oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

I watched about 70%, zero mention of new alleged higher Ukrainian casualties. The panel seems very pro Ukraine.

---

Or maybe your sources are just pro-Russia.

---

I can sympathize with ML as I've recently begun to notice there are a lot of anti-Satan sources out there, so, quite understandably, I've become pretty skeptical of all religious literature.

We've now reached a point where some people think that people who oppose Russia's naked aggression are untrustworthy experts. I can't imagine what sort of "reasonable" people are still sitting on the fence and haven't determined that Russia is to blame for this war.

---

Movielover, do you think that all people who oppose Russia's aggression are untrustworthy experts?

It seems that the peanut gallery accuses anybody communicating a non-rosy Ukranian view of the war is pro Russia's invasion.

---

There is a big difference between being pro-Ukraine (which all people who aren't on Kremlin payroll should reasonably be) and people misrepresenting the status of the war.

There are pro-Ukraine people who can paint a dim picture of Ukraine's prospects in the war and pro-Kremlin people who can paint a dim picture of Russia's prospects.

If ML meant to say that these people are lying or misrepresenting the status of the war, that's slightly different than saying they are pro-Ukraine and he could have said so. I took his message to mean that we should be weary of pro-Ukraine people which to me means he is saying we should be weary of pretty much every credible person in the world.

Cal88 is the most prominent example of a Putin/Kremlin cheerleader who also has repeatedly misrepresented the status of the war in favor of Russia. That's why I no longer bother to respond to or read his posts in these threads - he has zero credibility and fact-checking his endless torrent of Kremlin propaganda isn't worth it. If anyone still thinks he's worth engaging with on this topic, that's up to them.

If you disagree and you think people should be in favor of Russia's invasion, please let me know. I don't think that's your position but many have accused me of being too charitable.

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

I watched about 70%, zero mention of new alleged higher Ukrainian casualties. The panel seems very pro Ukraine.

---

Or maybe your sources are just pro-Russia.

---

I can sympathize with ML as I've recently begun to notice there are a lot of anti-Satan sources out there, so, quite understandably, I've become pretty skeptical of all religious literature.

We've now reached a point where some people think that people who oppose Russia's naked aggression are untrustworthy experts. I can't imagine what sort of "reasonable" people are still sitting on the fence and haven't determined that Russia is to blame for this war.

---

Movielover, do you think that all people who oppose Russia's aggression are untrustworthy experts?

It seems that the peanut gallery accuses anybody communicating a non-rosy Ukranian view of the war is pro Russia's invasion.

---

A couple of comments:
I dont know what the definition of 'pro-ukraine' is in this context. Does that mean wanting Ukraine to win? Or does it mean promoting propaganda or information with the singular goal of helping Ukraine? Because I dont believe wanting one side to win means you are unable to be impartial about the situation on the battlefield. Stating information that helps one side is not being biased if it is true.

With regards to the video, yes, I believe both panelists want Ukraine to win. However, I also believe their evaluations are impartial and that they are being honest and factual about the information they are conveying. I dont believe there is any intentional twisting of information to sway public support. It's also worth acknowledging that it was only 30 minutes and they only took a few questions, it's not like they have the time to go through every single facet of the war on a point by point basis. Therefore, not discussing one particular issue does not mean they are avoiding it out of bias. They answered the questions they were asked.

I dont understand how someone could watch that video and claim they have an agenda. I also dont know if that is what movielover's implication was when they claim the panelists are pro-ukraine, hence my initial question.

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

I watched about 70%, zero mention of new alleged higher Ukrainian casualties. The panel seems very pro Ukraine.

---

Or maybe your sources are just pro-Russia.

---

I can sympathize with ML as I've recently begun to notice there are a lot of anti-Satan sources out there, so, quite understandably, I've become pretty skeptical of all religious literature.

We've now reached a point where some people think that people who oppose Russia's naked aggression are untrustworthy experts. I can't imagine what sort of "reasonable" people are still sitting on the fence and haven't determined that Russia is to blame for this war.

---

Movielover, do you think that all people who oppose Russia's aggression are untrustworthy experts?

