Cal88 said:

---

This.

Literally zero Ukraine supporters have advocated for peace talks or any kind of resolution except for full Russian withdrawal...

And 99% of them want us to go in and remove Putin.

Which 100% means nuclear war. That isn't hyperbole.

Why do they want the destruction of Ukraine?

— NeoClassic (@neoclassic911) May 15, 2023

---

dimitrig said:

---

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.

---

dajo9 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

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.

---

Russia is not in an existential war. But Putin is.

---

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.

---

dimitrig said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

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.

---

Russia is not in an existential war. But Putin is.

---

Probably true, and he is going to lose it.

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

You are too American to understand the meaning of malleable, Comrade.

---

dimitrig said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

You are too American to understand the meaning of malleable, Comrade.

---

Greeks are still sore about losing Constantinople and the rest of what was eastern Greece to the Turks. A large Greek population still lives there. If Greece decided to invade Turkey, which I am sure they would do if they could, they would still be subject to international criticism and rightly so. Holding a grudge for hundreds of years doesn't give one the right to invade a sovereign nation.

---

Cal88 said:

---

That border "was just a concept" in the 19th century, when the US acquired all of the southwest from Mexico.

The basic borders have been set in north America for two centuries now, so the concept of immutable borders is very much anchored in the American perspective.

That however did not apply to countries like Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Sudan, Iraq, Libya or Syria which were recently formally or de facto partitioned through US/NATO military intervention.

In eastern Europe, the borders have constantly shifted in the last several centuries. Cities like Lviv changed hands several times, often violently so with populations being ethnically cleansed. You have national affiliations that do not follow the borders. In France and Spain for example, a native of Bayonne will more readily identify with one from Bilbao than from Paris or Marseille, the Basque national identity prevailing, and predating the formation of France or Spain as nations.



This is a concept that is very common in the old world, particularly in Africa, but also in Europe, and the Donbass and Crimea are prime examples. A lot of these issues were addressed in the post-war "Wilsonian" redrawing of the central and eastern European maps, but many issues were still left unresolved.

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

You are too American to understand the meaning of malleable, Comrade.

---

Greeks are still sore about losing Constantinople and the rest of what was eastern Greece to the Turks. A large Greek population still lives there. If Greece decided to invade Turkey, which I am sure they would do if they could, they would still be subject to international criticism and rightly so. Holding a grudge for hundreds of years doesn't give one the right to invade a sovereign nation.

---

I was thinking about this last night. If every single thing offered by some in this thread about Nazis and Donbass being filled with Russians was true, does that create an imperative that justifies the war? Simple answer: not even close.

Imagine if Mexico decided America was being unjust to Mexicans in Texas, that Texas was really Mexico, the border was just a concept, Mexican people don't want to be subjugated by Texans, etc. etc etc. Per the logic of some in this thread Mexico would be justified and right to invade to take it back.

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

That border "was just a concept" in the 19th century, when the US acquired all of the southwest from Mexico.

The basic borders have been set in north America for two centuries now, so the concept of immutable borders is very much anchored in the American perspective.

That however did not apply to countries like Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Sudan, Iraq, Libya or Syria which were recently formally or de facto partitioned through US/NATO military intervention.

In eastern Europe, the borders have constantly shifted in the last several centuries. Cities like Lviv changed hands several times, often violently so with populations being ethnically cleansed. You have national affiliations that do not follow the borders. In France and Spain for example, a native of Bayonne will more readily identify with one from Bilbao than from Paris or Marseille, the Basque national identity prevailing, and predating the formation of France or Spain as nations.



This is a concept that is very common in the old world, particularly in Africa, but also in Europe, and the Donbass and Crimea are prime examples. A lot of these issues were addressed in the post-war "Wilsonian" redrawing of the central and eastern European maps, but many issues were still left unresolved.

---

Do you realize that you are saying means malleable borders all future wars in that region are justified? Lines on a map aren't to be restricted so hostility toward others in the pursuit of land grabs is okay. Your recitation of history may be right but the conclusion you wish to draw form it is pure hogwash. Civilized nations seek to resolve disputes peacefully; use of force should be a last resort. Truly, this just isn't that hard. Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine.

---

Cal88 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

That border "was just a concept" in the 19th century, when the US acquired all of the southwest from Mexico.

The basic borders have been set in north America for two centuries now, so the concept of immutable borders is very much anchored in the American perspective.

