The Official Russian Invasion of Ukraine Thread

869,773 Views | 9916 Replies | Last: 11 hrs ago by bear2034
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

Your reading comprehension is poor.

1. Objectives of the War - very clear. Putin sees Crimea as Russian, the Donbas tight w Russia, Ukraine neutral & no Nazi's.

2. Consistency - since 2008?

3. Public Support for Putin - 80%?

4. Support of China and Iran fir Russia; probably North Korea (China) as well.

5. Political Dynamics - Putin appears to be limiting KIA of Russians, as well as civilian Ukrainian deaths, which should gain him broader approval.

6. Intelligence failure of the CIA - yes, they blew it again; Russia is now stronger, and NATO / US are weaker.

7. Dwindling Domestic Public Support - see above comments.




I object to a lot of this, but the only note I care to comment on is point 5.

Whenever you choose to engage in a war against another nation, you are choosing to kill civilians. The very nature of war means civilians will die. There is no diet coke with war. You cant have war without casualties. You cant have your military conquest without hurting civilians. Trying to frame an aggressor as a noble well-intentioned conqueror is hypocritical because the very act of conquering and invading means you are doing the one thing you are claiming to be minimizing. In this case the deaths of civilians. Every dead civilian and every refugee is the direct responsibility of Vladimir Putin.

If Putin truly cared about civilians he would not have chosen to invade.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Where did Russia's half million soldiers go?

golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

Russia isn't the USSR.


Russia was expansionist long before it was the driving force behind the ussr.

dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:


Why did the United States lose the Vietnam War?

1. Ambiguous Aims & Objectives of the War

The US failed to articulate clear-cut aims and objectives at the tactical level. Consequently, there was a lot of confusion about the desired results of the military intervention. It just jumped in without properly defining any tangible and verifiable goals and objectives in terms of military achievements. Lack of clarity about the overall objective of the military intervention, therefore, resulted in inconsistent policy and strategy formulation by the Pentagon.

2. Lack of Consistency in Policy Formulation

Americans paid lip service to the Vietnamese while treating them horribly. You have to destroy the village in order to save it.

3. Public Support for Vietcong

Henry Kissinger has rightly pointed out that "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerilla wins if he does not lose."

Viet Cong guerillas had time at their disposal. They solicited public support through extremely effective use of propaganda inside Vietnam; they just painted the USA as an invading force. Americans tried to use bombing campaigns and advanced weaponry and coupled them with brutal tactics to show how strong it was, and how futile it was for the Vietnamese to continue resisting. It wanted them to submit by scaring them which worked the opposite way. The images of American atrocities horrified the world, especially America's population. It did not achieve any objective for America. If anything, it made the local population hate America even more and join Viet Cong.

4. Support of China.

One of the most crucial reasons for the defeat of the USA was the wholehearted support of China to North Vietnam. The Chinese support for the Vietcong was not only for strategic security concerns of China but also motivated by the sense of an international responsibility to help brotherly comrades and promote the anti-imperialist revolution.

Consequently, despite the best efforts of the USA, there was no interruption of supplies of food and war materials for the Vietcong from China.

5. Lack of understanding of Political Dynamics

The USA failed to comprehend the political dynamics of the local and regional landscape, and, more importantly, what Vietnam wanted to become. They thought it was about communism vs capitalism, and that as a result, the Vietnamese would support the Americans if they understood what America was promising. Instead, the US antagonized everyone and pushed even its former supporters against America.

6. Intelligence failure of the CIA.

It failed to gauge the scope of the war and underestimated the strength of the Vietcong. It was compounded by confusion about definitions, faulty accounting techniques, and figure fudging. Focusing too much on technology instead of Human Intelligence (HUMINT) resulted in a disconnect that prevented the integration and fusing of information to achieve efficient, accurate intelligence assessments. These failures, in turn, led the USA to adopt conventional military solutions for an unconventional problem.

7. Dwindling Domestic Public Support

Vietnam War was the first fully televised war creating its supporters as well as opponents in every house in the USA. News about the atrocities and horror stories like the Mai Lai massacre soon made the war very unpopular. The use of the draft made it even more detestable.

