There is an ongoing battle within the Biden administration between the ideologues/neocon faction headed by Nuland, Blinken, etc and the realists who are primarily in the Pentagon and see no military solution for Ukraine, and are thus looking for a land for peace deal. The former still have the upper hand, but eventually the facts on the ground will force their hand.

Ukraine can be divided according to the Korean scenario and the West is ready for it - Arestovich

▪️The war may end differently than the Ukrainians expect, and as a result, Kiev may not return its territories, the West is ready to follow such a scenario. pic.twitter.com/NObgzMsK9o

— Donbass Devushka (@PeImeniPusha) February 6, 2023

Ukraine isn't an existential threat to America. It's not even a top 3 worldwide priority.

NATO / the West camped out on Russia's doorstep; training hundreds of thousands of Ukranian soldiers; constant talk of "weakening Russia" and removing Putin; upwards of 30 Ukranian groups attacking ethnic Russians on the Donbas, including at least three Nazi groups; and cutting off Crimea's water supply are
an existential threat.

Decades ago a leader constructed Ukraine in a poor manner re: the Donbas south / east.

FTR, University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer, who predicted the destruction of Ukraine seven years ago, says there is no indication Putin wants all of Ukraine. He said Putin learned the difficulty of the USSR trying to rule all of these foreign lands. He believes Putin would have been happy with a neutral Ukraine, or taking the Donbas and neutrality for the rest.

movielover said:

---

Are Blinken, Austin, Milley and Sullivan the four stooges? What a dim group.

Can NATO survive this possible defeat?

---

Milley is one of the realists advocating a settlement, though he isn`t going to rock the boat against Blinken and co. Realists from the Pentagon like him understand that Russia has escalatory dominance in the military conflict, so he is reticent about doubling down.

Germany is the country to watch as far as NATO is concerned, Scholz is not happy with the escalation, while the Grune in his coalition are driving their war campaign. The next biggest players are France and Italy, but Macron has no backbone, and Meloni is a passive noob.

Cal88 said:

---

The basic fact about Crimea is that it has had a heavy majority Russian population for centuries now. Crimeans are very happy to rejoin Russia after having ceded to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1954 for arbitrary Soviet internal reasons. a fact that has been clearly reflected in the referendum and numerous polls conducted by independent western agencies which consistently showed that 85% to 90% Crimean approve of rejoining Russia.

---

Can you please provide a citation to the polling by "independent western agencies"? The fact that you would even cite the referendum is a bit concerning. Do you feel that was a fair and free election? Kind of like Iranian elections, or Syrian elections, or Cuban elections. Actually, very much like CURRENT Russian elections where Putin's political opponents seem to have very unfortunate health histories (or are just thrown in jail).

Even if the polling you claim exists, do you consider it an international norm that countries can invade their neighbors to "emancipate" ethnic groups with historical ties? What are the broader implications of that? Say for the Mexican-Americans in US southern states or Hawaiians?

If supposed majority rule democracy matters in Crimea, thereby justifying Russian intervention, why doesn't majority rule in greater Ukraine also matter (i.e., the desire of elected government to join NATO and leave the Russian sphere of influence)? Why can't Ukraine join NATO if it wants to?

I'm not a fan of the US policy in Ukraine, particularly the blank check spending and confused policy leading to escalation. But to portray Putin's actions as justified or excusable seems like a bridge too far.

I haven't viewed the whole Bennett interview, but in one snippet he shared that Putin was raised at one point by his Jewish neighbor. Later in life, Putin bought her a house.

And as I stated a few days ago, Bennett describes building relationships and trust with the negotiating players, including Putin. I like him. Apparently when the Nazi groups / issue came up, Putin was clearly bothered by the situation.

Why can't Russia put troops in Tijuana?

movielover said:

---

I haven't viewed the whole Bennett interview, but in one snippet he shared that Putin was raised at one point by his Jewish neighbor. Later in life, Putin bought her a house.

And as I stated a few days ago, Bennett describes building relationships and trust with the negotiating players, including Putin. I like him. Apparently when the Nazi groups / issue came up, Putin was clearly bothered by the situation.

---

Dude - if you believe Putin invaded Ukraine to prevent fascism or dissuade nazis, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Both Russian and Ukraine have a deep history of antisemitism and I'm sure there are elements of nazis in Ukraine (just like there in the US incidentally). My great grandparents fled Ukraine due to pogroms - I know the history. But let's not pretend Russia has been or is currently friendly to the jews.

In fact, polling shows that Russia is more antisemitic that Ukraine FWIW.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/minority-groups/

But that has absolutely nothing to do with why Putin did what he did. You need to pick an argument - did Putin invade to attack Ukrainian Nazis or did he attack to prevent pro-western/democracy Ukrainians from joining nato?

Or maybe he's just an authoritarian leader with a chip on his shoulder and delusions of grandeur who thought he could get away with it (after getting away with it Chechnya and Crimea)?

movielover said:

---

The December 17, 2021 letter from Russia put everyone on notice.