That however did not apply to countries like Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Sudan, Iraq, Libya or Syria which were recently formally or de facto partitioned through US/NATO military intervention.

In eastern Europe, the borders have constantly shifted in the last several centuries. Cities like Lviv changed hands several times, often violently so with populations being ethnically cleansed. You have national affiliations that do not follow the borders. In France and Spain for example, a native of Bayonne will more readily identify with one from Bilbao than from Paris or Marseille, the Basque national identity prevailing, and predating the formation of France or Spain as nations.



This is a concept that is very common in the old world, particularly in Africa, but also in Europe, and the Donbass and Crimea are prime examples. A lot of these issues were addressed in the post-war "Wilsonian" redrawing of the central and eastern European maps, but many issues were still left unresolved.

---

Do you realize that you are saying means malleable borders all future wars in that region are justified? Lines on a map aren't to be restricted so hostility toward others in the pursuit of land grabs is okay. Your recitation of history may be right but the conclusion you wish to draw form it is pure hogwash. Civilized nations seek to resolve disputes peacefully; use of force should be a last resort. Truly, this just isn't that hard. Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine.

---

NATO contributed a great deal to creating the conditions which made this war inevitable, by design, with the goal of creating another Afghanistan-like situation for Russia in its western underbelly, in order to weaken Russia, using Ukraine.

Of course the narrative that will be sold to the public is framed in a simplistic good vs bad, big vs small, crazy dictator that can't help but invade his neighbors.

That much is clear if you care to do a bit of research on the subject, you will see that this plan is clearly outlined in works like Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard, or in a recent Rand whitepaper on EE policy, or jf you just listen to a 5min presentations from foremost policy analysts like Mearsheimer, Sachs or Chomsky.

"We must condemn those who wage war, but even more so, those that make it inevitable"
Montesquieu

---

Cal88 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

That border "was just a concept" in the 19th century, when the US acquired all of the southwest from Mexico.

The basic borders have been set in north America for two centuries now, so the concept of immutable borders is very much anchored in the American perspective.

That however did not apply to countries like Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Sudan, Iraq, Libya or Syria which were recently formally or de facto partitioned through US/NATO military intervention.

In eastern Europe, the borders have constantly shifted in the last several centuries. Cities like Lviv changed hands several times, often violently so with populations being ethnically cleansed. You have national affiliations that do not follow the borders. In France and Spain for example, a native of Bayonne will more readily identify with one from Bilbao than from Paris or Marseille, the Basque national identity prevailing, and predating the formation of France or Spain as nations.



This is a concept that is very common in the old world, particularly in Africa, but also in Europe, and the Donbass and Crimea are prime examples. A lot of these issues were addressed in the post-war "Wilsonian" redrawing of the central and eastern European maps, but many issues were still left unresolved.

---

Do you realize that you are saying means malleable borders all future wars in that region are justified? Lines on a map aren't to be restricted so hostility toward others in the pursuit of land grabs is okay. Your recitation of history may be right but the conclusion you wish to draw form it is pure hogwash. Civilized nations seek to resolve disputes peacefully; use of force should be a last resort. Truly, this just isn't that hard. Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine.

---

NATO contributed a great deal to creating the conditions which made this war inevitable, by design, with the goal of creating another Afghanistan-like situation for Russia in its western underbelly, in order to weaken Russia, using Ukraine.

Of course the narrative that will be sold to the public is framed in a simplistic good vs bad, big vs small, crazy dictator that can't help but invade his neighbors.

That much is clear if you care to do a bit of research on the subject, you will see that this plan is clearly outlined in works like Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard, or in a recent Rand whitepaper on EE policy, or jf you just listen to a 5min presentations from foremost policy analysts like Mearsheimer, Sachs or Chomsky.

"We must condemn those who wage war, but even more so, those that make it inevitable"
Montesquieu

---

dimitrig said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

That border "was just a concept" in the 19th century, when the US acquired all of the southwest from Mexico.

The basic borders have been set in north America for two centuries now, so the concept of immutable borders is very much anchored in the American perspective.

That however did not apply to countries like Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Sudan, Iraq, Libya or Syria which were recently formally or de facto partitioned through US/NATO military intervention.

