyone who challenges their quest for unipolar global hegemony.

In case you didn't read it before, here's the Neocon manifesto:
https://archive.org/details/RebuildingAmericasDefenses

And here's a "blast from the past" -- an article on candidate Hillary's zeal for "regime change" during the 2016 campaign:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/26/hillary-clintons-campaign-against-russia/

All you need to do is look at what "we" did Saddam Hussein in Iraq & Moammar Ghaddafi in Libya ("We came, we saw, he died.") for their attempts at selling oil in currencies other than USD, and for their opposition to U.S. hegemony.

"Regime change" isn't supposed to be an outward military threat. It works with massive doses of pro-U.S./pro-NATO/pro-EU/pro-Neoliberal messaging, and fostering dissent. This is exactly what we did in Ukraine leading up to the 2014 coup, and it's what we've been doing for decades in Russia.

Viktor Yanukovich looked at the Neoliberal austerity policies that EU membership required, and (correctly, I believe) decided against them for Ukraine. Remember that by 2014, Greece was on its 9th austerity package. The EU membership, and the terms of the IMF loans, absolutely crushed the Greek economy.

The threat to Russia from the U.S. & NATO isn't a direct military threat. It's the combined threat of Neoliberal austerity, western propaganda & pro-western movements with anti-Putin dissent.

Russia already went through U.S.-led austerity & "shock treatment" with Yeltsin, and it devastated Russia & her people. That's why Putin has been, and continues to be, very popular in Russia. His invasion has backfired on him, but the way he saw it, he wasn't going to wait for the U.S. to show up on his doorstep in Ukraine.

The rise of authoritarian Fascists in Europe, Brazil, the U.S., and around the world is a direct result of the spread of Neoliberal economics and the austerity policies that go with them.

That's why I continue to assert that the war in Ukraine isn't the "good guys" vs the "bad guys." It's bad guys vs bad guys.

Ukraine was far better off before the 2014 coup, when they actually had a functioning-but-corrupt democracy (like ours). Like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and many others, our zeal for "regime change" is likely to result in a failed state. Again.

---

That certainly is a lot of words. Your argument seems to rest on the premise that economic and political influence is equal to or worse than military invasion and killing civilians. I don't think I can agree with that premise.

So at this point I'm going to return to the conclusion of my previous post . . .

sycasey said:

---

I see no reason to listen to these people anymore.

---

---

U.S. economic & political influence is the preferred alternative to military force, but if it doesn't have the desired result, then we'll use military force, either by proxy or directly, without hesitation.

This is why the U.S., thru Boris Johnson, blew up the peace deal between Putin & Zelensky, which would've saved thousands of lives on both sides, and kept hundreds of thousands, if not millions, from freezing this winter. The U.S. has been clear for months that they want a long, protracted war, without regard for lives lost (whether civilian or military), or food & resources destroyed, or expense.

This is also why the U.S. sabotaged the Nordstream 2 pipeline. Germany was looking to make a deal with Russia & subvert the sanctions. Biden even said, weeks ago, "That won't happen."

The U.S. is still planning to "win" a nuclear war in order to achieve its policy aims. The Neocons do not care how many people die.

Putin is a ruthless sociopath, and his invasion of Ukraine was & is awful. But he knows who he's up against, and he knows that the U.S. won't stop its aggression until Russia rejects Putin (or he dies) & Russia becomes another Neoliberal client state.

---

Yea, you make a lot of baseless claims. The US did not blow up nord stream, the US did not blow up a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, the US does not want a nuclear war.

Please take off the tinfoil hat and stop spouting garbage.

golden sloth said:

---

Yea, you make a lot of baseless claims. The US did not blow up nord stream, the US did not blow up a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, the US does not want a nuclear war.

Please take off the tinfoil hat and stop spouting garbage.

---

Baseless claims?

Look, I don't expect you to read any evidence that I provide for the claims that I make, but in this case, since you're accusing me of making "baseless" claims, I encourage you to not only read the following articles, but also click on the links within, and check the sourcing to your heart's content.

Boris Johnson Pressured Zelenskyy to Ditch Peace Talks With Russia: Ukrainian Paper

Diplomacy Watch: Did Boris Johnson help stop a peace deal in Ukraine?

Possibility of talks between Zelenskyy and Putin came to a halt after Johnson's visit - UP sources

From Zelenskyy's "surrender" to Putin's surrender: how the negotiations with Russia are going

Of course, these articles don't fit the "we're the good guys" corporate news narrative, so you probably haven't seen or heard any of this.


The Sabotage of Nordstream 1 & 2

First, some background. In mid-to-late September, several German officials are saying that Germany "can't refuse gas from Russia." Even though Germany had already nationalized their LNG importing company (which had to throw a few Neoliberals into a tizzy), they were realizing that their nation was already using too much natural gas. The unspoken implication is that Germany will need to violate U.S. sanctions this winter, and get Russian natural gas from Nordstream 1, to keep from both freezing their asses off AND going bankrupt.

In Germany, they admitted that they can not refuse gas from Russia

Please keep in mind that the Euro and the EU economy are on shaky ground as it is. Germany and the EU simply can't afford to pay 5x to U.S. suppliers for natural gas. Clearly, Germany wants an immediate end to the hostilities in Ukraine, and an end to the sanctions ASAP.

I haven't heard about any public discussions between Germany and the U.S. or other NATO countries, but Germany & it's EU neighbors are needing a peace deal NOW so they can go back to buying Russian gas. I can only imagine what the private conversations were like, especially after Boris Johnson's flight to Kyiv (see above). Germany & other EU/NATO countries are ready to be done, ready to send the Ukrainian refugees home for the winter, and ready to ride out their economic collapse in a warm place, with Russian gas. But the U.S. is clear that it wants the war to continue through the winter. It's a proxy war. And one that the U.S. plans to win at all costs.

So 2 days after PM Kretschmer (Saxony) declares that "We Need Russian Gas" in public, on the record, both Nordstream 1 AND Nordstream 2 get hit.

This was an operation that required skill, coordination, and expertise in underwater demolition. Both pipelines are encased in reinforced concrete, so that anchors & submarines don't cause ruptures. There are not many teams in the world capable of doing this.

So who dunnit? Cui bono?