It seems that the peanut gallery accuses anybody communicating a non-rosy Ukranian view of the war is pro Russia's invasion.

---

No. Do I want Putin to succeed? No. Do I think he is the Devil, with no rational thought process, and no real concerns for his nation? No. A superpower will have obvious advantages over a smaller nation, even given mistakes.

Is McGregor a legitimate, trusted source? He seems rational. He makes the cogent point that Russia isn't Syria or some other tinpot outpost. (McGregor has a new article coming out tomorrow.)

Russia obviously has had concerns about Ukraine and NATOs growing presence there, NATO expansion, our State Department wanting to diminish Putin, not to mention new discoveries of NG and oil. This doesn't even go into the pro-Russia Donbas area, their local conflicts, and no one mentions our potential bio labs in the area. (Or propaganda?)

McGregor claims we could have stopped Russia early, if we really wanted to, and others claim there were peace talks scheduled which Boris Johnson stopped. I have to believe if Boris did such, it was with our direction. It seems DC and the MIC want this extended conflict.

A grinding war seems a horrible idea for the area.

movielover said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

I watched about 70%, zero mention of new alleged higher Ukrainian casualties. The panel seems very pro Ukraine.

---

Or maybe your sources are just pro-Russia.

---

I can sympathize with ML as I've recently begun to notice there are a lot of anti-Satan sources out there, so, quite understandably, I've become pretty skeptical of all religious literature.

We've now reached a point where some people think that people who oppose Russia's naked aggression are untrustworthy experts. I can't imagine what sort of "reasonable" people are still sitting on the fence and haven't determined that Russia is to blame for this war.

---

Movielover, do you think that all people who oppose Russia's aggression are untrustworthy experts?

It seems that the peanut gallery accuses anybody communicating a non-rosy Ukranian view of the war is pro Russia's invasion.

---

No. Do I want Putin to succeed? No. Do I think he is the Devil, with no rational thought process, and no real concerns for his nation? No. A superpower will have obvious advantages over a smaller nation, even given mistakes.

Is McGregor a legitimate, trusted source? He seems rational. He makes the cogent point that Russia isn't Syria or some other tinpot outpost. (McGregor has a new article coming out tomorrow.)

Russia obviously has had concerns about Ukraine and NATOs growing presence there, NATO expansion, our State Department wanting to diminish Putin, not to mention new discoveries of NG and oil. This doesn't even go into the pro-Russia Donbas area, their local conflicts, and no one mentions our potential bio labs in the area. (Or propaganda?)

McGregor claims we could have stopped Russia early, if we really wanted to, and others claim there were peace talks scheduled which Boris Johnson stopped. I have to believe if Boris did such, it was with our direction. It seems DC and the MIC want this extended conflict.

A grinding war seems a horrible idea for the area.

---

I think it's a poor assumption to believe that Putin has any rational thought process here. A rational thought process would have told you that a full invasion of Ukraine was a terrible idea.

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

I watched about 70%, zero mention of new alleged higher Ukrainian casualties. The panel seems very pro Ukraine.

---

Or maybe your sources are just pro-Russia.

---

I can sympathize with ML as I've recently begun to notice there are a lot of anti-Satan sources out there, so, quite understandably, I've become pretty skeptical of all religious literature.

We've now reached a point where some people think that people who oppose Russia's naked aggression are untrustworthy experts. I can't imagine what sort of "reasonable" people are still sitting on the fence and haven't determined that Russia is to blame for this war.

---

Movielover, do you think that all people who oppose Russia's aggression are untrustworthy experts?

It seems that the peanut gallery accuses anybody communicating a non-rosy Ukranian view of the war is pro Russia's invasion.

---

No. Do I want Putin to succeed? No. Do I think he is the Devil, with no rational thought process, and no real concerns for his nation? No. A superpower will have obvious advantages over a smaller nation, even given mistakes.

Is McGregor a legitimate, trusted source? He seems rational. He makes the cogent point that Russia isn't Syria or some other tinpot outpost. (McGregor has a new article coming out tomorrow.)

