The Official Russian Invasion of Ukraine Thread

862,783 Views | 9883 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by sycasey
Apathetic Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 12:11p, 1/19/23
Unit2Sucks said:
More on Putin's failure to blackmail Europe over energy.


Reply Quote
2
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:37p, 1/19/23
Applebaum is among the worst anti-Russian ideologues/activists, along with other neocons like Kasparov, Ioffe, McFaul, Vladimir Milov (also recently quoted on this thread). She doaesn`t really care about Europe, or the fact that their energy costs have skyrocketed due to them now depending on LNG imports vs pipeline gas.

Europe's energy crisis is ongoing, the fact that December was unseasonably warm and that extremely high prices and businesses shutting down as a result have reduced demand have not altered the basic problem of sharply rising energy costs in Europe, which are threatening the very survival of European industry.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/europe-energy-crisis-updates/#xj4y7vzkg

Russia is going to be fine, they will shift a lot of their gas supply to China, and also redirect some of their Nordstream gas to Turkey and other markets in the region. Power of Siberia 1 which supplies China is already functional, and will be more than doubled through Power of Siberia 2.


https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/russia-says-pipeline-to-china-will-replace-nord-stream-2-2/



Overall these energy policies have severely weakened Europe, and strengthened China. US gas producers are also going to rake it in, but in geopolitical terms China is going to be far less vulnerable to a US energy blockade in years to come.


Reply Quote
3
1 edit
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 12:47p, 1/19/23
Cal88 said:
Applebaum is among the worst anti-Russian ideologues/activists, along with other neocons like Kasparov, Ioffe, McFaul, Vladimir Milov (also recently quoted on this thread). She doaesn`t really care about Europe, or the fact that their energy costs have skyrocketed due to them now depending on LNG imports vs pipeline gas.

Europe's energy crisis is ongoing, the fact that December was unseasonably warm and that extremely high prices and businesses shutting down as a result have reduced demand have not altered the basic problem of sharply rising energy costs in Europe, which are threatening the very survival of European industry.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/europe-energy-crisis-updates/#xj4y7vzkg

Russia is going to be fine, they will shift a lot of their gas supply to China, and also redirect some of their Nordstream gas to Turkey and other markets in the region. Power of Siberia 1 which supplies China is already functional, and will be more than doubled through Power of Siberia 2.


https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/russia-says-pipeline-to-china-will-replace-nord-stream-2-2/



Overall these energy policies have severely weakened Europe, and strengthened China. US gas producers are also going to rake it in, but in geopolitical terms China is going to be far less vulnerable to a US energy blockade in years to come.




NATO can't convince Turkey to join on the embargo?
Reply Quote
1
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:00p, 1/19/23
People have the impression that Ukrainians want to fight so that little Misha in the Donbass can`t speak Russian any more or be allowed to read Dostoevsky in school. The reality is, most of the hardcore Ukrainian nationalists willing to die for that cause are already dead.

The majority of Ukrainian conscripts, many of whom forcefully enlisted and sent to the front, don't want to be used as cannon fodder for Anne Applebaum`s pet cause:





Their conscripts are ill-equipped and fighting against great odds without support from their military structure:


Ukraine is already on its 10th mobilization round, now leaning more heavily on HS-age teenagers, female recruits and its expat population.



Ukraine is keeping some of its best troops in big cities to enforce political control over its population, especially in russophone cities like Kharkov or Odessa, this is the kind of work they do there:




Reply Quote
2
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 1:08p, 1/19/23
oski003 said:
Cal88 said:
Applebaum is among the worst anti-Russian ideologues/activists, along with other neocons like Kasparov, Ioffe, McFaul, Vladimir Milov (also recently quoted on this thread). She doaesn`t really care about Europe, or the fact that their energy costs have skyrocketed due to them now depending on LNG imports vs pipeline gas.