Link:
https://shahidhraja.medium.com/why-did-the-united-states-lose-the-vietnam-war-e9bfc4096724

Russia looks like it is on target to achieve most of these and it has only been 8 years (since 2014)! It took the US 20 years to lose!

Let's see how Russia is doing...

1. Ambiguous Aims & Objectives of the War

Check.

There are no tactical objectives. The Russian military has no idea what it is supposed to be doing or what would constitute a victory. There are no verifiable goals and objectives to be met.


2. Lack of Consistency in Policy Formulation

Check.

Russia claims it is protecting ethnic Russians living in Ukraine. It is doing that by waging war in their cities and causing them hardships.


3. Public Support for Vietcong

Check.

One reason Ukraine is holding out so long is that the populace is supportive of Ukraine. They reveal troop movements and locations to the Ukraine army. They tend to Ukraine's wounded. When people like Cal88 cite the numbers of Russian troops deployed they gloss over the fact that most of those troops play support and logistics roles and will never see any fighting. Ukraine's civilian population is a force multiplier, because they aren't counted among the number of soldiers fighting Russia and yet they are performing roles that Russian soldiers are performing. The number of people actively opposing Russia is likely in the millions if not tens of millions. Russia's army is in the mere hundreds of thousands. If they activated every single reservist and had them all supporting the action in Ukraine it would still be just 3 million.


4. Support of China.

Check.

Russia's China is of course the United States and NATO. Russia is not able to severely disrupt the steady stream of food and war materials into Ukraine.


5. Lack of understanding of Political Dynamics

Check.

Russia thought that Ukrainians would support them in the same way they did when they annexed Crimea.They thought that Ukrainians would welcome their help to depose their corrupt government. They were wrong. Even those who sympathize with Russia will get more and more weary of the disruption to their lives as the war drags on. Russia is uniting the Ukrainians against them.

According to a poll conducted by KIIS in July of 2022, a historic 85 percent of Ukrainians identify themselves above all as citizens of Ukraine, as opposed to residents of their region, representatives of an ethnic minority, or some other identifier. As many as 84 percent of Ukrainians reject any territorial concessions to Russia, and this indicator has increased over time. Even among residents of the south (the Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhzhya, Mykolayiv, Odesa, and Kherson regions), 77 percent oppose concessions. Among residents of the east (Kharkiv and the Kyiv-controlled parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions) -- 82 percent do not accept concessions.

Moreover, the data indicates that as many as 61 percent of Ukrainians support opposing Russian aggression until all of Ukraine -- including the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea that Moscow illegally annexed in 2014 -- is under Kyiv's control. Some 12.2 percent were willing to accept Moscow's continued occupation of Crimea, while 8.6 percent argued for the restoration of all territory captured by Russia since February 24. Just under 15 percent were willing to accept an immediate cease-fire along the current lines of conflict with both sides pledging to enter long-term peace talks.

Russia thought Ukraine was a country without an identity separate from Russia. That is not true anymore if it ever was.


6. Intelligence failure of the CIA.

Check.

Russian intelligence underestimated the strength and resolve of the Ukrainian military and its people. Its own capabilities were oversold. Corruption and lies led Russian commands to believe that their military was in much better shape than it really was. As the war drags on, Russian is relying more on high technology solutions to try to bomb Ukraine into submission from afar, not realizing that only upsets people more when civilians are killed. Russia is also focused on fighting an artillery battle with Ukraine. This war can't be won with artillery because artillery doesn't occupy any territory and indiscriminate shelling only destroys Ukrainian infrastructure and makes people's lives miserable. I think early on Russia realized this and tried to be very delicate in its attacks, but as frustration mounts they are starting to lose their cool and applying more pressure to the civilians. This is only counterproductive.


7. Dwindling Domestic Public Support

TBD.

Publicly, there still seems to be a lot of domestic support for this war. However, Russians are not always forthcoming about their beliefs. Still, it seems support is very high. This is because Russia has been using mercenaries, prisoners, and people from outer territories to wage this war. It hasn't much affected the Russian public. As the war continues and more Russian soldiers from Moscow and St. Petersburg return home in body bags this support will sour.