Given that Germany had just declared its need for Russian natural gas this winter -- as if to say, "Sorry, Joe, but we're NOT gonna freeze our butts off," it's clear that Russia had zero motive to sabotage its own pipelines. With the pipeline damage, not only does Russia miss out on huge sanction-breaking sales of natural gas, but it also misses out on the opportunity to create (or expand) fissures in the NATO/EU alliance. There is zero chance that Putin misses out on both of these huge opportunities by destroying his own (well, Gazprom's) pipeline.

This is why Fatih Birol, Exec Dir of the International Energy Agency, said it was "very obvious" who was behind the sabotage. Because everyone outside of the U.S. media bubble understands what I just laid out here. And Birol knows that if he actually accuses the U.S. specifically, he'll suffer the consequences.

To add to the unspoken accusations, Germany is basically saying, "Keep a close watch on all your energy infrastructure, because these American warmongers will stop at nothing to keep the war and the sanctions going, and the American oil & gas companies will exploit any & every opportunity."

Germany Warns Key Infrastructure At Risk After Russia Pipeline 'Sabotage'

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put 2 & 2 together. Joe is committed to keeping Russian gas from going to Germany, through Russia's pipeline and Germany's terminal! The reporter even asks, "It's not your pipeline! How are you going to stop the gas??" [paraphrasing].

Video of Biden Saying He'd 'End' Nord Stream Resurfaces After Pipeline Leak

Killing the Nordstream pipelines saves the Biden admin and the U.S. from the embarrassment of Germany's defection from the sanctions.

Just think about how popular the U.S. will be in Europe this winter, as Europeans pay top USD for what little gas & heat they can afford. Mind you, this is after the U.S. Fed's War on Inflation and Working People, and the aggressive raising of interest rates, has brought the Euro down 20% against the USD over the last year.

Like I said, the rest of the world already sees this, but if you're in the U.S. corporate news bubble, it'll always be someone else's fault, probably Putin.

"Good guys" don't do this.

I think it's time for a review of cbbass' greatest hits, in terms of his opinions on Russia/Ukraine.

"No, Putin has no interest in an invasion of Ukraine."
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107225/1

The U.S. led up a coup to install new leadership in Ukraine. Russia did not really invade Crimea.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107225/replies/1987055

"It's true. Russia has the strongest conventional military force in the region."
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107225/replies/1987077

"The only people who seem to think that an invasion is "imminent" are U.S. corporate media & the Biden administration. They were the ones talking about false flag operations & going into Alex Jones / conspiracy territory."
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107225/replies/1987171

"Putin, instead of coming into Donbass to counter the neo-Nazi militias, has recognized Donbass's claim of independence." (This howler was posted AFTER Russia had already begun their invasion of the Donbas region, by the way.)
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107225/replies/1989038

The EU will never agree to further sanctions against Russia.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107414/replies/1990194

Posted this video from some joker who claimed Russia wasn't targeting civilians:
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107414/replies/1992465

Russia was not responsible for the Bucha massacre. Time line doesn't add up. Maybe Ukraine staged it as a false flag. (This line of argument continued even after satellite photos showed that the time line actually did add up.)
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107414/replies/2002761

When someone is wrong this often, there's no need to keep paying attention.

Big C said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I think it's time for a review of cbbass' greatest hits, in terms of his opinions on Russia/Ukraine.

"No, Putin has no interest in an invasion of Ukraine."
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107225/1

The U.S. led up a coup to install new leadership in Ukraine. Russia did not really invade Crimea.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107225/replies/1987055

"It's true. Russia has the strongest conventional military force in the region."
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107225/replies/1987077

"The only people who seem to think that an invasion is "imminent" are U.S. corporate media & the Biden administration. They were the ones talking about false flag operations & going into Alex Jones / conspiracy territory."
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107225/replies/1987171

"Putin, instead of coming into Donbass to counter the neo-Nazi militias, has recognized Donbass's claim of independence." (This howler was posted AFTER Russia had already begun their invasion of the Donbas region, by the way.)
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107225/replies/1989038

The EU will never agree to further sanctions against Russia.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107414/replies/1990194

Posted this video from some joker who claimed Russia wasn't targeting civilians:
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107414/replies/1992465

Russia was not responsible for the Bucha massacre. Time line doesn't add up. Maybe Ukraine staged it as a false flag. (This line of argument continued even after satellite photos showed that the time line actually did add up.)
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107414/replies/2002761

When someone is wrong this often, there's no need to keep paying attention.

---

And yet, you are doing just that.

---

This is my last public service announcement to the board. I'm done debating with cbbass1.

sycasey said:

---

I think it's time for a review of cbbass' greatest hits, in terms of his opinions on Russia/Ukraine.

"No, Putin has no interest in an invasion of Ukraine."
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107225/1

The U.S. led up a coup to install new leadership in Ukraine. Russia did not really invade Crimea.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107225/replies/1987055

"It's true. Russia has the strongest conventional military force in the region."
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107225/replies/1987077

"The only people who seem to think that an invasion is "imminent" are U.S. corporate media & the Biden administration. They were the ones talking about false flag operations & going into Alex Jones / conspiracy territory."
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107225/replies/1987171

"Putin, instead of coming into Donbass to counter the neo-Nazi militias, has recognized Donbass's claim of independence." (This howler was posted AFTER Russia had already begun their invasion of the Donbas region, by the way.)
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107225/replies/1989038

The EU will never agree to further sanctions against Russia.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107414/replies/1990194

Posted this video from some joker who claimed Russia wasn't targeting civilians:
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107414/replies/1992465

Russia was not responsible for the Bucha massacre. Time line doesn't add up. Maybe Ukraine staged it as a false flag. (This line of argument continued even after satellite photos showed that the time line actually did add up.)
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107414/replies/2002761

When someone is wrong this often, there's no need to keep paying attention.

---

Thanks, Sy.

The 1st one is obviously the biggest miss. I was holding out hope that this would go more like the Cuban Missile Crisis, where we agreed to remove our initial provocation (our installation of Jupiter missiles in Turkey), and Khrushchev fulfilled his part by taking Soviet missiles out of Cuba.

Other than that, the rest of the post holds up pretty well.