In eastern Europe, the borders have constantly shifted in the last several centuries. Cities like Lviv changed hands several times, often violently so with populations being ethnically cleansed. You have national affiliations that do not follow the borders. In France and Spain for example, a native of Bayonne will more readily identify with one from Bilbao than from Paris or Marseille, the Basque national identity prevailing, and predating the formation of France or Spain as nations.



This is a concept that is very common in the old world, particularly in Africa, but also in Europe, and the Donbass and Crimea are prime examples. A lot of these issues were addressed in the post-war "Wilsonian" redrawing of the central and eastern European maps, but many issues were still left unresolved.

---

Do you realize that you are saying means malleable borders all future wars in that region are justified? Lines on a map aren't to be restricted so hostility toward others in the pursuit of land grabs is okay. Your recitation of history may be right but the conclusion you wish to draw form it is pure hogwash. Civilized nations seek to resolve disputes peacefully; use of force should be a last resort. Truly, this just isn't that hard. Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine.

---

NATO contributed a great deal to creating the conditions which made this war inevitable, by design, with the goal of creating another Afghanistan-like situation for Russia in its western underbelly, in order to weaken Russia, using Ukraine.

Of course the narrative that will be sold to the public is framed in a simplistic good vs bad, big vs small, crazy dictator that can't help but invade his neighbors.

That much is clear if you care to do a bit of research on the subject, you will see that this plan is clearly outlined in works like Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard, or in a recent Rand whitepaper on EE policy, or jf you just listen to a 5min presentations from foremost policy analysts like Mearsheimer, Sachs or Chomsky.

"We must condemn those who wage war, but even more so, those that make it inevitable"
Montesquieu

---

So Putin was manipulated into doing exactly what NATO wanted him to do, despite it not being in the best interests of Russia?

Why did he play along with it?

---

dimitrig said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

That border "was just a concept" in the 19th century, when the US acquired all of the southwest from Mexico.

The basic borders have been set in north America for two centuries now, so the concept of immutable borders is very much anchored in the American perspective.

That however did not apply to countries like Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Sudan, Iraq, Libya or Syria which were recently formally or de facto partitioned through US/NATO military intervention.

In eastern Europe, the borders have constantly shifted in the last several centuries. Cities like Lviv changed hands several times, often violently so with populations being ethnically cleansed. You have national affiliations that do not follow the borders. In France and Spain for example, a native of Bayonne will more readily identify with one from Bilbao than from Paris or Marseille, the Basque national identity prevailing, and predating the formation of France or Spain as nations.



This is a concept that is very common in the old world, particularly in Africa, but also in Europe, and the Donbass and Crimea are prime examples. A lot of these issues were addressed in the post-war "Wilsonian" redrawing of the central and eastern European maps, but many issues were still left unresolved.

---

Do you realize that you are saying means malleable borders all future wars in that region are justified? Lines on a map aren't to be restricted so hostility toward others in the pursuit of land grabs is okay. Your recitation of history may be right but the conclusion you wish to draw form it is pure hogwash. Civilized nations seek to resolve disputes peacefully; use of force should be a last resort. Truly, this just isn't that hard. Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine.

---

NATO contributed a great deal to creating the conditions which made this war inevitable, by design, with the goal of creating another Afghanistan-like situation for Russia in its western underbelly, in order to weaken Russia, using Ukraine.

Of course the narrative that will be sold to the public is framed in a simplistic good vs bad, big vs small, crazy dictator that can't help but invade his neighbors.

That much is clear if you care to do a bit of research on the subject, you will see that this plan is clearly outlined in works like Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard, or in a recent Rand whitepaper on EE policy, or jf you just listen to a 5min presentations from foremost policy analysts like Mearsheimer, Sachs or Chomsky.

"We must condemn those who wage war, but even more so, those that make it inevitable"
Montesquieu

---

So Putin was manipulated into doing exactly what NATO wanted him to do, despite it not being in the best interests of Russia?

Why did he play along with it?

---

Cal88 said:

---

That much is clear if you care to do a bit of research on the subject, you will see that this plan is clearly outlined in works like Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard, or in a recent Rand whitepaper on EE policy, or jf you just listen to a 5min presentations from foremost policy analysts like Mearsheimer, Sachs or Chomsky.

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

That border "was just a concept" in the 19th century, when the US acquired all of the southwest from Mexico.

The basic borders have been set in north America for two centuries now, so the concept of immutable borders is very much anchored in the American perspective.

That however did not apply to countries like Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Sudan, Iraq, Libya or Syria which were recently formally or de facto partitioned through US/NATO military intervention.