Further, ties between Russia and Ukraine are very close. Many Russians have friends and relatives in Ukraine and vice versa. As more Ukrainian friends and family are killed it will be harder and harder to swallow the lies that Russia is liberating Ukraine from Nazi extremists and corrupt leaders.

This will be the hardest box to check off, but once it happens I think the war will end and it will end in defeat for Russia. If they are lucky they will be able to negotiate keeping the land they occupy now. I view that as the best possible outcome for them. If they are stubborn it will get much worse as the West ramps up military production and aid to Ukraine. Time is not on Russia's side.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

movielover said:

Your reading comprehension is poor....

5. Political Dynamics - Putin appears to be limiting KIA of Russians, as well as civilian Ukrainian deaths, which should gain him broader approval.




I object to a lot of this, but the only note I care to comment on is point 5.

Whenever you choose to engage in a war against another nation, you are choosing to kill civilians. The very nature of war means civilians will die. There is no diet coke with war. You cant have war without casualties. You cant have your military conquest without hurting civilians. Trying to frame an aggressor as a noble well-intentioned conqueror is hypocritical because the very act of conquering and invading means you are doing the one thing you are claiming to be minimizing. In this case the deaths of civilians. Every dead civilian and every refugee is the direct responsibility of Vladimir Putin.

If Putin truly cared about civilians he would not have chosen to invade.


Russia first went in light, hoping to push Ukraine to take them seriously, at least that's the contention. Millions fled - not deaths. Russia has concentrated most assaults in the Donbas, a disputed area, and Bakhmut. And they have used drones heavily - canvassing an area, shelling it, canvassing it again, more shelling, all done before foot shoulders arrive. Your ilk criticize Putin for this. Yet Zelensky has funneled troops and arms into that cauldron of death for nine months or more. Ukraine's Stalingrad.

Citizens fled a year ago, many westward, some to Europe, others to Russia. So by definition, 99% of deaths have been military... in contrast to Obama and Bush Jr. indiscriminate bombing and drone attacks on civilians and weddings. These are facts, not diet coke. Putin isn't carpet bombing or setting ablaze Odessa and Kiev. (The past six months they have also targeted energy infrastructure.)

Despite this, Zelensky fears for his life because of the recent drone attack on the Kremlin. So he's gone on a world tour. Maybe he's worried Russia will send hypersonic missiles to his residences where yes, a few civilians will likely die. Z and / or the CIA made a poor choice. Or maybe they want to escalate things to pull the US in. Troubling.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The rate of civilians killed in this war has been exceptionally low, about 6%-7% of total KIAs, 20,000 out of 300,000, vs 80%-90% in US-led wars like Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan, where the civilian tally was in the millions. The reason for this is that the majority of local civilians in the battle zones support Russia, though the Russians have also refrained from conducting indiscriminate bombing of civilians in western Ukraine, where the majority does not support them.

Most of these Ukrainian civilian deaths have come in urban fighting where Ukrainian troops have taken position in building blocks still inhabited by a few residents, using them as human shields, and storing weapons among civilian structures, practices that were condemned by Amnesty International, in a very rare intervention by what has essentially become a NATO-aligned neoliberal NGO:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/

Ukraine: Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians

  • Military bases set up in residential areas including schools and hospitals
  • Attacks launched from populated civilian areas
  • Such violations in no way justify Russia's indiscriminate attacks, which have killed and injured countless civilians
Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm's way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals, as they repelled the Russian invasion that began in February, Amnesty International said today.

Such tactics violate international humanitarian law and endanger civilians, as they turn civilian objects into military targets. The ensuing Russian strikes in populated areas have killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure.

"We have documented a pattern of Ukrainian forces putting civilians at risk and violating the laws of war when they operate in populated areas," said Agnes Callamard, Amnesty International's Secretary General.