I think the rest of the EU, especially Germany, is wishing they hadn't approved the sanctions. We'll see how the winter goes.

Your 1-liner characterizations of my posts are way off, though. For example, I never said that "Russia was not responsible for the Bucha massacre." We know that Russia did kill many people there. Far too many. But like I said in my post, the timeline doesn't add up. Because many of the people who died in Bucha were killed after the mayor declared the town "liberated," and after the Russian troops left.

I stand by my original post.

If you think that the guys in Azov Battalion would never punish the Ukrainians who wore white armbands & gave food or support to the Russian troops as they came through, then you need to learn more about Azov.

If you ignore Sy's 1-liners and read the posts, I think they still hold up pretty well. I still remember asserting, back in late March / early April, that both Putin & Zelensky were done, and both were looking to end the entire affair. And as it turns out, they did have teams negotiating terms, and leading up to a 1-on-1 negotiation between Putin & Zelenskyy. But the U.S. had other plans, & sent the frumpy BoJo to make sure such a thing would never happen.

Otherwise, it's good to know that you're no longer paying attention. I'll keep posting, though. ;-)

We're in a new phase of the war, the "Special Military Operation" has morphed into a "Counter-Terrorism Operation", something a lot closer to a no-holds barred war. Russia is mobilizing 300,000 troops, and that is only the first major mobilization, they could ramp up their boots on the ground in Ukraine to half a million or more, with Belarus potentially joining in, or at least mobilizing enough troops near the border north of Kiev to pin down a large amount of Ukrainian troops in Kiev.




Ukraine/Zelensky missed a good opportunity to negotiate a settlement with Russia from a solid position, after Ukraine took back territories on both ends of the Russian crescent. He could have frozen the current borders and preserved Ukraine as a country the size of France, with a population half that of France, and access to the Black Sea, Kharkov and Zaporizhie. He will most likely be better off negotiating now, instead of after Russia regains the upper hands militarily and takes the second belt of oblasts in SE Ukraine.

There are two outcomes to this war, either Zelensky is going to negotiate a settlement with Russia conceding the territories they've occupied, or he will be deposed, either through regime change in Kiev, or directly deposed by a Russian occupation of Kiev. I stand by my earlier assessment of Russia winning the war, now that they are escalating their political and military commitment.

Elon Musk is exactly on the same page as me in this assessment.

Ukraine-Russia Peace:

- Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is will of the people.

- Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).

- Water supply to Crimea assured.

- Ukraine remains neutral.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 3, 2022

Elon Musk, famously never wrong about anything!

Cal88 said:

---

We're in a new phase of the war, the "Special Military Operation" has morphed into a "Counter-Terrorism Operation", something a lot closer to a no-holds barred war. Russia is mobilizing 300,000 troops, and that is only the first major mobilization, they could ramp up their boots on the ground in Ukraine to half a million or more, with Belarus potentially joining in, or at least mobilizing enough troops near the border north of Kiev to pin down a large amount of Ukrainian troops in Kiev.




Ukraine/Zelensky missed a good opportunity to negotiate a settlement with Russia from a solid position, after Ukraine took back territories on both ends of the Russian crescent. He could have frozen the current borders and preserved Ukraine as a country the size of France, with a population half that of France, and access to the Black Sea, Kharkov and Zaporizhie. He will most likely be better off negotiating now, instead of after Russia regains the upper hands militarily and takes the second belt of oblasts in SE Ukraine.

There are two outcomes to this war, either Zelensky is going to negotiate a settlement with Russia conceding the territories they've occupied, or he will be deposed, either through regime change in Kiev, or directly deposed by a Russian occupation of Kiev. I stand by my earlier assessment of Russia winning the war, now that they are escalating their political and military commitment.

Elon Musk is exactly on the same page as me in this assessment.

Ukraine-Russia Peace:

- Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is will of the people.

- Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).

- Water supply to Crimea assured.

- Ukraine remains neutral.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 3, 2022

---

First, what Elon Musk thinks on the Ukraine war doesn't matter. He is a smart man, but he is no expert on geopolitics. Its like asking Stephen Hawking (RIP) for dance moves, he is a smart guy, just not about the subject in question.

Secondly, how can anyone say Russia is wining the war? It is much easier to say Russia has already lost the war, they have done irreparable damage to themselves over the last 9ish months.

1. They have been isolated internationally from the modern economies.
2. The latest threats and attacks by Russia are slowly pushing the countries wishing for 'non-alignment' (like India and Turkiye [Turkey]) away from them.
3. The men they've lost (either through casualties or through draft dodging) are irreplaceable from a demographic standpoint and rank in the hundreds of thousands.
4. Russian military might has been exposed as a fraud.
5. Russian weaponry has been exposed as bad (Russia used to export a lot of weapons, that will now stop).
6. Russia's ability to manufacturer weapons has been proven to be terrible.
7. Russia has become Ukraine's largest supplier of military hardware as they abandoned their weapons in order to flee for their lives.
8. Russia's true goal of re-establishing the Russian Empire will never make it past the first step of conquering Ukraine.
9. The escalation will not have the impact that Russia wants as the soldiers don't want to fight for Russia's Empire (I wouldn't want to die for that Empire either), and they won't have the weapons to adequately prepare the soldiers for combat.
10. Nobody trusts Russia on the international stage, their political weight in international politics has been reduced to nil.
11. Russia's primary fear (albeit an irrational fear in my opinion) is NATO, and NATO has gotten stronger due to the Ukrainian invasion. Germany has reinvested in their military and more countries have joined the alliance, and Russia's front lines with NATO have expanded.

Even if Russia pulls off a miracle tomorrow and conquers all of Ukraine and pushes Zelensky out, their geopolitical position on the international stage is weaker now than before the invasion. Therefore, No, Russia is not winning the war.

golden sloth said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

We're in a new phase of the war, the "Special Military Operation" has morphed into a "Counter-Terrorism Operation", something a lot closer to a no-holds barred war. Russia is mobilizing 300,000 troops, and that is only the first major mobilization, they could ramp up their boots on the ground in Ukraine to half a million or more, with Belarus potentially joining in, or at least mobilizing enough troops near the border north of Kiev to pin down a large amount of Ukrainian troops in Kiev.