The Guardian: Russia issues list of demands it says must be met to lower tensions in Europe

Contentious security guarantees Moscow is seeking include a ban on Ukraine from entering Nato

"...The eight-point draft treaty was released by Russia's foreign ministry as its forces massed within striking distance of Ukraine's borders. Moscow said ignoring its interests would lead to a "military response" similar to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962."

"...The Russia document also calls for the two countries to pull back any short- or medium-range missile systems out of reach, replacing the previous intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) treaty that the US left in 2018."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato

---

Do you know what reduces tensions? Not invading your neighbors and honoring past treaties agreeing not to invade said neighbors (the so called Budapest Memorandum).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum#:~:text=Later%20in%201993%2C%20the%20Ukrainian,for%20its%20nuclear%20power%20reactors.

By the way, it is possible to make a reasoned argument against US policy in Ukraine, including a real discussion of whether Ukraine is an important US interest. But you don't have to defend Putin to make those arguments.

BearGoggles said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The basic fact about Crimea is that it has had a heavy majority Russian population for centuries now. Crimeans are very happy to rejoin Russia after having ceded to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1954 for arbitrary Soviet internal reasons. a fact that has been clearly reflected in the referendum and numerous polls conducted by independent western agencies which consistently showed that 85% to 90% Crimean approve of rejoining Russia.

---

Can you please provide a citation to the polling by "independent western agencies"? The fact that would even cite the referendum is a bit concerning. Do you feel that was a fair and free election? Kinds of like Iranian elections, or Syrian elections, or Cuban elections. Actually, very much like CURRENT Russian elections where Putin's political opponents seem to have very unfortunate health histories (or are just thrown in jail).

---

Wkiipedia:

"Post-referendum polls

The results of a survey by the U.S. government Broadcasting Board of Governors agency, conducted April 2129, 2014, showed that 83% of Crimeans felt that the results of the March 16 referendum on Crimea's status likely reflected the views of most people there, whereas this view is shared only by 30% in the rest of Ukraine.

According to the Gallup's survey performed on April 2127, 82.8% of Crimean people consider the referendum results reflecting most Crimeans' views, and 73.9% of Crimeans say Crimea's becoming part of Russia will make life better for themselves and their families, while 5.5% disagree.

According to survey carried out by Pew Research Center in April 2014, the majority of Crimean residents say they believed the referendum was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%).

According to a poll of the Crimeans by the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK, on January 1622, 2015: "Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it. ... Fifty-one percent reported their well-being had improved in the past year."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum#Post-referendum_polls

Quote:

---

Even if the polling you claim exists, do you consider it an international norm that countries can invade their neighbors to "emancipate" ethnic groups with historical ties? What are the broader implications of that? Say for the Mexican-Americans in US southern states or Hawaiians?

If supposed majority rule democracy matters in Crimea, thereby justifying Russian intervention, why doesn't majority rule in greater Ukraine also matter (i.e., the desire of elected government to join NATO and leave the Russian sphere of influence)? Why can't Ukraine join NATO if it wants to?

I'm not a fan of the US policy in Ukraine, particularly the blank check spending and confused policy leading to escalation. But to portray Putin's actions as justified or excusable seems like a bridge too far.

---

In Crimea`s case, Russia didn`t have to invade in 2014, the 21,000 Ukrainian army garrison that was stationed there was almost entirely made up of local Crimeans, about 18,000-19,000 of whom just switched sides, with the remaining 2,000-3,000 going back to Ukraine.

Local garrisons also flipped in the Donbass, which prompted a severe reaction from the Kiev government and ignited a civil war that has basically gone unabated since 2014. Russia intervened directly last year after Kiev massed 65,000 troops in the Donbass, threatening to overrun the positions of the rebel
LDR and DPR armies.

Since 2014, Crimea has done well economically under Russia, with the caveat of the agriculture sector being severely hampered due to Ukraine cutting off their water supply. A Ukrainian comedian by the name of Vladimir Zelensky made fun of their plight:

https://m.facebook.com/RevolutionIreland/videos/zelensky-in-2015-made-fun-of-the-people-in-crimea-suffering-from-water-shortages/455107126608269/

People in Crimea are very happy to have had their water access restored by Russia, water which was previously cynically dumped into the Black Sea by the Kiev government.

To answer more directly your questions above, normally those issues are resolved through international instances, taking into account local independence movements. In fact the Minsk Agreements were set up to address these issues, granting cultural autonomy to the Donbass region. These agreements were however violated by Kiev and its NATO backers, this much is no longer in doubt, as all main parties (Kiev, France and Germany, Poreshenko, Hollande and Merkel) have all recently come out and stated that Minsk was a time-wasting ploy to freeze the situation until Ukraine could be rearmed to take back the Donbass and Crimea by force, in violation of the Minsk accord - fact.

As to NATO, its whole raison d'etre is predicated on having Russia as the enemy. Russia tried to join NATO in the 90s, as its leaders, Putin included, identify as Europeans. They were laughed at by the Clinton administration. This is compounded by the fact that modern Ukrainian nationalism draws its ideology from the WW2 era OUN and UPA, western Ukrainian ideology which views Russia as its archenemy. The cult of Bandera has gone from a fringe militia movement in central and western Ukraine to a mainstream phenomenon. That`s another casus belli for Russia.