Russia obviously has had concerns about Ukraine and NATOs growing presence there, NATO expansion, our State Department wanting to diminish Putin, not to mention new discoveries of NG and oil. This doesn't even go into the pro-Russia Donbas area, their local conflicts, and no one mentions our potential bio labs in the area. (Or propaganda?)

McGregor claims we could have stopped Russia early, if we really wanted to, and others claim there were peace talks scheduled which Boris Johnson stopped. I have to believe if Boris did such, it was with our direction. It seems DC and the MIC want this extended conflict.

A grinding war seems a horrible idea for the area.

---

I think it's a poor assumption to believe that Putin has any rational thought process here. A rational thought process would have told you that a full invasion of Ukraine was a terrible idea.

---

His first choice was to have Trump help him de-stabilize Ukraine or install another captive illegitimate government like he did with Yanukovych but Trump was more interested in leveraging Ukraine in order to stave off the obvious beating he would take against Biden in 2020. I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually learn that Putin's main reason for meddling in our election in 2016 was Ukraine-related.

Once Putin realized the US wasn't going to let him take over Ukraine through corruption and fraud, he decided to do it militarily. Because he's running a corrupt kleptocratic yes-man state, he believed his military was actually competent and would easily be able to overwhelm Ukraine. Turns out he was wrong about that so we are where we are and there is no offramp that doesn't magnify what a paper tiger Russia is.

I would like to reiterate that at the beginning of the invasion, all of the military experts thought Ukraine was going to fall within a month. A lot of smart people made assumptions which proved false. Ukraine over-performed early, and Russia massively underperformed, we know that now, and have adjusted the assumptions accordingly, but we did not know that at the beginning.

I think Putin invading was a rational decision because he thought it would be quick and easy. Unfortunately for him the following assumptions were wrong:
1. Ukraine would greet Russia as liberators.
2. The west would not galvanize a coalition to take collective action and support against Russia and for ukraine.
3. The russian military was ready for this invasion.

Unfortunately for Putin, he is now stuck in this war. He cant withdraw for fear of losing power at home, and russia winning is far from an assured outcome.

So he is left with two bad options (all of his own doing).

golden sloth said:

---

I would like to reiterate that at the beginning of the invasion, all of the military experts thought Ukraine was going to fall within a month.

---

There were plenty of people who thought this would happen. But the problem is not just toppling the Ukrainian government, it's holding the territory afterward. That last part is why the invasion is a long-term terrible idea.

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

I watched about 70%, zero mention of new alleged higher Ukrainian casualties. The panel seems very pro Ukraine.

---

Or maybe your sources are just pro-Russia.

---

I can sympathize with ML as I've recently begun to notice there are a lot of anti-Satan sources out there, so, quite understandably, I've become pretty skeptical of all religious literature.

We've now reached a point where some people think that people who oppose Russia's naked aggression are untrustworthy experts. I can't imagine what sort of "reasonable" people are still sitting on the fence and haven't determined that Russia is to blame for this war.

---

Movielover, do you think that all people who oppose Russia's aggression are untrustworthy experts?

It seems that the peanut gallery accuses anybody communicating a non-rosy Ukranian view of the war is pro Russia's invasion.

---

No. Do I want Putin to succeed? No. Do I think he is the Devil, with no rational thought process, and no real concerns for his nation? No. A superpower will have obvious advantages over a smaller nation, even given mistakes.

Is McGregor a legitimate, trusted source? He seems rational. He makes the cogent point that Russia isn't Syria or some other tinpot outpost. (McGregor has a new article coming out tomorrow.)

Russia obviously has had concerns about Ukraine and NATOs growing presence there, NATO expansion, our State Department wanting to diminish Putin, not to mention new discoveries of NG and oil. This doesn't even go into the pro-Russia Donbas area, their local conflicts, and no one mentions our potential bio labs in the area. (Or propaganda?)

McGregor claims we could have stopped Russia early, if we really wanted to, and others claim there were peace talks scheduled which Boris Johnson stopped. I have to believe if Boris did such, it was with our direction. It seems DC and the MIC want this extended conflict.

A grinding war seems a horrible idea for the area.