Ukraine/Zelensky missed a good opportunity to negotiate a settlement with Russia from a solid position, after Ukraine took back territories on both ends of the Russian crescent. He could have frozen the current borders and preserved Ukraine as a country the size of France, with a population half that of France, and access to the Black Sea, Kharkov and Zaporizhie. He will most likely be better off negotiating now, instead of after Russia regains the upper hands militarily and takes the second belt of oblasts in SE Ukraine.

There are two outcomes to this war, either Zelensky is going to negotiate a settlement with Russia conceding the territories they've occupied, or he will be deposed, either through regime change in Kiev, or directly deposed by a Russian occupation of Kiev. I stand by my earlier assessment of Russia winning the war, now that they are escalating their political and military commitment.

Elon Musk is exactly on the same page as me in this assessment.

Ukraine-Russia Peace:

- Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is will of the people.

- Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).

- Water supply to Crimea assured.

- Ukraine remains neutral.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 3, 2022

---

First, what Elon Musk thinks on the Ukraine war doesn't matter. He is a smart man, but he is no expert on geopolitics. Its like asking Stephen Hawking (RIP) for dance moves, he is a smart guy, just not about the subject in question.

Secondly, how can anyone say Russia is wining the war? It is much easier to say Russia has already lost the war, they have done irreparable damage to themselves over the last 9ish months.

1. They have been isolated internationally from the modern economies.
2. The latest threats and attacks by Russia are slowly pushing the countries wishing for 'non-alignment' (like India and Turkiye [Turkey]) away from them.
3. The men they've lost (either through casualties or through draft dodging) are irreplaceable from a demographic standpoint and rank in the hundreds of thousands.
4. Russian military might has been exposed as a fraud.
5. Russian weaponry has been exposed as bad (Russia used to export a lot of weapons, that will now stop).
6. Russia's ability to manufacturer weapons has been proven to be terrible.
7. Russia has become Ukraine's largest supplier of military hardware as they abandoned their weapons in order to flee for their lives.
8. Russia's true goal of re-establishing the Russian Empire will never make it past the first step of conquering Ukraine.
9. The escalation will not have the impact that Russia wants as the soldiers don't want to fight for Russia's Empire (I wouldn't want to die for that Empire either), and they won't have the weapons to adequately prepare the soldiers for combat.
10. Nobody trusts Russia on the international stage, their political weight in international politics has been reduced to nil.
11. Russia's primary fear (albeit an irrational fear in my opinion) is NATO, and NATO has gotten stronger due to the Ukrainian invasion. Germany has reinvested in their military and more countries have joined the alliance, and Russia's front lines with NATO have expanded.

Even if Russia pulls off a miracle tomorrow and conquers all of Ukraine and pushes Zelensky out, their geopolitical position on the international stage is weaker now than before the invasion. Therefore, No, Russia is not winning the war.

---

And to add to your point #3, it looks like they are headed for even more of a brain drain over the next years, because many smart, educated people aren't seeing a future for themselves there. Last one gone, be sure to turn out the lights.

bearister said:

---

"Beyond the battle against uniformed troops and intelligence operatives, Putin would probably face a prolonged guerrilla war from Ukrainian militias. Knowledgeable sources estimate that more than 400,000 pro-Kyiv Ukrainians have received at least some training since Russia's 2014 incursion, and that there are at least 1 million weapons in private hands, including AK-47s and other automatic weapons looted from government stores. As many as 15 militia groups are spread throughout the country some virulently right-wing, but all capable of causing havoc for Moscow (and probably Kyiv, too)."
-David Ignatius

As both America and Russia learned in Afghanistan (and we learned in Vietnam), when a Super Power can't use nukes or otherwise slaughter an entire nation, guerrilla wars are a slow bleed out. Apparently the Far Right Ukrainian militias are psychos. We shall see.

*Naturally, the terrain of Vietnam and Afghanistan provided more favorable conditions for an insurgency.

From December:

Opinion | To deter a Russian attack, Ukraine needs to prepare for guerrilla warfare - The Washington Post


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/15/ukraine-russia-putin-aggression-nato/

---

This is very true, but it's been the case for the last 8 years, since the 2014 coup. The Neo-Nazi militias, like Azov & Right Sector, supported & supplied by the U.S., killed 11,000 pro-Russian & Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the Civil War -- the majority of the 14,000 deaths in that ongoing war.

During the Civil War, the militias preferred to NOT be affiliated with Ukrainian armed forces, because they didn't want anyone telling them what to do (or what not to do). These militias would regularly march through cities, shouting "Death to Russians," driven by the worst ethnic hatred.

This is why Putin talked about "de-Nazification" in Ukraine. It was particularly focused on the neo-Nazi militias in Eastern Ukraine (Donbass) and Odessa. The scorched-earth wipeouts in Mariupol & elsewhere were Putin's (very late) rescue of Russian-speaking Ukrainians & ethnic Russians in the region, and the key motivation for holding that territory.

BTW, the U.S. funding & support of the neo-Nazi militias goes against a 2016 U.N. resolution condemning the glorification of Nazism.

Quote:

---

The resolution entitled "Combating glorification of Nazism, Neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance," was approved by the U.N.'s human rights committee on Friday with 131 in favor, 3 against, with 48 abstentions.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-votes-against-anti-nazi-resolution-at-united-nations/

---

The 3 votes against the resolution were the U.S., Ukraine, and Palau.

Azov has essentially merged with the Ukrainian military since Russia started its military buildup this year.

I share this to illustrate that the "guerilla war" has been going on for 8 years, triggered and subsidized by the U.S., with ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine getting the worst of it by far.

Before the braying about my being a "Putin sympathizer," I'll say it again: Putin is an anti-democratic authoritarian -- he, along with his U.S. counterpart, Donald Trump, is my political & ideological enemy.

AND the Neocons, who control U.S. foreign policy, and whose stated goal is for the U.S. to be the lone world superpower & spread U.S.-style Neoliberal/"Trickle-Down" economics throughout the world, are ALSO my enemies. Both sides (U.S./NATO/EU and Russia) are Capital-dominant oligarchies that hate small-d democracy. Both are unsustainable. Both reduce the economic health, opportunity, rights, and freedoms of the majority of individuals, and transfer too much wealth to the 0.1% oligarch class, while attempting to maintain the appearance of democratic institutions.