BearGoggles said:

---

movielover said:

---

I haven't viewed the whole Bennett interview, but in one snippet he shared that Putin was raised at one point by his Jewish neighbor. Later in life, Putin bought her a house.

And as I stated a few days ago, Bennett describes building relationships and trust with the negotiating players, including Putin. I like him. Apparently when the Nazi groups / issue came up, Putin was clearly bothered by the situation.

---

Dude - if you believe Putin invaded Ukraine to prevent fascism or dissuade nazis, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Both Russian and Ukraine have a deep history of antisemitism and I'm sure there are elements of nazis in Ukraine (just like there in the US incidentally). My great grandparents fled Ukraine due to pogroms - I know the history. But let's not pretend Russia has been or is currently friendly to the jews.

---

Present day Ukraine is very much unique because the nazi element has been ensconced in its culture, becoming mainstream. The roman salute is normalized, widely done from soccer stadia to schools. Bandera is widely revered as a national hero, kind of like Washington and Lincoln rolled into one. Bandera, in case you have missed my many previous posts on the subject, was the leader of the largest and most brutal SS division in WW2. I can provide tons of evidence for this normaisation of the cult of Bandera, not just main avenues and public squares, but mainstream politicians, daily life and their school system.

This is completely unprecedented in Europe, it has never happened before, except perhaps in 1990s Croatia, to a lesser extent, with the brief revival of the Ustashe fascist movement during the civil war.

Cal88 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The basic fact about Crimea is that it has had a heavy majority Russian population for centuries now. Crimeans are very happy to rejoin Russia after having ceded to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1954 for arbitrary Soviet internal reasons. a fact that has been clearly reflected in the referendum and numerous polls conducted by independent western agencies which consistently showed that 85% to 90% Crimean approve of rejoining Russia.

---

Can you please provide a citation to the polling by "independent western agencies"? The fact that would even cite the referendum is a bit concerning. Do you feel that was a fair and free election? Kinds of like Iranian elections, or Syrian elections, or Cuban elections. Actually, very much like CURRENT Russian elections where Putin's political opponents seem to have very unfortunate health histories (or are just thrown in jail).

---

Wkiipedia:

"Post-referendum polls

The results of a survey by the U.S. government Broadcasting Board of Governors agency, conducted April 2129, 2014, showed that 83% of Crimeans felt that the results of the March 16 referendum on Crimea's status likely reflected the views of most people there, whereas this view is shared only by 30% in the rest of Ukraine.

According to the Gallup's survey performed on April 2127, 82.8% of Crimean people consider the referendum results reflecting most Crimeans' views, and 73.9% of Crimeans say Crimea's becoming part of Russia will make life better for themselves and their families, while 5.5% disagree.

According to survey carried out by Pew Research Center in April 2014, the majority of Crimean residents say they believed the referendum was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%).

According to a poll of the Crimeans by the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK, on January 1622, 2015: "Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it. ... Fifty-one percent reported their well-being had improved in the past year."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum#Post-referendum_polls

Quote:

---

Even if the polling you claim exists, do you consider it an international norm that countries can invade their neighbors to "emancipate" ethnic groups with historical ties? What are the broader implications of that? Say for the Mexican-Americans in US southern states or Hawaiians?

If supposed majority rule democracy matters in Crimea, thereby justifying Russian intervention, why doesn't majority rule in greater Ukraine also matter (i.e., the desire of elected government to join NATO and leave the Russian sphere of influence)? Why can't Ukraine join NATO if it wants to?

I'm not a fan of the US policy in Ukraine, particularly the blank check spending and confused policy leading to escalation. But to portray Putin's actions as justified or excusable seems like a bridge too far.

---

In Crimea`s case, Russia didn`t have to invade in 2014, the 21,000 Ukrainian army garrison that was stationed there was almost entirely made up of local Crimeans, about 18,000-19,000 of whom just switched sides, with the remaining 2,000-3,000 going back to Ukraine.

Local garrisons also flipped in the Donbass, which prompted a severe reaction from the Kiev government and ignited a civil war that has basically gone unabated since 2014. Russia intervened directly last year after Kiev massed 65,000 troops in the Donbass, threatening to overrun the positions of the rebel MDR and DPR armies.

Since 2014, Crimea has done well economically under Russia, with the caveat of the agriculture sector being severely hampered due to Ukraine cutting off their water supply. A Ukrainian comedian by the name of Vladimir Zelensky made fun of their plight:

https://m.facebook.com/RevolutionIreland/videos/zelensky-in-2015-made-fun-of-the-people-in-crimea-suffering-from-water-shortages/455107126608269/

People in Crimea are very happy to have had their water access restored by Russia, water which was previously cynically dumped into the Black Sea by the Kiev government.