---

I think it's a poor assumption to believe that Putin has any rational thought process here. A rational thought process would have told you that a full invasion of Ukraine was a terrible idea.

---

Colonel Douglass McGregor has a different take. A brief synopsis.

1. Zelensky was elected to continue peaceably w Russia.
2. We've been meddling in Ukraine for 20 years, setting this disaster up.
3. Putin had some simple goals. Keep NATO out of Ukraine, let the two Russian-speaking provinces remain independent, and acknowledge Crimea is part of Russia. Ukraine was well known to be a red line.
4. McGregor alleges Putin launched a limited war so that his demands would be taken seriously. Avoid civilian deaths, don't attack infrastructure, and bring the west to the table.
5. About six weeks in Zelensky spoke about Ukraine being neutral, and there was talk of peace
negotiations. Then Boris Johnson (the USA) ended that talk.
6. Yes, Russia took some losses, so has Ukraine. McGregor alleges 100,000 dead Ukrainian men, and 200,000 new Russian troops now preparing for a full scale war. Plus volunteers (80,000?). Russia has a new field commander who gave up some land allegedly to save lives (troops). Ukraine supposedly losing 15,000 soldiers a month. These pro-war talking heads don't mention these - alleged - chilling numbers.
7. The EU has no stomach for this war. Is NATO obsolete?
8. How is Russia a threat to America? This war has been pushed by London, New York, and DC. Americans don't want war, what do we gain here? We've lost, and will add more debt (over $31 Trillion).
9. Russia isn't Syria or Afghanistan. Ukraine may be obliterated in 4 months. Neither side wants nuclear war.

I'm sorry, but the idea that Putin launched a "limited war" is ludicrous. He went straight for Kiev. That's not limited, that's an attempt to conquer the whole country.

Or was it a feint?

movielover said:

---

Or was it a feint?

---

OMG just when I thought you couldn't be even more ridiculous. Yes, it was a great feint. Tell us how that worked out for your buddy Putin.

movielover said:

---

Or was it a feint?

---

Sending rows and rows of tanks directly for the nation's capital is a "feint?" For what?

If I recall correctly it was a 40 mile long column. That is quite a feint. LOL

Russia tried to remove the Ukrainian government by invading to the heart of the country and taking over the capital. Talk of feints, limited wars, restraint, tactical precision, the war being primarily motivated by Nazi's is just bull crap. Honestly, among a Cal board of intelligent people, it is kind of hard to believe I am seeing this stuff.

movielover said:

---

Or was it a feint?

---

Absolutely not. If it was a feint, Russia would have withdrawn with their equipment. Instead it was either abandoned or destroyed.

The idea it was a feint arose several months after the fact by Russian propaganda factories tryin to save face. It is complete BS.

movielover said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

I watched about 70%, zero mention of new alleged higher Ukrainian casualties. The panel seems very pro Ukraine.

---

Or maybe your sources are just pro-Russia.

---

I can sympathize with ML as I've recently begun to notice there are a lot of anti-Satan sources out there, so, quite understandably, I've become pretty skeptical of all religious literature.

We've now reached a point where some people think that people who oppose Russia's naked aggression are untrustworthy experts. I can't imagine what sort of "reasonable" people are still sitting on the fence and haven't determined that Russia is to blame for this war.

---

Movielover, do you think that all people who oppose Russia's aggression are untrustworthy experts?

It seems that the peanut gallery accuses anybody communicating a non-rosy Ukranian view of the war is pro Russia's invasion.

---

No. Do I want Putin to succeed? No. Do I think he is the Devil, with no rational thought process, and no real concerns for his nation? No. A superpower will have obvious advantages over a smaller nation, even given mistakes.

Is McGregor a legitimate, trusted source? He seems rational. He makes the cogent point that Russia isn't Syria or some other tinpot outpost. (McGregor has a new article coming out tomorrow.)

Russia obviously has had concerns about Ukraine and NATOs growing presence there, NATO expansion, our State Department wanting to diminish Putin, not to mention new discoveries of NG and oil. This doesn't even go into the pro-Russia Donbas area, their local conflicts, and no one mentions our potential bio labs in the area. (Or propaganda?)