Plus, both have enough nukes to end life on Earth, and both refuse to back down.

I write what I write because it's clear to me that nearly everyone is looking at this conflict from "one side of the elephant," and refusing to acknowledge the truths that exist on both sides. There's a long history that influences the actions of both sides. And everything is embedded in propaganda.

cbbass1 said:

---

bearister said:

---

"Beyond the battle against uniformed troops and intelligence operatives, Putin would probably face a prolonged guerrilla war from Ukrainian militias. Knowledgeable sources estimate that more than 400,000 pro-Kyiv Ukrainians have received at least some training since Russia's 2014 incursion, and that there are at least 1 million weapons in private hands, including AK-47s and other automatic weapons looted from government stores. As many as 15 militia groups are spread throughout the country some virulently right-wing, but all capable of causing havoc for Moscow (and probably Kyiv, too)."
-David Ignatius

As both America and Russia learned in Afghanistan (and we learned in Vietnam), when a Super Power can't use nukes or otherwise slaughter an entire nation, guerrilla wars are a slow bleed out. Apparently the Far Right Ukrainian militias are psychos. We shall see.

*Naturally, the terrain of Vietnam and Afghanistan provided more favorable conditions for an insurgency.

From December:

Opinion | To deter a Russian attack, Ukraine needs to prepare for guerrilla warfare - The Washington Post


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/15/ukraine-russia-putin-aggression-nato/

---

This is very true, but it's been the case for the last 8 years, since the 2014 coup. The Neo-Nazi militias, like Azov & Right Sector, supported & supplied by the U.S., killed 11,000 pro-Russian & Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the Civil War -- the majority of the 14,000 deaths in that ongoing war.

During the Civil War, the militias preferred to NOT be affiliated with Ukrainian armed forces, because they didn't want anyone telling them what to do (or what not to do). These militias would regularly march through cities, shouting "Death to Russians," driven by the worst ethnic hatred.

This is why Putin talked about "de-Nazification" in Ukraine. It was particularly focused on the neo-Nazi militias in Eastern Ukraine (Donbass) and Odessa. The scorched-earth wipeouts in Mariupol & elsewhere were Putin's (very late) rescue of Russian-speaking Ukrainians & ethnic Russians in the region, and the key motivation for holding that territory.

BTW, the U.S. funding & support of the neo-Nazi militias goes against a 2016 U.N. resolution condemning the glorification of Nazism.

Quote:

---

The resolution entitled "Combating glorification of Nazism, Neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance," was approved by the U.N.'s human rights committee on Friday with 131 in favor, 3 against, with 48 abstentions.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-votes-against-anti-nazi-resolution-at-united-nations/

---

The 3 votes against the resolution were the U.S., Ukraine, and Palau.

Azov has essentially merged with the Ukrainian military since Russia started its military buildup this year.

I share this to illustrate that the "guerilla war" has been going on for 8 years, triggered and subsidized by the U.S., with ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine getting the worst of it by far.

Before the braying about my being a "Putin sympathizer," I'll say it again: Putin is an anti-democratic authoritarian -- he, along with his U.S. counterpart, Donald Trump, is my political & ideological enemy.

AND the Neocons, who control U.S. foreign policy, and whose stated goal is for the U.S. to be the lone world superpower & spread U.S.-style Neoliberal/"Trickle-Down" economics throughout the world, are ALSO my enemies. Both sides (U.S./NATO/EU and Russia) are Capital-dominant oligarchies that hate small-d democracy. Both are unsustainable. Both reduce the economic health, opportunity, rights, and freedoms of the majority of individuals, and transfer too much wealth to the 0.1% oligarch class, while attempting to maintain the appearance of democratic institutions.

Plus, both have enough nukes to end life on Earth, and both refuse to back down.

I write what I write because it's clear to me that nearly everyone is looking at this conflict from "one side of the elephant," and refusing to acknowledge the truths that exist on both sides. There's a long history that influences the actions of both sides. And everything is embedded in propaganda.

---

This is a bunch of garbage. Your reference to the UN resolution in particular is just rhetoric. That resolution is annual and we always vote against it because we have the first amendment. Meanwhile, Russia votes in favor of it but does nothing to address the nazis in their country and especially the nazis that fill its military.

There is no world in which any reasonable person genuinely believes Putin invaded Ukraine to deal with their nazi problem while completely ignoring, if not outright supporting, Russia's nazi problem. It defies belief that anyone could even pretend that to be the case.

I don't like David Frum, but I think he has this part right.

You may well ask, what's the difference between left-wing and right-wing pro-Putinism? Functionally, very little, they agree on aims and repeat the same lies, like the bio-lab story. But their motives do diverge:

— David Frum (@davidfrum) October 10, 2022

Right-wing pro-Putinists see Putin as exciting because he offers a model of how they would like to govern their own countries. For them, Putin's corruption and appeals to racial and sexual bigotry are thrilling examples to emulate.

— David Frum (@davidfrum) October 10, 2022

And he's right about this too. There is a reason that Putinists are begging for a capitulation from Ukraine now. The recent missile attacks are reported to have mostly exhausted his supplies and with the sanctions he has no access to chips or other materials needed to replenish. He's acting like a wounded animal backed into a corner and his defenders are looking to save face by begging for an offramp so their overstatements of his military capabilities don't continue to blow up in their faces. Putin's launches prove that he's acting out of weakness and has no strategies or even plans to win this war. His hope is that Ukraine will bail him out like a foul beyond the 3 point line against a center with the shot clock expiring. If that's what Ukraine decides to do - bail him out - that's certainly within their ambit, but I don't fault them for choosing to maintain their sovereignty. It's pretty clear that Putin has no clear path to winning this war and holding Ukraine against their wishes.