To answer more directly your questions above, normally those issues are resolved through international instances, taking into account local independence movements. In fact the Minsk Agreements were set up to address these issues, granting cultural autonomy to the Donbass region. These agreements were however violated by Kiev and its NATO backers, this much is no longer in doubt, as all main parties (Kiev, France and Germany, Poreshenko, Hollande and Merkel) have all recently come out and stated that Minsk was a time-wasting ploy to freeze the situation until Ukraine could be rearmed to take back the Donbass and Crimea by force, in violation of the Minsk accord - fact.

As to NATO, its whole raison d'etre is predicated on having Russia as the enemy. Russia tried to join NATO in the 90s, as its leaders, Putin included, identify as Europeans. They were laughed at by the Clinton administration. This is compounded by the fact that modern Ukrainian nationalism draws its ideology from the WW2 era OUN and UPA, western Ukrainian ideology which views Russia as its archenemy. The cult of Bandera has gone from a fringe militia movement in central and western Ukraine to a mainstream phenomenon. That`s another casus belli for Russia.

---

Thank you for providing the polling link. In reviewing the actual polls, it seems like Ukrainians as a whole view the elections as suspect, but actual Crimeans do not have those concerns. I remain skeptical of that, but what you posted certainly was correct.

It's odd you want to start with the Minsk Agreement. It seems to me there were some important international agreements before then (the Budapest Memorandum where Russia agreed to never invade Ukraine seems relevant). And beyond that, it appears it is very much in doubt who violated the Minsk Agreements - or more specifically it sure looks like Russia violated it from day one.

The lead US diplomat has written about this. Not adopting his views as gospel, but this part sure seems correct:

"Russia is in violation of the Minsk Agreements. The deals require a ceasefire, withdrawal of foreign military forces, disbanding of illegal armed groups, and returning control of the Ukrainian side of the international border with Russia to Ukraine, all of this under OSCE supervision. Russia has done none of this. It has regular military officers as well as intelligence operatives and unmarked "little green men" woven into the military forces in Eastern Ukraine. The LPR and DPR forces are by any definition "illegal armed groups," that have not been disbanded. The ceasefire has barely been respected by the Russian side for more than a few days at a time."

https://cepa.org/article/dont-let-russia-fool-you-about-the-minsk-agreements/

Yes - the purpose of Nato is to defend against Russian aggression. That sure seems reasonable given Putin's attacks on his neighbors - don't forget Georgia in 2008 (not to mention during the Cold War). Nothing makes a country like Ukraine, Finland, Sweden and many others want to join NATO like Putin/Russia invading its neighbors. But you oddly blame NATO, as if its purpose doesn't remain quite valid.

At the same time, the "enemy" Russia was welcomed into the G7/G8 and offered normalized relations (at least until recently). Not exactly how you treat an enemy - at least until that country starts invading its neighbors.

And the "cult of Bandera" is not a casus belli - at least not a real or proper one. Even if you stipulate that Bandera-ism is now mainstream and rampant (which I think is a real stretch), how is that a casus belli FOR RUSSIA? Were the Cult of Bandera (surprisingly led by their Jewish president!) threatening to invade Russia? No. Where is the UN resolution (or other international consensus) supporting the notion that a casus belli existed?

Simply put, Putin made up claims of Bandera genocide as a pretext for both his 2014 and 2022 invasions. It is made up and bizarre that anyone would believe it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera#2014_Russian_intervention_in_Ukraine

And with Russia's long history of antisemitism and Putin's direct support of genocidal leaders (Bashar Hafez al-Assad, Lukashenko and the Ayatollah say hello), maybe Russia should sit this one out? Speaking of genocide, Russia has engaged in that in Ukraine by directly targeting civilians, but particularly targeting the Banderists for death. Is that a casus belli for the US and NATO to attack Russia proper? By your logic it is sure is.

Cal88 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

movielover said:

---

I haven't viewed the whole Bennett interview, but in one snippet he shared that Putin was raised at one point by his Jewish neighbor. Later in life, Putin bought her a house.

And as I stated a few days ago, Bennett describes building relationships and trust with the negotiating players, including Putin. I like him. Apparently when the Nazi groups / issue came up, Putin was clearly bothered by the situation.

---

Dude - if you believe Putin invaded Ukraine to prevent fascism or dissuade nazis, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Both Russian and Ukraine have a deep history of antisemitism and I'm sure there are elements of nazis in Ukraine (just like there in the US incidentally). My great grandparents fled Ukraine due to pogroms - I know the history. But let's not pretend Russia has been or is currently friendly to the jews.

---

Present day Ukraine is very much unique because the nazi element has been ensconced in its culture, becoming mainstream. The roman salute is normalized, widely done from soccer stadia to schools. Bandera is widely revered as a national hero, kind of like Washington and Lincoln rolled into one. Bandera, in case you have missed my many previous posts on the subject, was the leader of the largest and most brutal SS division in WW2. I can provide tons of evidence for this normaisation of the cult of Bandera, not just main avenues and public squares, but mainstream politicians, daily life and their school system.

This is completely unprecedented in Europe, it has never happened before, except perhaps in 1990s Croatia, to a lesser extent, with the brief revival of the Ustashe fascist movement during the civil war.