Europe's energy crisis is ongoing, the fact that December was unseasonably warm and that extremely high prices and businesses shutting down as a result have reduced demand have not altered the basic problem of sharply rising energy costs in Europe, which are threatening the very survival of European industry.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/europe-energy-crisis-updates/#xj4y7vzkg

Russia is going to be fine, they will shift a lot of their gas supply to China, and also redirect some of their Nordstream gas to Turkey and other markets in the region. Power of Siberia 1 which supplies China is already functional, and will be more than doubled through Power of Siberia 2.


https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/russia-says-pipeline-to-china-will-replace-nord-stream-2-2/



Overall these energy policies have severely weakened Europe, and strengthened China. US gas producers are also going to rake it in, but in geopolitical terms China is going to be far less vulnerable to a US energy blockade in years to come.

NATO can't convince Turkey to join on the embargo?

The neocon wing in Washington DC wants regime change in Turkey, and is backing the Gulen islamists against Erdogan. Also the US/NATO is backing the Kurds in Syria, an existential threat to Turkey.

Furthermore, Turkey has been in the midst of an inflationary spiral for the last decade, Russia coming in with a package of cheap oil&gas, plus wheat, along with millions of tourists who are being discouraged from going to Greece or Italy, and Turkey is also becoming a hub for grey market imports into Russia, along with Georgia and Kazakhstan.

That economic package is too hard to turn down for Erdogan, especially in an election year. Overall though, Turkey being a natural regional power, much like Inda, benefits from the shift to a multipolar world, that`s why these countries are not on the Russian sanctions bandwagon.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:23p, 1/19/23
More G7 price caps coming in early February by the G7 on Russian refined products.
Price caps on diesel, kerosene, and fuel oil.

The Russians are suffering from plunging export revenues on oil.
Theyve even been selling oil BELOW THE PRICE CAP TO INDIA.
lol

Russian budget deficits are EXPLODING!

A record $56 BILLION USD gap was reached in December alone.

I repeat: That budget deficit was a RECORD.

Just the Facts.

"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DiabloWags • 1:41p, 1/19/23
DiabloWags said:
More G7 price caps coming in early February by the G7 on Russian refined products.
Price caps on diesel, kerosene, and fuel oil.

The Russians are suffering from plunging export revenues on oil.
Theyve even been selling oil BELOW THE PRICE CAP TO INDIA.
lol

Russian budget deficits are EXPLODING!

A record $56 BILLION USD gap was reached in December alone.

I repeat: That budget deficit was a RECORD.

Just the Facts.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1187735/budget-balance-in-russia/

Also, you should take a look at Russia`s debt situation, and its national fund, gold and reserves situation. That might give you a bit more perpective on their financial situation.
Reply Quote
2
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:56p, 1/19/23
Didn't Biden Greenlight a Russian incursion?

https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/21/if-trump-had-greenlighted-russia-to-invade-ukraine-like-biden-just-did-media-would-have-gone-nuts/
Reply Quote
2
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 4:41p, 1/19/23
Cal88 said:
DiabloWags said:
More G7 price caps coming in early February by the G7 on Russian refined products.
Price caps on diesel, kerosene, and fuel oil.

The Russians are suffering from plunging export revenues on oil.
Theyve even been selling oil BELOW THE PRICE CAP TO INDIA.
lol

Russian budget deficits are EXPLODING!

A record $56 BILLION USD gap was reached in December alone.

I repeat: That budget deficit was a RECORD.

Just the Facts.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1187735/budget-balance-in-russia/

Also, you should take a look at Russia`s debt situation, and its national fund, gold and reserves situation. That might give you a bit more perpective on their financial situation.

I`m going to help you out a bit here, Russia has the lowest debt to GDP ratio among all larger economies in the world, at around 17.0%.

Russia`s 17% debt to GDP ratio is lower than the lowest OCDE country in this graph, Estonia, in the green line:


Another visual aid on the debt situation in Russia:



And those pictures don`t even take into account Russia`s reserves and sovereign fund.

Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:27p, 1/19/23
Sobering analysis by Col. MacGregor:



122,000 Ukraine dead confirmed
35,000+ MIAs presumed dead

So over 150,000 Ukrainian soldiers dead.

300,000+ Ukrainian wounded

Russian side:
16,000-20,000 dead
~50,000 wounded

==> the ratio of Ukrainian dead to Russian dead is around 8 to 1.