When you hear talk of the alleged danger of "humiliating" the Putin, it's most often from a talker who is ouching from the humiliation of his/her past cheerleading for Putin. They hope that if western diplomacy rescues Putin from his debacle, it will also redeem them from theirs

— David Frum (@davidfrum) October 9, 2022

Unit2Sucks said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

bearister said:

---

"Beyond the battle against uniformed troops and intelligence operatives, Putin would probably face a prolonged guerrilla war from Ukrainian militias. Knowledgeable sources estimate that more than 400,000 pro-Kyiv Ukrainians have received at least some training since Russia's 2014 incursion, and that there are at least 1 million weapons in private hands, including AK-47s and other automatic weapons looted from government stores. As many as 15 militia groups are spread throughout the country some virulently right-wing, but all capable of causing havoc for Moscow (and probably Kyiv, too)."
-David Ignatius

As both America and Russia learned in Afghanistan (and we learned in Vietnam), when a Super Power can't use nukes or otherwise slaughter an entire nation, guerrilla wars are a slow bleed out. Apparently the Far Right Ukrainian militias are psychos. We shall see.

*Naturally, the terrain of Vietnam and Afghanistan provided more favorable conditions for an insurgency.

From December:

Opinion | To deter a Russian attack, Ukraine needs to prepare for guerrilla warfare - The Washington Post


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/15/ukraine-russia-putin-aggression-nato/

---

This is very true, but it's been the case for the last 8 years, since the 2014 coup. The Neo-Nazi militias, like Azov & Right Sector, supported & supplied by the U.S., killed 11,000 pro-Russian & Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the Civil War -- the majority of the 14,000 deaths in that ongoing war.

During the Civil War, the militias preferred to NOT be affiliated with Ukrainian armed forces, because they didn't want anyone telling them what to do (or what not to do). These militias would regularly march through cities, shouting "Death to Russians," driven by the worst ethnic hatred.

This is why Putin talked about "de-Nazification" in Ukraine. It was particularly focused on the neo-Nazi militias in Eastern Ukraine (Donbass) and Odessa. The scorched-earth wipeouts in Mariupol & elsewhere were Putin's (very late) rescue of Russian-speaking Ukrainians & ethnic Russians in the region, and the key motivation for holding that territory.

BTW, the U.S. funding & support of the neo-Nazi militias goes against a 2016 U.N. resolution condemning the glorification of Nazism.

Quote:

---

The resolution entitled "Combating glorification of Nazism, Neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance," was approved by the U.N.'s human rights committee on Friday with 131 in favor, 3 against, with 48 abstentions.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-votes-against-anti-nazi-resolution-at-united-nations/

---

The 3 votes against the resolution were the U.S., Ukraine, and Palau.

Azov has essentially merged with the Ukrainian military since Russia started its military buildup this year.

I share this to illustrate that the "guerilla war" has been going on for 8 years, triggered and subsidized by the U.S., with ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine getting the worst of it by far.

Before the braying about my being a "Putin sympathizer," I'll say it again: Putin is an anti-democratic authoritarian -- he, along with his U.S. counterpart, Donald Trump, is my political & ideological enemy.

AND the Neocons, who control U.S. foreign policy, and whose stated goal is for the U.S. to be the lone world superpower & spread U.S.-style Neoliberal/"Trickle-Down" economics throughout the world, are ALSO my enemies. Both sides (U.S./NATO/EU and Russia) are Capital-dominant oligarchies that hate small-d democracy. Both are unsustainable. Both reduce the economic health, opportunity, rights, and freedoms of the majority of individuals, and transfer too much wealth to the 0.1% oligarch class, while attempting to maintain the appearance of democratic institutions.

Plus, both have enough nukes to end life on Earth, and both refuse to back down.

I write what I write because it's clear to me that nearly everyone is looking at this conflict from "one side of the elephant," and refusing to acknowledge the truths that exist on both sides. There's a long history that influences the actions of both sides. And everything is embedded in propaganda.

---

This is a bunch of garbage. Your reference to the UN resolution in particular is just rhetoric. That resolution is annual and we always vote against it because we have the first amendment. Meanwhile, Russia votes in favor of it but does nothing to address the nazis in their country and especially the nazis that fill its military.

There is no world in which any reasonable person genuinely believes Putin invaded Ukraine to deal with their nazi problem while completely ignoring, if not outright supporting, Russia's nazi problem. It defies belief that anyone could even pretend that to be the case.

And he's right about this too. There is a reason that Putinists are begging for a capitulation from Ukraine now. The recent missile attacks are reported to have mostly exhausted his supplies and with the sanctions he has no access to chips or other materials needed to replenish. He's acting like a wounded animal backed into a corner and his defenders are looking to save face by begging for an offramp so their overstatements of his military capabilities don't continue to blow up in their faces. Putin's launches prove that he's acting out of weakness and has no strategies or even plans to win this war. His hope is that Ukraine will bail him out like a foul beyond the 3 point line against a center with the shot clock expiring. If that's what Ukraine decides to do - bail him out - that's certainly within their ambit, but I don't fault them for choosing to maintain their sovereignty. It's pretty clear that Putin has no clear path to winning this war and holding Ukraine against their wishes.

---

The problem with your worldview is that you either fully embrace (if not outright worship) the modern Ukrainian political mythology, or you're a "Putinist", there are no nuances there, or real effort to understand the historical and geopolitical foundations underpinning this conflict, which have been clearly laid out by reliable experts like Mearsheimer.

This is the kind of political fundamentalism that dominated political discourse back in the post 9-11 era, which can be summarized as "you're either with us or you're against us".

Right now this mindset is leading us into a steady escalation in the war, with perhaps a quarter million mostly Ukrainian more deaths in perspective the next 12 months, and maybe millions more starving to death around the world, hundreds of millions undergoing severe economic hardship due to the economic fallout, and if that weren't bad enough, we are also entering an era of unprecedented nuclear threat, arguably worse than during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

All of this could have been avoided.

Cal88 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

bearister said:

---

"Beyond the battle against uniformed troops and intelligence operatives, Putin would probably face a prolonged guerrilla war from Ukrainian militias. Knowledgeable sources estimate that more than 400,000 pro-Kyiv Ukrainians have received at least some training since Russia's 2014 incursion, and that there are at least 1 million weapons in private hands, including AK-47s and other automatic weapons looted from government stores. As many as 15 militia groups are spread throughout the country some virulently right-wing, but all capable of causing havoc for Moscow (and probably Kyiv, too)."
-David Ignatius

As both America and Russia learned in Afghanistan (and we learned in Vietnam), when a Super Power can't use nukes or otherwise slaughter an entire nation, guerrilla wars are a slow bleed out. Apparently the Far Right Ukrainian militias are psychos. We shall see.