---

I'm Jewish - I don't like Nazis, fascism, or antisemitism. Even if everything you posted above is true (and I'm not conceding all of it is), none of it justifies a Russian invasion. It is strange you think it does.

If that is your standard, how would it apply to other countries? What other countries could Russia, the US, France, England, and/or China invade?

BearGoggles said:

---

movielover said:

---

I haven't viewed the whole Bennett interview, but in one snippet he shared that Putin was raised at one point by his Jewish neighbor. Later in life, Putin bought her a house.

And as I stated a few days ago, Bennett describes building relationships and trust with the negotiating players, including Putin. I like him. Apparently when the Nazi groups / issue came up, Putin was clearly bothered by the situation.

---

Dude - if you believe Putin invaded Ukraine to prevent fascism or dissuade nazis, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Both Russian and Ukraine have a deep history of antisemitism and I'm sure there are elements of nazis in Ukraine (just like there in the US incidentally). My great grandparents fled Ukraine due to pogroms - I know the history. But let's not pretend Russia has been or is currently friendly to the jews.

In fact, polling shows that Russia is more antisemitic that Ukraine FWIW.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/minority-groups/

But that has absolutely nothing to do with why Putin did what he did. You need to pick an argument - did Putin invade to attack Ukrainian Nazis or did he attack to prevent pro-western/democracy Ukrainians from joining nato?

Or maybe he's just an authoritarian leader with a chip on his shoulder and delusions of grandeur who thought he could get away with it (after getting away with it Chechnya and Crimea)?

---

Dude, you don't have to get so twisted after a few 'asides'. I had more than a few conversations with old timers at the JCC in The City. Ironically, some locals weren't too keen on the new influx of Russian brethren at the time. Recently worked with a gent in the South Bay who also fled Mother Russia; he mentioned his heritage but we didn't have time to go further. There are some good Russian places on Geary, one solid bakery.

Sorry, I don't have to pick one item to fulfill your need for control or whatever. Russia's primary concerns have been discussed here at length, though many here want to dismiss them.

Colonel Douglass McGregor often mentions that Putin didn't "go in hard", and avoided civilian casualties and infrastructure damage because he sees Ukranians as Slavic brothers and they're Orthodox Christians.

As far as 'authoritarian', my understanding is that the Donbas area had been asking for help since 2014. So he was in no hurry, maybe bc he was helping turn Crimea into a jewel. And he wasn't gonna move on President Trump with PTs alleged promise for how he'd respond to an invasion of Ukraine. When Sleepy Joe was installed, it was only a matter of time, especially after the historic Afghanistan debacle.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

movielover said:

---

Mossad's numbers line up with Colonel Douglass McGregor and Scott Ritter numbers.

As the Ukrainian Army collapses, the greater the possibility the collapsing Biden regime will start an open war with Russia. https://t.co/FKcFCtFT4y

— Tony Heller (@TonyClimate) February 6, 2023

---

The fantasyland reference to the "collapsing Biden" administration starting a war with Russia undercuts everything else he had to say. If he's that divorced from reality, can we believe anything else he says?

---

Yeah, that is one of the dumbest takes I've ever heard. Biden wants to start a war with Russia. Please.

Big C said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

movielover said:

---

Mossad's numbers line up with Colonel Douglass McGregor and Scott Ritter numbers.

As the Ukrainian Army collapses, the greater the possibility the collapsing Biden regime will start an open war with Russia. https://t.co/FKcFCtFT4y

— Tony Heller (@TonyClimate) February 6, 2023

---

The fantasyland reference to the "collapsing Biden" administration starting a war with Russia undercuts everything else he had to say. If he's that divorced from reality, can we believe anything else he says?

---

Yeah, that is one of the dumbest takes I've ever heard. Biden wants to start a war with Russia. Please.

---

Obama, Hillary Clinton, and George Soros do.

Biden is just their useful idiot.

The Biden family has economic interests in Ukraine, and has exerted direct political power over that country since the Obama tenure. For example the firing of a state DA who did not fully cooperate with them.

BearGoggles said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

movielover said:

---

I haven't viewed the whole Bennett interview, but in one snippet he shared that Putin was raised at one point by his Jewish neighbor. Later in life, Putin bought her a house.

And as I stated a few days ago, Bennett describes building relationships and trust with the negotiating players, including Putin. I like him. Apparently when the Nazi groups / issue came up, Putin was clearly bothered by the situation.

---

Dude - if you believe Putin invaded Ukraine to prevent fascism or dissuade nazis, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Both Russian and Ukraine have a deep history of antisemitism and I'm sure there are elements of nazis in Ukraine (just like there in the US incidentally). My great grandparents fled Ukraine due to pogroms - I know the history. But let's not pretend Russia has been or is currently friendly to the jews.