"Being in a defensive position does not exempt the Ukrainian military from respecting international humanitarian law."
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Vietnam comparison is not apt here, because Russia is fighting an existential war. The goal of US policymakers like Nuland, McFaul, Blinken etc is the same as that of their neocon predecessors Brzezinski or Cheney, "regime change" in Russia, western control over Russian resources as in the 1990s under Boris Yeltsin, and a weak or dismembered Russia:



That is the real story here, in historical/geopolitical terms, as opposed to the Hollywood narrative that is sold to the general public of a mean and crazy Hitler-like figure leading an evil empire to invade a weaker neighbor.

Historically speaking, Russia has been an empire, but arguably far less so than other contemporary western Empires like the UK, Spain, Portugal, France or even the US, which started with the pilgrims landing in Plymouth, the 13 state confederation, then proceeded with the ethnic cleansing of Indians across the continental US, and somehow kept expanding halfway around the globe, with the colonization of the Philippines, Guam and the subjugation of Central America in the Monroe Doctrine.

Russia today is a multicultural nation with 4 official national religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism) and over 100 ethnicities, and while ethnic Russians make up about 80% of the population, the country has strong minority rights.

That's the main difference with Ukraine, which has been politically and militarily dominated by western/Galician Ukrainian nationalists that have actively sought to eliminate Russian (and Hungarian) culture and language from within their borders, despite the fact that Russian speakers make up one third of the country.

Zelensky run on a platform of peace and cultural reconcillation then did a 180 due to pressure from US backers and Ukrainian ultranationalist militias:


This brand of Ukrainian nationalism is directly related to the OUN and UPA nazi ideology, which viewed Ukrainians as more racially pure white Europeans than the asiatic Russian-speaking "Muscovites". This wretched ideology compelled them to join nazi Germany in WW2 and commit genocidal ethnic cleansing of Jews, Poles and Russians by the hundreds of thousands. The US has covertly supported and maintained that ultranationalist Ukrainian ideology since the 1940s in a cynical geopolitical ploy aimed at destabilizing Russia, with Brzezinski actually identifying Ukraine as Russia's weak underbelly.

Today these scenes are a direct result and manifestation of that kind of white supremacist ideology:


Russian speaker getting the Ukrainian shrinkwrap treatment



Only in Ukraine.

Before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there was the post-Maidan coup regime invasion of the Donbass, with Ukrainian tanks suppressing local rebels:


That is the big picture here.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Meanwhile in Bakhmut, the Russians are continuing to steadily advance in the city proper, with Ukraine just holding the western edges of town, about 2%. These remaining Ukrainian positions in Bakhmut will likely fall later this month, as I have predicted earlier.

Ukraine however was able to dislodge the Russians from the western city surroundings by mobilizing large resources, which will allow them to avert a disastrous situation of their remaining forces in Bakhmut being surrounded, they will now be able to evacuate them in an orderly manner as they have regained control of access roads.



Other significant developments: there has been a noticeable increase in background radiation in western Ukraine after the Russians bombed a huge ammunition depot in Khmelnytskyi that likely included uranium shells meant for British Challenger tanks:



Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This.

MinotStateBeav
How long do you want to ignore this user?


all those american dollery doo's in Ukraine
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MinotStateBeav said:

all those american dollery doo's in Ukraine

That's just peanuts compared with the billions syphoned off by Zelensky and his team, who skimmed $400M alone from diesel fuel schemes out of US aid allocated for fuel purchases.

This aid has been set up without any oversight by design, knowing full well the level of corruption in Ukraine, to protect the Zelensky regime as well as some US covert backchannels who have been milking the Ukrainian cash cow well before the war started.

Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Offensive continues to be setting up well for Ukraine. All of that NATO training and equipment gives Ukraine a massive relative advantage against the dysfunctional Russian military/Wagner.

Russia continues to take massive losses at Bakhmut - unclear to me how much of this is due to Wagner and the Russian military sabotaging each other and how much is unavoidable because they have no officer corps or command and control, but the results are what they are.





Here's a great thread on how ridiculously disorganized and dysfunctional the Russian military is. You would think that this is fiction based on Catch22 but it's really happening.







Meanwhile, Russia is trying its damnedest to fire missiles at Kyiv (including its hypersonics) but Ukraine's new patriot batteries are destroying them.