McGregor claims we could have stopped Russia early, if we really wanted to, and others claim there were peace talks scheduled which Boris Johnson stopped. I have to believe if Boris did such, it was with our direction. It seems DC and the MIC want this extended conflict.

A grinding war seems a horrible idea for the area.

---

I think it's a poor assumption to believe that Putin has any rational thought process here. A rational thought process would have told you that a full invasion of Ukraine was a terrible idea.

---

Colonel Douglass McGregor has a different take. A brief synopsis.

1. Zelensky was elected to continue peaceably w Russia.

Zelensky did not invade Russia, Russia invaded Zelensky. Its not Zelensky's fault Russia invaded.

2. We've been meddling in Ukraine for 20 years, setting this disaster up.

If we have been meddling, what has Russia been doing? They want Ukraine to be another Belarus, aka puppet government.

3. Putin had some simple goals. Keep NATO out of Ukraine, let the two Russian-speaking provinces remain independent, and acknowledge Crimea is part of Russia. Ukraine was well known to be a red line.

First, why should Russia be allowed to write Ukraine's domestic and foreign policy? Russia is not special, they don't get to do that. I strongly disagree with anyone that believes Russia should be allowed to do that. It fundamentally denies Ukraine their right to sovereignty, which all countries have a right to.

Second, Ukraine had offered NATO neutrality to Russia prior to the invasion, Russia invaded anyway. Further NATO would not have admitted Ukraine, therefore that is not the reason, and NATO neutrality is not the reason Russia invaded.

Finally, I'm having trouble following the logic of the Crimea bit. Russia illegally and unjustly stole Crimea from Ukraine. Russia was in complete control of Crimea with no viable threat to its control there. Russia then invaded Ukraine because they don't acknowledge that Crimea should be a part of Russia. How does this make sense?

4. McGregor alleges Putin launched a limited war so that his demands would be taken seriously. Avoid civilian deaths, don't attack infrastructure, and bring the west to the table.

McGregor's assessment is incorrect. Putin wanted regime change which is why he attacked Kyiv. He thought he would be greeted as a liberator. He was wrong as Ukrainians don't want to be subjugated by Russia.

5. About six weeks in Zelensky spoke about Ukraine being neutral, and there was talk of peace
negotiations. Then Boris Johnson (the USA) ended that talk.

Ukraine keeps asking for more weapons, and all the reports out of Ukraine indicate that the Ukrainians want to keep fighting.

6. Yes, Russia took some losses, so has Ukraine. McGregor alleges 100,000 dead Ukrainian men, and 200,000 new Russian troops now preparing for a full scale war. Plus volunteers (80,000?). Russia has a new field commander who gave up some land allegedly to save lives (troops). Ukraine supposedly losing 15,000 soldiers a month. These pro-war talking heads don't mention these - alleged - chilling numbers.

I don't get what your point is. The Ukrainians want to keep fighting. The US is not forcing Ukraine to fight. The US is supporting Ukraine for as long as they want to fight, therefore the number of casualties being taken by the Ukrainian side is Ukraine's decision, and Russia's fault as they are the ones killing them. Concurrently, Ukraine has the upper hand right now on the battlefield.

7. The EU has no stomach for this war. Is NATO obsolete?

All evidence thus far is to the contrary. The NATO countries have compiled a series a sanctions and aide to Ukraine that was at a substantial cost to themselves, how does this indicate they have no stomach for this. The idea that NATO is obsolete is completely ridiculous, as NATO has expanded specifically because of Russia's invasion. NATO is currently providing weapons and training to Ukraine. How does that indicate it does not want to help. The Baltic states and Poland are rightfully scared of Russia, they want Russia to lose in Ukraine because if Russia wins, they think they will be next.

8. How is Russia a threat to America? This war has been pushed by London, New York, and DC. Americans don't want war, what do we gain here? We've lost, and will add more debt (over $31 Trillion).