---

Present day Ukraine is very much unique because the nazi element has been ensconced in its culture, becoming mainstream. The roman salute is normalized, widely done from soccer stadia to schools. Bandera is widely revered as a national hero, kind of like Washington and Lincoln rolled into one. Bandera, in case you have missed my many previous posts on the subject, was the leader of the largest and most brutal SS division in WW2. I can provide tons of evidence for this normaisation of the cult of Bandera, not just main avenues and public squares, but mainstream politicians, daily life and their school system.

This is completely unprecedented in Europe, it has never happened before, except perhaps in 1990s Croatia, to a lesser extent, with the brief revival of the Ustashe fascist movement during the civil war.

---

I'm Jewish - I don't like Nazis, fascism, or antisemitism. Even if everything you posted above is true (and I'm not conceding all of it is), none of it justifies a Russian invasion. It is strange you think it does.

If that is your standard, how would it apply to other countries? What other countries could Russia, the US, France, England, and/or China invade?

---

China will invade Taiwan if it crosses its red lines (declares independence). Its red lines are well known, that`s why the US also abides by the One China Policy wrt Taiwan. Neocons are trying to change this policy in an attempt to curb China`s global influence. That's a big power play that instrumentalizes Taiwan on the grand chessboard of big power politics, the same way Ukraine has been used as a pawn on the Eurasian big power chessboard.

The US pretty much invades any country that doesn't toe the line in its main power sphere, which is mainly in the western hemisphere and the middle east, though the intervention can take the form or IMF/World Bank economic control (loan sharking), regime change (coups and color revolutions) or direct military intervention. Most recently, the US intervened in Libya, Syria, Honduras (overthrowing a democratically elected government), and Haiti (assassinating a president who didn't toe the line).

Big C said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

movielover said:

---

Mossad's numbers line up with Colonel Douglass McGregor and Scott Ritter numbers.

As the Ukrainian Army collapses, the greater the possibility the collapsing Biden regime will start an open war with Russia. https://t.co/FKcFCtFT4y

— Tony Heller (@TonyClimate) February 6, 2023

---

The fantasyland reference to the "collapsing Biden" administration starting a war with Russia undercuts everything else he had to say. If he's that divorced from reality, can we believe anything else he says?

---

Yeah, that is one of the dumbest takes I've ever heard. Biden wants to start a war with Russia. Please.

---

We're in a proxy war right now!

We put the kabash to a peace agreement. We're the main supplier of military goods, we finance them, pay their civil servants.

BearGoggles said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The basic fact about Crimea is that it has had a heavy majority Russian population for centuries now. Crimeans are very happy to rejoin Russia after having ceded to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1954 for arbitrary Soviet internal reasons. a fact that has been clearly reflected in the referendum and numerous polls conducted by independent western agencies which consistently showed that 85% to 90% Crimean approve of rejoining Russia.

---

Can you please provide a citation to the polling by "independent western agencies"? The fact that would even cite the referendum is a bit concerning. Do you feel that was a fair and free election? Kinds of like Iranian elections, or Syrian elections, or Cuban elections. Actually, very much like CURRENT Russian elections where Putin's political opponents seem to have very unfortunate health histories (or are just thrown in jail).

---

Wkiipedia:

"Post-referendum polls

The results of a survey by the U.S. government Broadcasting Board of Governors agency, conducted April 2129, 2014, showed that 83% of Crimeans felt that the results of the March 16 referendum on Crimea's status likely reflected the views of most people there, whereas this view is shared only by 30% in the rest of Ukraine.

According to the Gallup's survey performed on April 2127, 82.8% of Crimean people consider the referendum results reflecting most Crimeans' views, and 73.9% of Crimeans say Crimea's becoming part of Russia will make life better for themselves and their families, while 5.5% disagree.

According to survey carried out by Pew Research Center in April 2014, the majority of Crimean residents say they believed the referendum was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%).

According to a poll of the Crimeans by the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK, on January 1622, 2015: "Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it. ... Fifty-one percent reported their well-being had improved in the past year."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum#Post-referendum_polls

Quote:

---

Even if the polling you claim exists, do you consider it an international norm that countries can invade their neighbors to "emancipate" ethnic groups with historical ties? What are the broader implications of that? Say for the Mexican-Americans in US southern states or Hawaiians?

If supposed majority rule democracy matters in Crimea, thereby justifying Russian intervention, why doesn't majority rule in greater Ukraine also matter (i.e., the desire of elected government to join NATO and leave the Russian sphere of influence)? Why can't Ukraine join NATO if it wants to?

I'm not a fan of the US policy in Ukraine, particularly the blank check spending and confused policy leading to escalation. But to portray Putin's actions as justified or excusable seems like a bridge too far.

---

In Crimea`s case, Russia didn`t have to invade in 2014, the 21,000 Ukrainian army garrison that was stationed there was almost entirely made up of local Crimeans, about 18,000-19,000 of whom just switched sides, with the remaining 2,000-3,000 going back to Ukraine.

Local garrisons also flipped in the Donbass, which prompted a severe reaction from the Kiev government and ignited a civil war that has basically gone unabated since 2014. Russia intervened directly last year after Kiev massed 65,000 troops in the Donbass, threatening to overrun the positions of the rebel MDR and DPR armies.