*Naturally, the terrain of Vietnam and Afghanistan provided more favorable conditions for an insurgency.

From December:

Opinion | To deter a Russian attack, Ukraine needs to prepare for guerrilla warfare - The Washington Post


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/15/ukraine-russia-putin-aggression-nato/

---

This is very true, but it's been the case for the last 8 years, since the 2014 coup. The Neo-Nazi militias, like Azov & Right Sector, supported & supplied by the U.S., killed 11,000 pro-Russian & Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the Civil War -- the majority of the 14,000 deaths in that ongoing war.

During the Civil War, the militias preferred to NOT be affiliated with Ukrainian armed forces, because they didn't want anyone telling them what to do (or what not to do). These militias would regularly march through cities, shouting "Death to Russians," driven by the worst ethnic hatred.

This is why Putin talked about "de-Nazification" in Ukraine. It was particularly focused on the neo-Nazi militias in Eastern Ukraine (Donbass) and Odessa. The scorched-earth wipeouts in Mariupol & elsewhere were Putin's (very late) rescue of Russian-speaking Ukrainians & ethnic Russians in the region, and the key motivation for holding that territory.

BTW, the U.S. funding & support of the neo-Nazi militias goes against a 2016 U.N. resolution condemning the glorification of Nazism.

Quote:

---

The resolution entitled "Combating glorification of Nazism, Neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance," was approved by the U.N.'s human rights committee on Friday with 131 in favor, 3 against, with 48 abstentions.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-votes-against-anti-nazi-resolution-at-united-nations/

---

The 3 votes against the resolution were the U.S., Ukraine, and Palau.

Azov has essentially merged with the Ukrainian military since Russia started its military buildup this year.

I share this to illustrate that the "guerilla war" has been going on for 8 years, triggered and subsidized by the U.S., with ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine getting the worst of it by far.

Before the braying about my being a "Putin sympathizer," I'll say it again: Putin is an anti-democratic authoritarian -- he, along with his U.S. counterpart, Donald Trump, is my political & ideological enemy.

AND the Neocons, who control U.S. foreign policy, and whose stated goal is for the U.S. to be the lone world superpower & spread U.S.-style Neoliberal/"Trickle-Down" economics throughout the world, are ALSO my enemies. Both sides (U.S./NATO/EU and Russia) are Capital-dominant oligarchies that hate small-d democracy. Both are unsustainable. Both reduce the economic health, opportunity, rights, and freedoms of the majority of individuals, and transfer too much wealth to the 0.1% oligarch class, while attempting to maintain the appearance of democratic institutions.

Plus, both have enough nukes to end life on Earth, and both refuse to back down.

I write what I write because it's clear to me that nearly everyone is looking at this conflict from "one side of the elephant," and refusing to acknowledge the truths that exist on both sides. There's a long history that influences the actions of both sides. And everything is embedded in propaganda.

---

This is a bunch of garbage. Your reference to the UN resolution in particular is just rhetoric. That resolution is annual and we always vote against it because we have the first amendment. Meanwhile, Russia votes in favor of it but does nothing to address the nazis in their country and especially the nazis that fill its military.

There is no world in which any reasonable person genuinely believes Putin invaded Ukraine to deal with their nazi problem while completely ignoring, if not outright supporting, Russia's nazi problem. It defies belief that anyone could even pretend that to be the case.

And he's right about this too. There is a reason that Putinists are begging for a capitulation from Ukraine now. The recent missile attacks are reported to have mostly exhausted his supplies and with the sanctions he has no access to chips or other materials needed to replenish. He's acting like a wounded animal backed into a corner and his defenders are looking to save face by begging for an offramp so their overstatements of his military capabilities don't continue to blow up in their faces. Putin's launches prove that he's acting out of weakness and has no strategies or even plans to win this war. His hope is that Ukraine will bail him out like a foul beyond the 3 point line against a center with the shot clock expiring. If that's what Ukraine decides to do - bail him out - that's certainly within their ambit, but I don't fault them for choosing to maintain their sovereignty. It's pretty clear that Putin has no clear path to winning this war and holding Ukraine against their wishes.

---

The problem with your worldview is that you either fully embrace (if not outright worship) the modern Ukrainian political mythology, or you're a "Putinist", there are no nuances there, or real effort to understand the historical and geopolitical foundations underpinning this conflict, which have been clearly laid out by reliable experts like Mearsheimer.

This is the kind of political fundamentalism that dominated political discourse back in the post 9-11 era, which can be summarized as "you're either with us or you're against us".

Right now this mindset is leading us into a steady escalation in the war, with perhaps a quarter million mostly Ukrainian more deaths in perspective the next 12 months, and maybe millions more starving to death around the world, hundreds of millions undergoing severe economic hardship due to the economic fallout, and if that weren't bad enough, we are also entering an era of unprecedented nuclear threat, arguably worse than during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

All of this could have been avoided.

---

The problem with your worldview is that you dont believe people have a right to live, that people are merely pawns for their bigger more powerful neighbors to boss around, that they have no autonomy.

This is the kind of fundamentalism that is creeping into the world's mindset. That people dont have rights and are subserviant to others.

Right now this is the mindset that led to the death and displacement of millions of Ukrainians. This lead to the deaths of tens of thousands young russian men. This is leading to the potential mass famine that could kill millions. And the worst bit is that when confronted by the fact that people are not inherently subserviant to their neighbor, it may lead to nuclear war.

All this could have been avoided and can be avoided by Russia acknowledging Ukraine and the ukranian people have a right to exist, and then withdrawing from their invasion.

golden sloth said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

bearister said:

---

"Beyond the battle against uniformed troops and intelligence operatives, Putin would probably face a prolonged guerrilla war from Ukrainian militias. Knowledgeable sources estimate that more than 400,000 pro-Kyiv Ukrainians have received at least some training since Russia's 2014 incursion, and that there are at least 1 million weapons in private hands, including AK-47s and other automatic weapons looted from government stores. As many as 15 militia groups are spread throughout the country some virulently right-wing, but all capable of causing havoc for Moscow (and probably Kyiv, too)."
-David Ignatius

As both America and Russia learned in Afghanistan (and we learned in Vietnam), when a Super Power can't use nukes or otherwise slaughter an entire nation, guerrilla wars are a slow bleed out. Apparently the Far Right Ukrainian militias are psychos. We shall see.