MacGregor also points out that these numbers were compiled through 2022, when Russia was in constant numeric inferiority and had less experience fighting, weren't as well-organized and had fewer resources (use of drones).

The middleweight is getting pummelled by the heavyweight.

US neocons wanted to start this war badly, but did not properly prepare for it, assuming they would roll back Russia through superior technology. They had no idea it would turn into an artillery-driven war of attrition. After nearly exhausting the arsenals of EE and NATO members, the US has sourced ammunition from S. Korea, Morocco, Sudan, and now Israel, which is providing Ukraine 300,000 shells, about 3 weeks' worth of ammunition.

Russia on the other hand got the war it expected, and the type of war it wants. They have several million shells on hand and are also producing ammo in very large numbers, with a capacity far greater than all of NATO combined. and can conduct the war with very limited interference in their logistical infrastructure. Events like the bombing of the improvised casern earlier this year make the news because they're relatively rare, whereas the Russians have been systematically picking off any substantial Ukrainian troop gathering.

Russia started the war behind in drone technology and integration, they've closed that gap, adding a whole range of drones to their military apparatus. They've also closed the gap with NATO in precision-guided ammunition, the use of which they will step up this year as Ukraine's dwindling S-300 stocks degrade their ability to deny or contest air superiority to the Russians.

The bottom line is that this war has not gone as the media has depicted, it has largely been a one-sided massacre, that needs to be stopped.

Reply Quote
2
2 edits
dimitrig
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 6:41p, 1/19/23
Cal88 said:
The bottom line is that this war has not gone as the media has depicted, it has largely been a one-sided massacre, that needs to be stopped.



This war has not at all gone as Russia has expected and I am glad we all agree that Putin should stop it.
Reply Quote
5
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dimitrig • 6:53p, 1/19/23
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
The bottom line is that this war has not gone as the media has depicted, it has largely been a one-sided massacre, that needs to be stopped.

This war has not at all gone as Russia has expected and I am glad we all agree that Putin should stop it.

You think the Russians expected to get even better than an 8 to 1 kill ratio? The Russians are happy to extend this war for as long as it takes for them to achieve their political objectives. They have prepared for this war of attrition.

Putin is not going to stop the war, regardless of what you or I want. The prospects for Ukraine achieving its stated military objectives of reconquering the Donbass and Crimea are exceedingly slim. Russia is going to keep on fighting until Ukraine reaches its breaking point. That point might be 750,000 casualties (KIA, MIA and wounded), 1 million, or more, though not much more. We're at 450,000 today, and that count is going up by nearly 1,000/day.

>>>> How many more Ukrainian soldiers will have to die or be maimed until this reality sinks in?

There is no military solution for Ukraine, the only realistic outcome from the continuation of war is more Ukrainian casualties.

The only logical, sane and humane solution is to negotiate a settlement with Russia. The sooner it is done, the more lives saved.
Reply Quote
3
2 edits
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 7:28p, 1/19/23
Cal88 said:
Putin is not going to stop the war

Why not? What's wrong with him?
Reply Quote
7
golden sloth
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:51p, 1/19/23
It saddens me that this thread has turned into Cal88's personal Russian propaganda thread. I get why it happened, because people have better things to do than argue with someone so entrenched in inaccurate russian propaganda that an actual conversation is futile. But, it still saddens me.
Reply Quote
9
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to golden sloth • 7:55p, 1/19/23
golden sloth said:
It saddens me that this thread has turned into Cal88's personal Russian propaganda thread. I get why it happened, because people have better things to do than argue with someone so entrenched in inaccurate russian propaganda that an actual conversation is futile. But, it still saddens me.

If someone just wants to filibuster, there is little a non-admin can do about it.
Reply Quote
5
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 8:01p, 1/19/23
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
Putin is not going to stop the war

Why not? What's wrong with him?

1- He doesn't want to give up Crimea or the Donbass
2- He doesn't like being threatened by a hostile nationalistic regime backed by 30 countries including the US at his front porch
3- He doesn't want to see his country dismantled or go through anything like they did in the 1990s.