That said, the Russians are trying desperately to claim to have destroyed all or a part of a patriot battery, but like with most Russian propaganda it's laughably false.



dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Russia was not in an existential war prior to invading Ukraine but they might find themselves in one before this is over if they continue down the path they are headed.

Their invasion has given those who would like to see Russia diminished an excuse for sure, but it was Russia who thought this was a good idea. If they had stayed on their side of the border massing troops and waging a proxy war in Ukraine like they had been we'd be worried about the threat they posed and willing to negotiate.

Instead, they invaded and proved themselves as the imperialists we feared which only justifies Ukraine's concerns and those of Finland, Poland, and the Baltics. In the process they also exposed that their military is not quite as capable as it appeared on paper. It is almost laughable how poorly it has performed. It has left most of the real fighting to the Wagner group, which may cease to exist when the dust finally clears.

This is all Russia's doing. No one forced their hand. They just made a really bad miscalculation. If they want to give NATO reasons to get involved openly militarily then they should keep doing what they are doing.

Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The timing of the invasion was forced on Russia, as Ukraine had amassed 60,000 troops in the Donbass that were ready to overrun the rebels, with Crimea being their next target.

This came shortly after statements from Ukrainian officials including Zelensky and Melnyk stating they wanted to acquire nuclear weapons. This is a country with a huge stockpile of nuclear material and with the technological means to produce nuclear bombs.

https://www.indianarrative.com/world-news/ukraines-president-zelensky-hints-at-developing-nuclear-weapons-after-nato-declares-it-will-not-confront-russia-32759.html

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/16/ukraine-may-seek-nuclear-weapons-if-left-out-of-nato-diplomat
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

blah blah blah

Meanwhile, Russia is trying its damnedest to fire missiles at Kyiv (including its hypersonics) but Ukraine's new patriot batteries are destroying them.



That said, the Russians are trying desperately to claim to have destroyed all or a part of a patriot battery, but like with most Russian propaganda it's laughably false.


You know I'm kind of busy today, but i can't help to take 5 to shoot down this kind of bad propaganda.



$100 million in US taxpayer-funded Raytheon hardware destroyed a couple of buildings in Kiev, loitered a local park before getting wrecked by a Russian missile, and that's being hailed as a triumph by Ukrainian sources, via U2S firehose of "trust-me-bro" truths...





Even if the Patriot system were actually effective (it has repeatedly failed in shooting down rudimentary drones and missiles fired from Yemen into Saudi), there aren't enough of them in US arsenals to match the number of drones and missiles the Russians have, it's a very basic aspect of this war of attrition, which the recent intel leaks highlighted.

sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

The timing of the invasion was forced on Russia, as Ukraine had amassed 60,000 troops in the Donbass that were ready to overrun the rebels, with Crimea being their next target.
The timing was forced on Russia because of things Ukraine was doing within its own borders? Just listen to yourself, man.

You're giving exactly the same bulls**t excuses the Bush Administration gave for invading Iraq. I know you wouldn't have given the US government the same leeway you are giving Putin right now.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

The timing of the invasion was forced on Russia, as Ukraine had amassed 60,000 troops in the Donbass that were ready to overrun the rebels, with Crimea being their next target.

This came shortly after statements from Ukrainian officials including Zelensky and Melnyk stating they wanted to acquire nuclear weapons. This is a country with a huge stockpile of nuclear material and with the technological means to produce nuclear bombs.

https://www.indianarrative.com/world-news/ukraines-president-zelensky-hints-at-developing-nuclear-weapons-after-nato-declares-it-will-not-confront-russia-32759.html

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/16/ukraine-may-seek-nuclear-weapons-if-left-out-of-nato-diplomat



Yeah, how dare Ukraine try to put down a Russian-sponsored rebellion in their own country. The audacity! If Russia didn't get involved Ukraine would have determined its own fate - possibly one not cozy with Russia. Can't have that!

By invading Russia has proved to Ukraine how much it cares about them. They are sending artillery shells full of only love for the Ukrainian people. It is all done out of concern for their future.


Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The timing was forced on Russia because of things Ukraine was doing within its own borders to Russians right across the border in the Donbass.