You don't get to speak for all Americans as you don't speak for me, don't ever think you can speak for me. Russia is disrupting the global order that the USA built after World War Two. That global order meant the rule of law by institutions which enforce rules. This is what the UN is about, this is what the WTO is about. You can disparage the effectiveness and fairness of those bodies all you want, but the goal was to hold all countries to a set of rules and laws to prevent some countries from outright invading, colonizing, and conquering others. The reason why the US did this was because they got tired of being puled into other country's wars (WWI and WWII). If Russia is allowed to conquer Ukraine, then China can take Taiwan. If China can take Taiwan then Iraq can take Kuwait. If countries are allowed to invade each other, eventually one of those wars will draw in the US.

The very real fear is that if Russia conquers Ukraine, they will then conquer Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland and Romania and eventually a country we care about and need.

9. Russia isn't Syria or Afghanistan. Ukraine may be obliterated in 4 months. Neither side wants nuclear war.

Ukraine was supposed to be obliterated after one month. Russia may have collapse in a month. There is a ton of speculation that could be done. No one wants a nuclear war, but that doesn't mean Russia can simply say "I get to conquer all of the former Soviet countries or I'll nuke them", and it is exactly that attitude and disregard for the sovereignty of other countries, the disrespect for human life, and the disregard for the international rules based system that Russia needs to be stopped. Therefore, as long as Ukraine wants to keep fighting we should keep supporting them. I'd much rather give Ukraine help than bail out the US banks again.

---

Do you think Douglas McGregor is a paid Russian operator?

Putin took Crimea during Obama's presidency, and it was part of the USSR for centuries.

Do you deny that the DC establishment and MIC want this proxy war? Why not have peace talks 6 weeks after the war started? Why did Boris Johnson (USA) put a stop to that?

OK, you believe Ukraine is winning.

How many hundreds of Billions of Dollars do you eventually think we should give to rebuild Ukraine. $300 Billion? $500 Billion? $2 Trillion?

About MacGregor, from a wiki:


2014 Russian annexation of Crimea
In 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea and was engaged in a conflict with Ukraine over its eastern parts, Macgregor appeared on Russian state-owned network RT where he called for the annexation of the Donbas and said residents of the region "are in fact Russians, not Ukrainians, and at the same time, you have Ukrainians in the west and in the north, who are not Russians." Less than 40% of Donbas residents are ethnically Russian.

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
After Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Macgregor appeared on three Fox News programs in February and early March to speak in support of Russia's actions. Three days after the war began, he said "The battle in eastern Ukraine is really almost over," and predicted "If [Ukraine] don't surrender in the next 24 hours, I suspect Russia will ultimately annihilate them." Macgregor said he believed Russia should be allowed to seize whatever parts of Ukraine it wanted. In his second appearance, he revised his prediction: "The first five days Russian forces I think frankly were too gentle. They've now corrected that. So, I would say another 10 days this should be completely over... I think the most heroic thing he could do right now is come to terms with reality. Neutralize Ukraine." After one of his appearances, Macgregor's comments were characterized by veteran Fox News Pentagon correspondent Jennifer Griffin as "appeasement" and that he was being an "apologist" for Putin. After Griffin's remarks, Tucker Carlson who hosted Macgregor on two successive nights remarked, "Unlike many of the so-called reporters you see on television, he is not acting secretly as a flack for Lloyd Austin at the Pentagon. No, Doug Macgregor is an honest man." Trey Gowdy, another Fox News host who interviewed Macgregor, said his viewpoint was "stunning and disappointing."

Russian state television channels RT and VGTRK broadcast excerpts of Macgregor's second Carlson appearance, which included a characterization of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a "puppet," that Russian forces had been "too gentle" in the early days of the invasion and that Russian president Vladimir Putin was being "demonized" by the United States and NATO. U.S. representative Liz Cheney said of Macgregor "This is the Putin wing of the GOP."

In a fourth appearance in early March, Macgregor said a ceasefire was close as Ukrainian forces had been "grounded to bits. There's no question about that despite what we report on our mainstream media".

Yes, maybe he's biased. Maybe he knows a formidable country, a former superpower, will eventually crush a smaller opponent. Especially with Europe war weary.