Any Russian leader in charge would have done the same. Putin's main political critics in Russia have accused him of being too passive, too meek.
Reply Quote
2
Apathetic Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 8:07p, 1/19/23
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
Putin is not going to stop the war

Why not? What's wrong with him?
It turns out that sovereign countries don't like other countries using neighboring countries to gain first strike capability. One would have thought that liberals would have learned this lesson when their hero JFK won the blinking contest with Khruschev and they took their missiles back home, but I guess political knowledge on this forum only dates back to Nov 2015.
Reply Quote
3
dimitrig
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Apathetic Bear • 8:23p, 1/19/23
Apathetic Bear said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
Putin is not going to stop the war

Why not? What's wrong with him?
It turns out that sovereign countries don't like other countries using neighboring countries to gain first strike capability. One would have thought that liberals would have learned this lesson when their hero JFK won the blinking contest with Khruschev and they took their missiles back home, but I guess political knowledge on this forum only dates back to Nov 2015.


Ukraine already had nukes. Lesson learned there.

"Three decades ago, the newly independent country of Ukraine was briefly the third-largest nuclear power in the world.

Thousands of nuclear arms had been left on Ukrainian soil by Moscow after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. But in the years that followed, Ukraine made the decision to completely denuclearize.

In exchange, the U.S., the U.K. and Russia would guarantee Ukraine's security in a 1994 agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum."

(Source: https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-putin-invasion)

Russia has violated this agreement.

There is no scenario in which Russia's actions are justified.

Reply Quote
7
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dimitrig • 8:55p, 1/19/23
dimitrig said:
Apathetic Bear said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
Putin is not going to stop the war

Why not? What's wrong with him?
It turns out that sovereign countries don't like other countries using neighboring countries to gain first strike capability. One would have thought that liberals would have learned this lesson when their hero JFK won the blinking contest with Khruschev and they took their missiles back home, but I guess political knowledge on this forum only dates back to Nov 2015.


Ukraine already had nukes. Lesson learned there.

"Three decades ago, the newly independent country of Ukraine was briefly the third-largest nuclear power in the world.

Thousands of nuclear arms had been left on Ukrainian soil by Moscow after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. But in the years that followed, Ukraine made the decision to completely denuclearize.

In exchange, the U.S., the U.K. and Russia would guarantee Ukraine's security in a 1994 agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum."

(Source: https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-putin-invasion)

Russia has violated this agreement.

There is no scenario in which Russia's actions are justified.

Many other satellite Soviet countries like Belarus, Kazakhstan, the other Stans and maybe even Georgia had nukes on their territory at the moment of the dissolution of the USSR. Dismantling all these nuclear arsenals was a common sense high priority, you didn't want any officials from these newly formed countries deciding the fate of the world or selling any of these to a third party, dozens of countries would have thrown billions of 1990 dollars to acquire a nuke.

That's the reason why the US, along with every other important nation, insisted that all these former Soviet countries had to turn their nukes in. Reagan/Clinton era US geopolitical technocrats weren't ideological hotheads, they understood the risks of nuclear proliferation and acted accordingly. As well the "keys" to these Ukrainian nukes were still in Moscow, though a country like Ukraine could have probably figured ways around that, but still.
Reply Quote
2
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to golden sloth • 9:12p, 1/19/23
golden sloth said:
It saddens me that this thread has turned into Cal88's personal Russian propaganda thread. I get why it happened, because people have better things to do than argue with someone so entrenched in inaccurate russian propaganda that an actual conversation is futile. But, it still saddens me.

People have had unlimited time and energy to argue back and forth about Trump, "Russiagate", Jan. 6 or some of the other subjects that make up the most active part of this board. Yet somehow, they can't respond to my posts here, and counter positions where I am completely outnumbered by Zelensky fans?

The problem here seems to be that deviation from the main emotionally-driven "slava Ukraini" discourse is going to generate too much grief and cognitive dissonance. Ultimately though, this narrative doesn't withstand deeper scrutiny, or the test of time. That's the real reason behind your apparent frustration here.