Since 2014, Crimea has done well economically under Russia, with the caveat of the agriculture sector being severely hampered due to Ukraine cutting off their water supply. A Ukrainian comedian by the name of Vladimir Zelensky made fun of their plight:

https://m.facebook.com/RevolutionIreland/videos/zelensky-in-2015-made-fun-of-the-people-in-crimea-suffering-from-water-shortages/455107126608269/

People in Crimea are very happy to have had their water access restored by Russia, water which was previously cynically dumped into the Black Sea by the Kiev government.

To answer more directly your questions above, normally those issues are resolved through international instances, taking into account local independence movements. In fact the Minsk Agreements were set up to address these issues, granting cultural autonomy to the Donbass region. These agreements were however violated by Kiev and its NATO backers, this much is no longer in doubt, as all main parties (Kiev, France and Germany, Poreshenko, Hollande and Merkel) have all recently come out and stated that Minsk was a time-wasting ploy to freeze the situation until Ukraine could be rearmed to take back the Donbass and Crimea by force, in violation of the Minsk accord - fact.

As to NATO, its whole raison d'etre is predicated on having Russia as the enemy. Russia tried to join NATO in the 90s, as its leaders, Putin included, identify as Europeans. They were laughed at by the Clinton administration. This is compounded by the fact that modern Ukrainian nationalism draws its ideology from the WW2 era OUN and UPA, western Ukrainian ideology which views Russia as its archenemy. The cult of Bandera has gone from a fringe militia movement in central and western Ukraine to a mainstream phenomenon. That`s another casus belli for Russia.

---

Thank you for providing the polling link. In reviewing the actual polls, it seems like Ukrainians as a whole view the elections as suspect, but actual Crimeans do not have those concerns. I remain skeptical of that, but what you posted certainly was correct.

It's odd you want to start with the Minsk Agreement. It seems to me there were some important international agreements before then (the Budapest Memorandum where Russia agreed to never invade Ukraine seems relevant). And beyond that, it appears it is very much in doubt who violated the Minsk Agreements - or more specifically it sure looks like Russia violated it from day one.

The lead US diplomat has written about this. Not adopting his views as gospel, but this part sure seems correct:

"Russia is in violation of the Minsk Agreements. The deals require a ceasefire, withdrawal of foreign military forces, disbanding of illegal armed groups, and returning control of the Ukrainian side of the international border with Russia to Ukraine, all of this under OSCE supervision. Russia has done none of this. It has regular military officers as well as intelligence operatives and unmarked "little green men" woven into the military forces in Eastern Ukraine. The LPR and DPR forces are by any definition "illegal armed groups," that have not been disbanded. The ceasefire has barely been respected by the Russian side for more than a few days at a time."

https://cepa.org/article/dont-let-russia-fool-you-about-the-minsk-agreements/

Yes - the purpose of Nato is to defend against Russian aggression. That sure seems reasonable given Putin's attacks on his neighbors - don't forget Georgia in 2008 (not to mention during the Cold War). Nothing makes a country like Ukraine, Finland, Sweden and many others want to join NATO like Putin/Russia invading its neighbors. But you oddly blame NATO, as if its purpose doesn't remain quite valid.

At the same time, the "enemy" Russia was welcomed into the G7/G8 and offered normalized relations (at least until recently). Not exactly how you treat an enemy - at least until that country starts invading its neighbors.

And the "cult of Bandera" is not a casus belli - at least not a real or proper one. Even if you stipulate that Bandera-ism is now mainstream and rampant (which I think is a real stretch), how is that a casus belli FOR RUSSIA? Were the Cult of Bandera (surprisingly led by their Jewish president!) threatening to invade Russia? No. Where is the UN resolution (or other international consensus) supporting the notion that a casus belli existed?

Simply put, Putin made up claims of Bandera genocide as a pretext for both his 2014 and 2022 invasions. It is made up and bizarre that anyone would believe it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera#2014_Russian_intervention_in_Ukraine

And with Russia's long history of antisemitism and Putin's direct support of genocidal leaders (Bashar Hafez al-Assad, Lukashenko and the Ayatollah say hello), maybe Russia should sit this one out? Speaking of genocide, Russia has engaged in that in Ukraine by directly targeting civilians, but particularly targeting the Banderists for death. Is that a casus belli for the US and NATO to attack Russia proper? By your logic it is sure is.

---

You're taking CEPA's spin on the Minsk Agreements at face value, directly and uncritically quoting their position on those agreements. CEPA is funded by weapon manufacturers (Lockheed Martin, BAE, Leonardo), Ukrainian oligarch (Pinchuk) and State Dept players (NED, NATO, Firestone Ashe, US Dept of State).

The signatories of the Minsk Agreements themselves, president Hollande of France, Angela Merkel and president Poroshenko all came out and unequivocally stated recenty that they had no intention of abiding by these agreements. they used the Minsk Agreements as a stalling tactic in order to arm Ukraine enough so that it is capable of crushing the rebels in the Donbass.