*Naturally, the terrain of Vietnam and Afghanistan provided more favorable conditions for an insurgency.

From December:

Opinion | To deter a Russian attack, Ukraine needs to prepare for guerrilla warfare - The Washington Post


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/15/ukraine-russia-putin-aggression-nato/

---

This is very true, but it's been the case for the last 8 years, since the 2014 coup. The Neo-Nazi militias, like Azov & Right Sector, supported & supplied by the U.S., killed 11,000 pro-Russian & Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the Civil War -- the majority of the 14,000 deaths in that ongoing war.

During the Civil War, the militias preferred to NOT be affiliated with Ukrainian armed forces, because they didn't want anyone telling them what to do (or what not to do). These militias would regularly march through cities, shouting "Death to Russians," driven by the worst ethnic hatred.

This is why Putin talked about "de-Nazification" in Ukraine. It was particularly focused on the neo-Nazi militias in Eastern Ukraine (Donbass) and Odessa. The scorched-earth wipeouts in Mariupol & elsewhere were Putin's (very late) rescue of Russian-speaking Ukrainians & ethnic Russians in the region, and the key motivation for holding that territory.

BTW, the U.S. funding & support of the neo-Nazi militias goes against a 2016 U.N. resolution condemning the glorification of Nazism.

Quote:

---

The resolution entitled "Combating glorification of Nazism, Neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance," was approved by the U.N.'s human rights committee on Friday with 131 in favor, 3 against, with 48 abstentions.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-votes-against-anti-nazi-resolution-at-united-nations/

---

The 3 votes against the resolution were the U.S., Ukraine, and Palau.

Azov has essentially merged with the Ukrainian military since Russia started its military buildup this year.

I share this to illustrate that the "guerilla war" has been going on for 8 years, triggered and subsidized by the U.S., with ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine getting the worst of it by far.

Before the braying about my being a "Putin sympathizer," I'll say it again: Putin is an anti-democratic authoritarian -- he, along with his U.S. counterpart, Donald Trump, is my political & ideological enemy.

AND the Neocons, who control U.S. foreign policy, and whose stated goal is for the U.S. to be the lone world superpower & spread U.S.-style Neoliberal/"Trickle-Down" economics throughout the world, are ALSO my enemies. Both sides (U.S./NATO/EU and Russia) are Capital-dominant oligarchies that hate small-d democracy. Both are unsustainable. Both reduce the economic health, opportunity, rights, and freedoms of the majority of individuals, and transfer too much wealth to the 0.1% oligarch class, while attempting to maintain the appearance of democratic institutions.

Plus, both have enough nukes to end life on Earth, and both refuse to back down.

I write what I write because it's clear to me that nearly everyone is looking at this conflict from "one side of the elephant," and refusing to acknowledge the truths that exist on both sides. There's a long history that influences the actions of both sides. And everything is embedded in propaganda.

---

This is a bunch of garbage. Your reference to the UN resolution in particular is just rhetoric. That resolution is annual and we always vote against it because we have the first amendment. Meanwhile, Russia votes in favor of it but does nothing to address the nazis in their country and especially the nazis that fill its military.

There is no world in which any reasonable person genuinely believes Putin invaded Ukraine to deal with their nazi problem while completely ignoring, if not outright supporting, Russia's nazi problem. It defies belief that anyone could even pretend that to be the case.

And he's right about this too. There is a reason that Putinists are begging for a capitulation from Ukraine now. The recent missile attacks are reported to have mostly exhausted his supplies and with the sanctions he has no access to chips or other materials needed to replenish. He's acting like a wounded animal backed into a corner and his defenders are looking to save face by begging for an offramp so their overstatements of his military capabilities don't continue to blow up in their faces. Putin's launches prove that he's acting out of weakness and has no strategies or even plans to win this war. His hope is that Ukraine will bail him out like a foul beyond the 3 point line against a center with the shot clock expiring. If that's what Ukraine decides to do - bail him out - that's certainly within their ambit, but I don't fault them for choosing to maintain their sovereignty. It's pretty clear that Putin has no clear path to winning this war and holding Ukraine against their wishes.

---

The problem with your worldview is that you either fully embrace (if not outright worship) the modern Ukrainian political mythology, or you're a "Putinist", there are no nuances there, or real effort to understand the historical and geopolitical foundations underpinning this conflict, which have been clearly laid out by reliable experts like Mearsheimer.

This is the kind of political fundamentalism that dominated political discourse back in the post 9-11 era, which can be summarized as "you're either with us or you're against us".

Right now this mindset is leading us into a steady escalation in the war, with perhaps a quarter million mostly Ukrainian more deaths in perspective the next 12 months, and maybe millions more starving to death around the world, hundreds of millions undergoing severe economic hardship due to the economic fallout, and if that weren't bad enough, we are also entering an era of unprecedented nuclear threat, arguably worse than during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

All of this could have been avoided.

---

The problem with your worldview is that you dont believe people have a right to live, that people are merely pawns for their bigger more powerful neighbors to boss around, that they have no autonomy.

This is the kind of fundamentalism that is creeping into the world's mindset. That people dont have rights and are subserviant to others.

Right now this is the mindset that led to the death and displacement of millions of Ukrainians. This lead to the deaths of tens of thousands young russian men. This is leading to the potential mass famine that could kill millions. And the worst bit is that when confronted by the fact that people are not inherently subserviant to their neighbor, it may lead to nuclear war.

All this could have been avoided and can be avoided by Russia acknowledging Ukraine and the ukranian people have a right to exist, and then withdrawing from their invasion.

---

Further, Ukraine can surrender anytime it wants to. It isn't engaged in this war because it has some particular motive to topple the Russian regime to curry favor with the US. Ukraine is fighting because they want to fight. They believe their country and even their right to exist is being taken from them. They will fight even if the West stops sending aid. They have a big say in their own destiny here. It's not like they are just puppets fighting because NATO told them to.

And who started this war? Who invaded who? I think we all know 'who' did that. Sputin' can stop it at any time. Russia can go to hell.