My frustrations and sadness is just as deep, they are based on the fact that your framework of the war as a black hat vs white hat event, with a victim and us in the role of an outside benevolent helper, the narrative that is being very successfully promoted, is leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 9:13p, 1/19/23
movielover said:
Didn't Biden Greenlight a Russian incursion?

https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/21/if-trump-had-greenlighted-russia-to-invade-ukraine-like-biden-just-did-media-would-have-gone-nuts/
Has it ever occurred to you to even attempt to reconcile the various conspiracy theories that you simultaneously hold?

The article linked above has been proven incredibly inaccurate and foolish in hindsight but I particularly enjoyed this section:

Quote:
Biden then did the unthinkableunless you're in Putin's pocket, that is: He told our Russian adversary that NATO is split on how to respond to anything "short of a significant invasion." "There are differences in NATO as to what countries are willing to do depending on what happens the degree to which they're able to go," Biden explained.

Don't worry, though, Biden seemed to say, because Putin wants some things that we are more than willing to give him. The president then told the world and Russia precisely what we were willing to commit to: no strategic weapons in Ukraine and no NATO membership for Ukraine in the near term.

After shouting far and wide for all of these months that NATO overreach led to Putin's violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, are you now claiming that the Federalist supports your position that it's actually NATO weakness and conciliation that led to the war?

Bravo, you really just will post anything that pops up regardless of how it relates to your previously held "positions."

golden sloth said:
It saddens me that this thread has turned into Cal88's personal Russian propaganda thread. I get why it happened, because people have better things to do than argue with someone so entrenched in inaccurate russian propaganda that an actual conversation is futile. But, it still saddens me.
It's best to just ignore him. There is no point in trying to engage with a person who is so invested in providing false information whether by fake tweet, fake magazine cover or regurgitated Kremlin talking points. He has no credibility due to his years of false claims and baseless predictions, so why not just have a side by side conversation with people who you find worthwhile in engaging with? It would be better if he weren't here to gaslight, but we can't do anything about that other than ignore him.
Reply Quote
5
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 9:36p, 1/19/23
Unit2Sucks said:

golden sloth said:
It saddens me that this thread has turned into Cal88's personal Russian propaganda thread. I get why it happened, because people have better things to do than argue with someone so entrenched in inaccurate russian propaganda that an actual conversation is futile. But, it still saddens me.
It's best to just ignore him. There is no point in trying to engage with a person who is so invested in providing false information whether by fake tweet, fake magazine cover or regurgitated Kremlin talking points. He has no credibility due to his years of false claims and baseless predictions, so why not just have a side by side conversation with people who you find worthwhile in engaging with? It would be better if he weren't here to gaslight, but we can't do anything about that other than ignore him.

The fact that Russia's national debt is 100 times smaller than Japan's and 200 times smaller than the US', as illustrated by the visual map from a western source I've provided above, is not a "Kremlin talking point", a false claim, or gaslighting. It is a basic reality of the Russian debt situation, a reality that's deeply misunderstood and ignored.

People in the West have become increasingly ignorant of basic political and economic facts like these, it's as if we're reliving the Cold War with our side now being the more highly controlled and conditioned side, where dissent or deviation from the official narrative is deeply frowned upon.

In such a cultural environment, it takes some courage to go against the grain, and to take the abuse that comes with that.
Reply Quote
4
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 10:18p, 1/19/23
You're working hard.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
Reply Quote
7
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 10:33p, 1/19/23
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
Putin is not going to stop the war

Why not? What's wrong with him?

1- He doesn't want to give up Crimea or the Donbass
2- He doesn't like being threatened by a hostile nationalistic regime backed by 30 countries including the US at his front porch
3- He doesn't want to see his country dismantled or go through anything like they did in the 1990s.

Any Russian leader in charge would have done the same. Putin's main political critics in Russia have accused him of being too passive, too meek.

It's laughable to think that Ukraine was ever any "threat" to Russia. It's always been the other way around.
Reply Quote
9
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 10:47p, 1/19/23
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
Putin is not going to stop the war

Why not? What's wrong with him?