Maybe he's angry because he foresees 50-100,000 dead Russians, and 100-150,000 dead Ukranians in our near future - when simply staying neutral, getting NATO to back off, and acknowledging Crimea as Russian, might prevent the bloodshed. He contends Russia isn't the old USSR and isn't looking for vast expansion.

movielover said:

---

He contends Russia isn't the old USSR and isn't looking for vast expansion.

---

But again, Russia trying to take Kiev is a big point of evidence against this opinion.

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

He contends Russia isn't the old USSR and isn't looking for vast expansion.

---

But again, Russia trying to take Kiev is a big point of evidence against this opinion.

---

McGregor and other savvy military observers have properly analyzed the Russians early sweep towards Kiev as part of

1- a quick operation to put political pressure on Zelensky to negotiate a settlement with Russia on their terms, and

2- a fixing military operation, meant to pin down hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian troops in defense of Kiev, which allowed the quick early conquests in the South of the Crimea land bridge and Kherson (very successful, with few losses) and in the northeast around Kharkov (which was also successful but came at a higher cost due in part to the early thaw in March)

The Russians never intended to conquer Kiev, you can't conquer a city of 3.5 million with 25k troops. Objective #1 would have been achieved if it weren't for the political intervention of NATO and Boris Johnson in particular, the war could have been stopped early with an early political settlement.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

He contends Russia isn't the old USSR and isn't looking for vast expansion.

---

But again, Russia trying to take Kiev is a big point of evidence against this opinion.

---

McGregor and other savvy military observers have properly analyzed the Russians early sweep towards Kiev as part of

1- a quick operation to put political pressure on Zelensky to negotiate a settlement with Russia on their terms, and

2- a fixing military operation, meant to pin down hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian troops in defense of Kiev, which allowed the quick early conquests in the South of the Crimea land bridge and Kherson (very successful, with few losses) and in the northeast around Kharkov (which was also successful but came at a higher cost due in part to the early thaw in March)

The Russians never intended to conquer Kiev, you can't conquer a city of 3.5 million with 25k troops. Objective #1 would have been achieved if it weren't for the political intervention of NATO and Boris Johnson in particular, the war could have been stopped early with an early political settlement.

---

This is just wrong. The Russian army failed to take Kyiv because they ran out of fuel and could not hold the airport. It was not a feint, it was not a deception.

movielover said:

---

Yes, maybe he's biased. Maybe he knows a formidable country, a former superpower, will eventually crush a smaller opponent. Especially with Europe war weary.

Maybe he's angry because he foresees 50-100,000 dead Russians, and 100-150,000 dead Ukranians in our near future - when simply staying neutral, getting NATO to back off, and acknowledging Crimea as Russian, might prevent the bloodshed. He contends Russia isn't the old USSR and isn't looking for vast expansion.

---

Then he should be mad at Russia. They are invading. They chose to start this war. All blood is on Russia's hands. They could have not invaded. Ukraine had agreed to neutrality and Russia invaded anyway. Russia invading to force Ukraine to accept Crimea is Russian is dumb and makes no sense (I stole this from you and I'm going to beat you up until you agree this is mine, is that acceptable?).

This is a war of conquest and colonization. Putin said Ukraine doesnt have a right to exist and is not a real country. He said similar things about the baltics being russian citing wars 200 years ago. Since the 2000's he has been slowly expanding, look at South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Crimea, and Transnistria.

Two potential explanations are out there for Putin's expansionism.
1. Putin longs for the days of the Soviet empire and gravely wants to restore Russia to its previous power.
2. Putin sees the russian demographic and realizes he will not have the quantity of young men to defend his current borders as the borders are mostly open plains. He needs to expand to geographic barriers now when he still has men, so he can defend Russia with his army of 15 years from now (which will be smaller).

And again, I'm not saying macgregor is biased, I'm just saying he is wrong.

golden sloth said:

---

movielover said:

---

Yes, maybe he's biased. Maybe he knows a formidable country, a former superpower, will eventually crush a smaller opponent. Especially with Europe war weary.

Maybe he's angry because he foresees 50-100,000 dead Russians, and 100-150,000 dead Ukranians in our near future - when simply staying neutral, getting NATO to back off, and acknowledging Crimea as Russian, might prevent the bloodshed. He contends Russia isn't the old USSR and isn't looking for vast expansion.