And Crimea, which is difficult for Russia to defend without a land bridge, would have been next.

And you haven't addressed the third issue of a government driven by nationalistc ideology in which Russians are their enemy wanted to acquire nuclear weapons, and has the full capability to build them.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

And you haven't addressed the third issue of a government driven by nationalistc ideology in which Russians are their enemy wanted to acquire nuclear weapons, and has the full capability to build them.
They had to invade! Weapons of mass destruction!
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

The timing was forced on Russia because of things Ukraine was doing within its own borders to Russians right across the border in the Donbass.

And Crimea, which is difficult for Russia to defend without a land bridge, would have been next.

And you haven't addressed the third issue of a government driven by nationalistc ideology in which Russians are their enemy wanted to acquire nuclear weapons, and has the full capability to build them.


Crimea was illegally seized. They are lucky they took it without a fight the first time. They should have been glad to have it, but they got greedy and presumably were emboldened by how easy it was the first time. Those days are over.

As for nuclear weapons, Ukraine already had them and never threatened anyone with them so I am not sure where you are going with that other than Russia wanted to act before Ukraine was able to defend themselves.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

Cal88 said:

The timing of the invasion was forced on Russia, as Ukraine had amassed 60,000 troops in the Donbass that were ready to overrun the rebels, with Crimea being their next target.

This came shortly after statements from Ukrainian officials including Zelensky and Melnyk stating they wanted to acquire nuclear weapons. This is a country with a huge stockpile of nuclear material and with the technological means to produce nuclear bombs.

https://www.indianarrative.com/world-news/ukraines-president-zelensky-hints-at-developing-nuclear-weapons-after-nato-declares-it-will-not-confront-russia-32759.html

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/16/ukraine-may-seek-nuclear-weapons-if-left-out-of-nato-diplomat



Yeah, how dare Ukraine try to put down a Russian-sponsored rebellion in their own country. The audacity! If Russia didn't get involved Ukraine would have determined its own fate - possibly one not cozy with Russia. Can't have that!

By invading Russia has proved to Ukraine how much it cares about them. They are sending artillery shells full of only love for the Ukrainian people. It is all done out of concern for their future.


The rebellion in the Donbass was largely organic, driven by the fact that these Ukrainians of Russian descent and culture were considered second class citizens, their language, customs and culture restricted, and their votes having been ignored in the NATO-sponsored Maidan Coup which overturned the democratically elected government of Ukraine. Don't make me pull back the Ukrainian president Poroshenko speech on bombing the Donbass into submission, and Donbass children having to grow up cowering in basement shelters...

Leading Ukrainian strategist Arestovich, a very close confidant of Zelensky, on this subject:



sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

The timing was forced on Russia because of things Ukraine was doing within its own borders to Russians right across the border in the Donbass.
"Across the border" in the Donbass? The Donbass is in Ukraine.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

Cal88 said:

The timing was forced on Russia because of things Ukraine was doing within its own borders to Russians right across the border in the Donbass.

And Crimea, which is difficult for Russia to defend without a land bridge, would have been next.

And you haven't addressed the third issue of a government driven by nationalistc ideology in which Russians are their enemy wanted to acquire nuclear weapons, and has the full capability to build them.


Crimea was illegally seized. They are lucky they took it without a fight the first time. They should have been glad to have it, but they got greedy and presumably were emboldened by how easy it was the first time. Those days are over.

As for nuclear weapons, Ukraine already had them and never threatened anyone with them so I am not sure where you are going with that other than Russia wanted to act before Ukraine was able to defend themselves.


The whole world was threatened by Ukrainian nukes, they could have easily sold a couple to foreign governments on the black market, just like they have been diverting and selling a good chunk of the weapons from the NATO pipeline. The oligarchs and officials in charge would have received billions for a single nuke.

That is why the US and other nations themselves insisted all Soviet nukes be repatriated to Russia after the dissolution of the USSR.

Crimea wasn't "seized" against the locals' will, the overwhelming majority of Crimeans wanted to join Russia, as confirmed by the referendum and at least 3 major polls conducted by independent western polling agencies.