1- He doesn't want to give up Crimea or the Donbass
2- He doesn't like being threatened by a hostile nationalistic regime backed by 30 countries including the US at his front porch
3- He doesn't want to see his country dismantled or go through anything like they did in the 1990s.

Any Russian leader in charge would have done the same. Putin's main political critics in Russia have accused him of being too passive, too meek.

It's laughable to think that Ukraine was ever any "threat" to Russia. It's always been the other way around.

About as much as Cuba was a threat to the US in the early 60s, one that JFK would not tolerate and would have certainly invaded had its Soviet sponsor not backed down.

Ukraine had the biggest army in Europe in 2021, hostile towards Russia, and the will, the tech know-how and the materials to build nuclear weapons. As well Cuba never claimed US territory (Guantanamo doesn`t register here). Ukraine`s sponsors have kept ratcheting up instead of trying to reach a compromise along the lines that JFK and Khrushchev, adult statesmen, reached.
Reply Quote
4
2 edits
Big C
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to golden sloth • 11:52p, 1/19/23
golden sloth said:
It saddens me that this thread has turned into Cal88's personal Russian propaganda thread. I get why it happened, because people have better things to do than argue with someone so entrenched in inaccurate russian propaganda that an actual conversation is futile. But, it still saddens me.

Wait, it sounds as if you're saying that it's rare for other posters to argue with Cal88. Seriously? Agree with him or not, he gets a lot of pushback, no?
Reply Quote
2
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 12:27a, 1/20/23
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
Putin is not going to stop the war

Why not? What's wrong with him?

1- He doesn't want to give up Crimea or the Donbass
2- He doesn't like being threatened by a hostile nationalistic regime backed by 30 countries including the US at his front porch
3- He doesn't want to see his country dismantled or go through anything like they did in the 1990s.

Any Russian leader in charge would have done the same. Putin's main political critics in Russia have accused him of being too passive, too meek.

It's laughable to think that Ukraine was ever any "threat" to Russia. It's always been the other way around.

About as much as Cuba was a threat to the US in the early 60s, one that JFK would not tolerate and would have certainly invaded had its Soviet sponsor not backed down.

Ukraine had the biggest army in Europe in 2021, hostile towards Russia, and the will, the tech know-how and the materials to build nuclear weapons. As well Cuba never claimed US territory (Guantanamo doesn`t register here). Ukraine`s sponsors have kept ratcheting up instead of trying to reach a compromise along the lines that JFK and Khrushchev, adult statesmen, reached.

Did I miss where the US placed nukes in Ukraine? This comparison just makes Putin look paranoid.

Another US invasion of Cuba would have been just as big a folly as what Russia is doing now.
Reply Quote
6
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:45a, 1/20/23
Putin's Secret Attack Plan Would Be Ukrainian Nightmare


https://www.thedailybeast.com/putins-secret-attack-plan-would-be-ukrainian-nightmare?source=articles&via=rss
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Reply Quote
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 7:16a, 1/20/23
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
Putin is not going to stop the war

Why not? What's wrong with him?

1- He doesn't want to give up Crimea or the Donbass
2- He doesn't like being threatened by a hostile nationalistic regime backed by 30 countries including the US at his front porch
3- He doesn't want to see his country dismantled or go through anything like they did in the 1990s.

Any Russian leader in charge would have done the same. Putin's main political critics in Russia have accused him of being too passive, too meek.

It's laughable to think that Ukraine was ever any "threat" to Russia. It's always been the other way around.

About as much as Cuba was a threat to the US in the early 60s, one that JFK would not tolerate and would have certainly invaded had its Soviet sponsor not backed down.

Ukraine had the biggest army in Europe in 2021, hostile towards Russia, and the will, the tech know-how and the materials to build nuclear weapons. As well Cuba never claimed US territory (Guantanamo doesn`t register here). Ukraine`s sponsors have kept ratcheting up instead of trying to reach a compromise along the lines that JFK and Khrushchev, adult statesmen, reached.

Did I miss where the US placed nukes in Ukraine? This comparison just makes Putin look paranoid.