---

Then he should be mad at Russia. They are invading. They chose to start this war. All blood is on Russia's hands. They could have not invaded. Ukraine had agreed to neutrality and Russia invaded anyway. Russia invading to force Ukraine to accept Crimea is Russian is dumb and makes no sense (I stole this from you and I'm going to beat you up until you agree this is mine, is that acceptable?).

This is a war of conquest and colonization. Putin said Ukraine doesnt have a right to exist and is not a real country. He said similar things about the baltics being russian citing wars 200 years ago. Since the 2000's he has been slowly expanding, look at South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Crimea, and Transnistria.

Two potential explanations are out there for Putin's expansionism.
1. Putin longs for the days of the Soviet empire and gravely wants to restore Russia to its previous power.
2. Putin sees the russian demographic and realizes he will not have the quantity of young men to defend his current borders as the borders are mostly open plains. He needs to expand to geographic barriers now when he still has men, so he can defend Russia with his army of 15 years from now (which will be smaller).

And again, I'm not saying macgregor is biased, I'm just saying he is wrong.

---

We are all mad at Russia. Everyone is focusing on criticizing Knowlton's handling of the swim allegations, yet that in no way clears what McKeever actually did. Why do folks assume criticism of the NATO response is somehow a forgiveness of the invasion?

movielover said:

---

The pro Ukraine side seems to ignore the constant NATO push of the past 20 years.

---

NATO never made any offer to Ukraine for membership.

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

The pro Ukraine side seems to ignore the constant NATO push of the past 20 years.

---

NATO never made any offer to Ukraine for membership.

---

NATO has been arming Ukraine to the gills since 2014, with the intention of crushing the rebellion in the Donbass and eventually retaking Crimea. Before this year, Ukraine was/is a defacto NATO member, with modern NATO training, it had the biggest army in Europe and was ready to overrun the two rebel provinces. This is what precipitated Russian military intervention, as well as Ukraine's intent on acquiring nuclear weapons, which they have the technology and material to do.

Ukraine violated the Minsk II Agreements, had they abided by them, there wouldn't have been a Russian invasion. Both Poronshenko and Merkel recently acknowledged that the Minsk Agreements were a temporary ploy to give NATO time and space to rearm Ukraine with the intention of crushing the Donbass rebel regions and taking back Crimea, which is completely indefendable for the Russians without a wide land bridge through the Azov coast.

People on here are tone deaf with regards to the basic realities in this conflict, for instance, the fact that Crimea is a Russian province, has always been, since the late 1700s, and its annexation to Russia reflects the freewill of its overwhelmingly Russian native population. I've provided the basic facts from wiki and other sources, yet that reality doesn't even register. This is a conflict based on narratives, not facts, it's almost useless to argue in that kind of broken cognitive framework.

There wouldn't be a conflict in the first place if that region were viewed and treated in basic Wilsonian self-determination norms. Autonomy for the Donbass (as outlined in the Minsk II Agreements), protection of cultural minorities in Ukraine and recognition of Crimea as Russian are no different than the way the rest of modern Europe operates.

The Spanish government can no longer repress the use and promotion of the Basque language in Basque country, nor can the federal government of Canada butt into the Quebec educational system and their promotion of French culture. Those are basic precepts of any large modern democracy, yet somehow they don't apply to Ukraine.

The notion that Russia is going to roll into Poland or other EE countries if we don't stop them in Ukraine is ridiculous. The only country they will invade is Lithuania, if that country actively blockades the Kaliningrad enclave, breaking established conventions, or perhaps other Baltic countries if they actively repress their Russian minorities. Those countries however face zero invasion risk if they apply normal modern European standards pertaining to the protection of cultural and ethnic minorities.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

The pro Ukraine side seems to ignore the constant NATO push of the past 20 years.

---

NATO never made any offer to Ukraine for membership.

---

NATO has been arming Ukraine to the gills since 2014

---

I wonder what could have happened in 2014 that caused Ukraine to ask for more defense help . . .