NATO has the right to cut down, balkanize and reshape Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria, often against the will of locals, but 80%-90% of Crimeans who are ethnically Russians want to join Russia, and that is intolerable?
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Cal88 said:

The timing was forced on Russia because of things Ukraine was doing within its own borders to Russians right across the border in the Donbass.
"Across the border" in the Donbass? The Donbass is in Ukraine.

Not any more.

Donbass people don't want their children to grow up in shelters while the Kiev government, which overthrew the democratically elected government they've voted for, bombs them into submission.



Is that really so hard to understand?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

sycasey said:

Cal88 said:

The timing was forced on Russia because of things Ukraine was doing within its own borders to Russians right across the border in the Donbass.
"Across the border" in the Donbass? The Donbass is in Ukraine.

Not any more.
Thank you for confirming that you have always accepted Russia's version of events from the beginning.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:


Thank you for confirming that you have always accepted Russia's version of events from the beginning.

I don't accept any government version prima facie, unlike you.

Arestovich above is right about the root cause of the Donbass rebellion, as are the referendum and polls on Crimea. It is NATO's version that is wrong in these key cases.

Another recent example - the Russian government's version of events on the Patriot missile incident in Kiev also turned out to be right. The US and Ukrainian version of having intercepted Kinzhal hypersonics, whose diameter is over 1m wide, buttressed by a flimsy theatrical exhibit by leading government official/Kiev mayor Klitschko, is ridiculously false, it would have made Baghdad Bob blush.

sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

sycasey said:


Thank you for confirming that you have always accepted Russia's version of events from the beginning.

I don't accept any government version prima facie, unlike you.
I think I've pretty well demonstrated that isn't true. The Donbass was internationally recognized as part of Ukraine, except by Russia. You take Russia's line. Just like you do on everything.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've just painstakingly explained why the Kiev regime has lost all legitimacy over the Donbass, based on the facts outlined above.

At the inception of Ukraine in 1991, its borders were largely artificial, a result of arbitrary Soviet policies, the pink area was ceded by Lenin, and Crimea by Khrushchev.

These borders might have worked had Ukraine maintained a multicultural government tolerant of its large minority populations, just as Canada, Switzerland or Spain have been successfully held together by governments that fully respect their linguistic and cultural minorities' rights.



This is how Ukraine should be viewed, from a European perspective. It is harder to comprehend this from an American cultural framework, because the borders in N. America have been set in stone for many generations now. Eastern Europe in particular has had a very malleable border structure over its modern history due to it being very nationally and ethnically diverse, and being in the crossroads of many wars between local powers.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

I've just painstakingly explained why the Kiev regime has lost all legitimacy over the Donbass, based on the facts outlined above.

At the inception of Ukraine in 1991, its borders were largely artificial, a result of arbitrary Soviet policies, the pink area was ceded by Lenin, and Crimea by Khrushchev.

These borders might have worked had Ukraine maintained a multicultural government tolerant of its large minority populations, just as Canada, Switzerland or Spain have been successfully held together by governments that fully respect their linguistic and cultural minorities' rights.



This is how Ukraine should be viewed, from a European perspective. It is harder to comprehend this from an American cultural framework, because the borders in N. America have been set in stone for many generations now. Eastern Europe in particular has had a very malleable border structure over its modern history due to it being very nationally and ethnically diverse, and being in the crossroads of many wars between local powers.

Putin was born in 1952 so the current borders are the only ones he ever knew.


Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

I've just painstakingly explained why the Kiev regime has lost all legitimacy over the Donbass, based on the facts outlined above.

At the inception of Ukraine in 1991, its borders were largely artificial, a result of arbitrary Soviet policies, the pink area was ceded by Lenin, and Crimea by Khrushchev.

These borders might have worked had Ukraine maintained a multicultural government tolerant of its large minority populations, just as Canada, Switzerland or Spain have been successfully held together by governments that fully respect their linguistic and cultural minorities' rights.