Another US invasion of Cuba would have been just as big a folly as what Russia is doing now.

The parts you missed is where Zelensky said they will acquire nuclear weapons. I`ve also quoted just a couple of pages ago high officials from Ukraine saying that Russia should be dismantled, or worse.

The Monroe Doctrine is still very much in place in our southern backyard. When a local leader goes off the script, we just go in and kill him, as we recently did to president Jovenel Moise only last year, or a bit less blatently , we overthrow democratically elected leaders and effect regime change, like we did recently with Zelaya in Honduras.

Countries or governments that don`t align with US policy in Central America or the Caribbean get taken out. It`s been the case for nearly 200 years.
Reply Quote
3
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 9:08a, 1/20/23
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
Putin is not going to stop the war

Why not? What's wrong with him?

1- He doesn't want to give up Crimea or the Donbass
2- He doesn't like being threatened by a hostile nationalistic regime backed by 30 countries including the US at his front porch
3- He doesn't want to see his country dismantled or go through anything like they did in the 1990s.

Any Russian leader in charge would have done the same. Putin's main political critics in Russia have accused him of being too passive, too meek.

It's laughable to think that Ukraine was ever any "threat" to Russia. It's always been the other way around.

About as much as Cuba was a threat to the US in the early 60s, one that JFK would not tolerate and would have certainly invaded had its Soviet sponsor not backed down.

Ukraine had the biggest army in Europe in 2021, hostile towards Russia, and the will, the tech know-how and the materials to build nuclear weapons. As well Cuba never claimed US territory (Guantanamo doesn`t register here). Ukraine`s sponsors have kept ratcheting up instead of trying to reach a compromise along the lines that JFK and Khrushchev, adult statesmen, reached.

Did I miss where the US placed nukes in Ukraine? This comparison just makes Putin look paranoid.

Another US invasion of Cuba would have been just as big a folly as what Russia is doing now.

The parts you missed is where Zelensky said they will acquire nuclear weapons. I`ve also quoted just a couple of pages ago high officials from Ukraine saying that Russia should be dismantled, or worse.

Before or after Russia invaded them?

It's wrong when the US interferes in Latin American elections and even more wrong for Russia to conduct a military invasion of Ukraine because they don't like their current government. More to the point: such actions rarely work out the way we want, in the long run.
Reply Quote
4
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 9:26a, 1/20/23
sycasey said:

Before or after Russia invaded them?

It's wrong when the US interferes in Latin American elections and even more wrong for Russia to conduct a military invasion of Ukraine because they don't like their current government. More to the point: such actions rarely work out the way we want, in the long run.


When you engage with a bad faith disingenuous troll you are just giving them more of an opportunity to provide false and misleading information. This is exactly the opening they are looking for in order to inject more lies into this conversation. If that's what you are looking to do, cool, but I would suggest you ignore the troll entirely. All it does is give them a platform to pollute the conversation with Kremlin propaganda.
Reply Quote
7
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 9:50a, 1/20/23
Unit2Sucks said:
sycasey said:

Before or after Russia invaded them?

It's wrong when the US interferes in Latin American elections and even more wrong for Russia to conduct a military invasion of Ukraine because they don't like their current government. More to the point: such actions rarely work out the way we want, in the long run.


When you engage with a bad faith disingenuous troll you are just giving them more of an opportunity to provide false and misleading information. This is exactly the opening they are looking for in order to inject more lies into this conversation. If that's what you are looking to do, cool, but I would suggest you ignore the troll entirely. All it does is give them a platform to pollute the conversation with Kremlin propaganda.

If I find a good way to inject my own argument/perspective into the conversation, I do it. If not, I don't. Very simple. I'm under no illusions that the pro-Kremlin side can be convinced.
Reply Quote
2
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 10:02a, 1/20/23
sycasey said:
Unit2Sucks said:
sycasey said:

Before or after Russia invaded them?

It's wrong when the US interferes in Latin American elections and even more wrong for Russia to conduct a military invasion of Ukraine because they don't like their current government. More to the point: such actions rarely work out the way we want, in the long run.