Putin was widely criticized at home for not having come to the aid of the Donbass rebels in 2014, his main opposition at home are right wing nationalists and left wing communists.

In 2014, there was a rebellion in the southern and eastern half of Ukraine against the Maidan Coup, which overturned a democratically elected president, a sort of successful January 6 coup that was spearheaded by violent armed militias with the support of the full support US foreign policy apparatus.

In Odessa, about 60 russophone anti-Maidan non-violent protesters were burned to death, shot or beaten to death by Ukrainian nationalists:



Similar rebellions erupted in the Donbass and other rebel regions like Mariupol. The latter were suppressed by the stationing of outside forces in the region, notably the Azov Battalion, which was made up of central/western Ukrainian nationalists that viewed the locals as hostile.

Quote:

---

Were the Cult of Bandera (surprisingly led by their Jewish president!) threatening to invade Russia? No.

---

They were most definitely set to invade the Donbass and Crimea for one. You might view the Donbass as Ukrainian territory, but the Kiev government forfeits its legitimacy the moment it treats local minorities as second-class citizens and actively represses them with armed force, limiting the use of their native language and imposing on them a form of nationalism that considers their culture and religion as outcast, going as far as to ban their religion and burn their churches.

#Zelensky's top advisor Arestovych resigns after interview stating #Ukraine air defense blew up their own civilian apartment building. He is also on record stating “Zelensky has declared war on Christianity. This is when SBU entered…the Ukrainian Orthodox Church" #UkraineRussia pic.twitter.com/qU7pBvnVC2

— Brandon Taylor Moore (@LetsGoBrando45) January 19, 2023

This dogma has led to the dissolution of Ukraine, as stated by Arestovich, who was until very recently the leading advisor of Zelensky. He tapped out seeing that the war is unwinnable, and that the Kiev regime has no future.

If you support this war, you need to understand that most Ukrainians themselves don't. Most of the ideologically-driven zealots are already dead, among the quarter million plus KIAs/wounded. Ukrainian authorities are now gang-pressing men who do not want to be cannon fodder in this proxy war, prying them away by force from their families.

Ukrainian recruitment officers kidnapped a boy in front of his mother to be used as cannon fodder.
The video stops when the military man starts swinging his fists against the mum. pic.twitter.com/UsrmlNyP8P

— John Carter (@JohnEdgarCarter) February 6, 2023

No deal or ceasefire. He said he got each side to make several major concessions, but there was still lots of open topic and negotiations stopped. He thought there was a path, but Americans disagreed. Never said US blocked. Also said there was 0 chance of a deal after Bucha.

— AG (@AGHamilton29) February 7, 2023

sycasey said:

---

No deal or ceasefire. He said he got each side to make several major concessions, but there was still lots of open topic and negotiations stopped. He thought there was a path, but Americans disagreed. Never said US blocked. Also said there was 0 chance of a deal after Bucha.

— AG (@AGHamilton29) February 7, 2023

---

So they did not block the deal, they merely "disagreed"?

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

No deal or ceasefire. He said he got each side to make several major concessions, but there was still lots of open topic and negotiations stopped. He thought there was a path, but Americans disagreed. Never said US blocked. Also said there was 0 chance of a deal after Bucha.

— AG (@AGHamilton29) February 7, 2023

---

So they did not block the deal, they merely "disagreed"?

---

Let's take it straight from the horse's mouth:

@elonmusk @I_Katchanovski
2 points worth emphasizing (I speak about it here: 2:31:30 and on)https://t.co/JTkpi3EBjh

1. It’s unsure there was any deal to be made. At the time I gave it roughly a 50% chance. Americans felt chances were way lower. Hard to tell who was right.

— Naftali Bennett בנט (@naftalibennett) February 6, 2023

1. 50% chance is significantly more than zero.

2. Productive discussions and concrete compromises more great news.

3. Of coarse the warhawks thought odds were far less, they wanted to "weaken Russia" and follow their RAND-sponsored analysis.

dogzilla@dogzilla99

"In a war where there is a chance of millions of deaths, would you not want to negotiate for peace even if there is a very low chance of it? A 50% chance of peace is still better than a 100% chance of war, don't you think?"

movielover said:

---

1. 50% chance is significantly more than zero.

2. Productive discussions and concrete compromises more great news.

3. Of coarse the warhawks thought odds were far less, they wanted to "weaken Russia" and follow their RAND-sponsored analysis.

dogzilla@dogzilla99

"In a war where there is a chance of millions of deaths, would you not want to negotiate for peace even if there is a very low chance of it? A 50% chance of peace is still better than a 100% chance of war, don't you think?"

---

Just to reiterate the real takeaways from Bennett's remarks:

1. Even if the US had a low expectation of success, they did not "block" a peace deal. There was no deal to block. The two sides (Russia and Ukraine) were halfway there at best.

2. The Bucha Massacre is what really killed the talks, not anything the US did.

And there are claims it was a False Flag operation. I haven't studied it in depth.

If you're at a level where you actually believe that Russia blew up its own pipelines, there is no way you could ever contemplate the likelihood that Bucha could have been a staged event.