This is how Ukraine should be viewed, from a European perspective. It is harder to comprehend this from an American cultural framework, because the borders in N. America have been set in stone for many generations now. Eastern Europe in particular has had a very malleable border structure over its modern history due to it being very nationally and ethnically diverse, and being in the crossroads of many wars between local powers.
If Donbass has been considered a part of Ukraine since 1922 (more than a century) even by the USSR that created those borders, then I don't think you can claim Donbass belongs to Russia.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Cal88 said:

I've just painstakingly explained why the Kiev regime has lost all legitimacy over the Donbass, based on the facts outlined above.

At the inception of Ukraine in 1991, its borders were largely artificial, a result of arbitrary Soviet policies, the pink area was ceded by Lenin, and Crimea by Khrushchev.

These borders might have worked had Ukraine maintained a multicultural government tolerant of its large minority populations, just as Canada, Switzerland or Spain have been successfully held together by governments that fully respect their linguistic and cultural minorities' rights.



This is how Ukraine should be viewed, from a European perspective. It is harder to comprehend this from an American cultural framework, because the borders in N. America have been set in stone for many generations now. Eastern Europe in particular has had a very malleable border structure over its modern history due to it being very nationally and ethnically diverse, and being in the crossroads of many wars between local powers.
If Donbass has been considered a part of Ukraine since 1922 (more than a century) even by the USSR that created those borders, then I don't think you can claim Donbass belongs to Russia.
Residents in the Donbass also voted to leave the USSR when it broke up in the early 90s. That's why it was left as part of Ukraine.

Residents there disagreeing with the results of Presidential elections and having separatist groups formed (and heavily aided by Russia) doesn't override that. The Ukrainian government should still have jurisdiction there.
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

Your reading comprehension is poor.

1. Objectives of the War - very clear. Putin sees Crimea as Russian, the Donbas tight w Russia, Ukraine neutral & no Nazi's.

2. Consistency - since 2008?

3. Public Support for Putin - 80%?

4. Support of China and Iran fir Russia; probably North Korea (China) as well.

5. Political Dynamics - Putin appears to be limiting KIA of Russians, as well as civilian Ukrainian deaths, which should gain him broader approval.

6. Intelligence failure of the CIA - yes, they blew it again; Russia is now stronger, and NATO / US are weaker.

7. Dwindling Domestic Public Support - see above comments.
This is patently absurd. A feature of virtually the entire war has been Russian attacks against civilians, civilian infrastructure, etc. Unless you mean "limiting" as compared to just going nuclear.
MinotStateBeav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

sycasey said:


Thank you for confirming that you have always accepted Russia's version of events from the beginning.

I don't accept any government version prima facie, unlike you.

Arestovich above is right about the root cause of the Donbass rebellion, as are the referendum and polls on Crimea. It is NATO's version that is wrong in these key cases.

Another recent example - the Russian government's version of events on the Patriot missile incident in Kiev also turned out to be right. The US and Ukrainian version of having intercepted Kinzhal hypersonics, whose diameter is over 1m wide, buttressed by a flimsy theatrical exhibit by leading government official/Kiev mayor Klitschko, is ridiculously false, it would have made Baghdad Bob blush.


He's holding up the interior part of the kinzhal where the explosives are held in the missile. It actually is/was a kinzhal they shot down.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Afternoon update.

First - Russian blame game going on why they are losing Bakhmut.



Second - here's a thread calling out the FT for playing into Russian propaganda in reporting on widespread smuggling of Ukrainian arms to the EU. This is a big rightwing talking point and has been one of the most successful Russian disinfo efforts. We will surely continue to see this false claim made over and over in this thread.





Third - as more info comes out, it's more and more clear that the desperate Russian propaganda making false claims that no Kinzhals were shot down and that Russia destroyed Patriot systems are laughable, as I claimed earlier. They remain committed to the firehose of falsehoods so they couldn't care less if they are proven wrong time and time again. They will just move on to new ridiculous lies.




Fourth - how long can Russia cheat its mobiks out of earned compensation before people start to realize the corrupt kleptocracy is hurting them? Russia has already suffered massive brain drain and an exodus of people with any value.



I suppose that's no surprise given how Russia treats its men during service.


First Page Last Page
Page 139 of 284
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.