When you engage with a bad faith disingenuous troll you are just giving them more of an opportunity to provide false and misleading information. This is exactly the opening they are looking for in order to inject more lies into this conversation. If that's what you are looking to do, cool, but I would suggest you ignore the troll entirely. All it does is give them a platform to pollute the conversation with Kremlin propaganda.

If I find a good way to inject my own argument/perspective into the conversation, I do it. If not, I don't. Very simple. I'm under no illusions that the pro-Kremlin side can be convinced.


I have trouble having dialog with the Pro War side, whose only solution that doesn't involve more deaths is "Oh, Putin can just stop the invasion!". The Pro Peace side, which argues that Russia should be conceded Crimea and Donbass independence, generally has been more respectful and open to other's opinions. I certainly agree that there are issues giving concessions to Russia, who is the instigator here (after all, they invaded). With that being said, the best solution may involve actually understanding whether or not NATO and Ukraine are successfully repelling Russia, and I enjoy reading the perspectives from posters with different viewpoints on this subject.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 10:10a, 1/20/23
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:


The parts you missed is where Zelensky said they will acquire nuclear weapons. I`ve also quoted just a couple of pages ago high officials from Ukraine saying that Russia should be dismantled, or worse.

Before or after Russia invaded them?

Both.

Quote:
It's wrong when the US interferes in Latin American elections and even more wrong for Russia to conduct a military invasion of Ukraine because they don't like their current government. More to the point: such actions rarely work out the way we want, in the long run.

Agreed in principle. This being said, all large powers have red lines, that`s true of the US, China or Russia. Those red lines are well known, and dozens of respected western military, intelligence or political analysts have acknowledged them. The problem is that NATO/the US deliberately went out of its way to use Ukraine to cross that red line.

A recent Rand white policy paper advocated using this strategy to `overextend and unbalance' Russia:
Quote:
Geopolitical Cost-Imposing Measures to Russia

Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia's greatest point of external vulnerability. But any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html

The US funded and armed the Chechen islamist rebellion in the 90s for the same reason. It resulted in a very bloody civil war that destroyed Chechnya and hampered Russia.

The downside of these policies is that they use smaller countries, or ethnicities like the Hmong in Vietnam or the Kurds today in the ME as dispensable pawns to undermine geopolitical rivals. Do Victoria Nuland or McFaul care about the fact that half a million mostly Ukrainians have been killed or wounded to date in the implementation of this Grand Chessboard policy?

Recently declassified US intel documents also have shown that we were pursuing covert methods of fostering Banderite Ukrainian nationalism in an attempt to undermine the Soviet Union, then Russia afterwards, since the 1950s:



Of course you`re probably going to brush all of these geopolitical realities off, and reduce the whole framework to 'Putin is a bad hombre'.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 10:20a, 1/20/23
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
Unit2Sucks said:
sycasey said:

Before or after Russia invaded them?

It's wrong when the US interferes in Latin American elections and even more wrong for Russia to conduct a military invasion of Ukraine because they don't like their current government. More to the point: such actions rarely work out the way we want, in the long run.


When you engage with a bad faith disingenuous troll you are just giving them more of an opportunity to provide false and misleading information. This is exactly the opening they are looking for in order to inject more lies into this conversation. If that's what you are looking to do, cool, but I would suggest you ignore the troll entirely. All it does is give them a platform to pollute the conversation with Kremlin propaganda.

If I find a good way to inject my own argument/perspective into the conversation, I do it. If not, I don't. Very simple. I'm under no illusions that the pro-Kremlin side can be convinced.


I have trouble having dialog with the Pro War side, whose only solution that doesn't involved Civil War is "Oh, Putin can just stop the invasion!". The Pro Peace side, which argues that Russia should be conceded Crimea and Donbass independence, generally has been more respectful and open to other's opinions.

I do not concede that the people who want to give Putin the territories he wants are "Pro Peace." That position amounts to rewarding him for starting a war. What incentives do you think that creates?

Foreign policy should not be penny wise and pound foolish.
Reply Quote
6
First Page Last Page
Page 87 of 283 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.