In eastern Europe, the borders have constantly shifted in the last several centuries. Cities like Lviv changed hands several times, often violently so with populations being ethnically cleansed. You have national affiliations that do not follow the borders. In France and Spain for example, a native of Bayonne will more readily identify with one from Bilbao than from Paris or Marseille, the Basque national identity prevailing, and predating the formation of France or Spain as nations.



This is a concept that is very common in the old world, particularly in Africa, but also in Europe, and the Donbass and Crimea are prime examples. A lot of these issues were addressed in the post-war "Wilsonian" redrawing of the central and eastern European maps, but many issues were still left unresolved.

---

Do you realize that you are saying means malleable borders all future wars in that region are justified? Lines on a map aren't to be restricted so hostility toward others in the pursuit of land grabs is okay. Your recitation of history may be right but the conclusion you wish to draw form it is pure hogwash. Civilized nations seek to resolve disputes peacefully; use of force should be a last resort. Truly, this just isn't that hard. Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine.

---

NATO contributed a great deal to creating the conditions which made this war inevitable, by design, with the goal of creating another Afghanistan-like situation for Russia in its western underbelly, in order to weaken Russia, using Ukraine.

Of course the narrative that will be sold to the public is framed in a simplistic good vs bad, big vs small, crazy dictator that can't help but invade his neighbors.

That much is clear if you care to do a bit of research on the subject, you will see that this plan is clearly outlined in works like Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard, or in a recent Rand whitepaper on EE policy, or jf you just listen to a 5min presentations from foremost policy analysts like Mearsheimer, Sachs or Chomsky.

"We must condemn those who wage war, but even more so, those that make it inevitable"
Montesquieu

---

So Putin was manipulated into doing exactly what NATO wanted him to do, despite it not being in the best interests of Russia?

Why did he play along with it?

---

In spite of Brezinski predicting it in 1988.
And NATO - surely aware of Brezinski's work - opted to implement said policy over the next 23 years, culminating (finally) in Putin succumbing to their wily plan. Makes perfect sense.

---

calbear93 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

That border "was just a concept" in the 19th century, when the US acquired all of the southwest from Mexico.

The basic borders have been set in north America for two centuries now, so the concept of immutable borders is very much anchored in the American perspective.

That however did not apply to countries like Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Sudan, Iraq, Libya or Syria which were recently formally or de facto partitioned through US/NATO military intervention.

In eastern Europe, the borders have constantly shifted in the last several centuries. Cities like Lviv changed hands several times, often violently so with populations being ethnically cleansed. You have national affiliations that do not follow the borders. In France and Spain for example, a native of Bayonne will more readily identify with one from Bilbao than from Paris or Marseille, the Basque national identity prevailing, and predating the formation of France or Spain as nations.



This is a concept that is very common in the old world, particularly in Africa, but also in Europe, and the Donbass and Crimea are prime examples. A lot of these issues were addressed in the post-war "Wilsonian" redrawing of the central and eastern European maps, but many issues were still left unresolved.

---

Do you realize that you are saying means malleable borders all future wars in that region are justified? Lines on a map aren't to be restricted so hostility toward others in the pursuit of land grabs is okay. Your recitation of history may be right but the conclusion you wish to draw form it is pure hogwash. Civilized nations seek to resolve disputes peacefully; use of force should be a last resort. Truly, this just isn't that hard. Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine.

---

NATO contributed a great deal to creating the conditions which made this war inevitable, by design, with the goal of creating another Afghanistan-like situation for Russia in its western underbelly, in order to weaken Russia, using Ukraine.

Of course the narrative that will be sold to the public is framed in a simplistic good vs bad, big vs small, crazy dictator that can't help but invade his neighbors.

That much is clear if you care to do a bit of research on the subject, you will see that this plan is clearly outlined in works like Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard, or in a recent Rand whitepaper on EE policy, or jf you just listen to a 5min presentations from foremost policy analysts like Mearsheimer, Sachs or Chomsky.

"We must condemn those who wage war, but even more so, those that make it inevitable"
Montesquieu

---

So Putin was manipulated into doing exactly what NATO wanted him to do, despite it not being in the best interests of Russia?

Why did he play along with it?

---

In spite of Brezinski predicting it in 1988.
And NATO - surely aware of Brezinski's work - opted to implement said policy over the next 23 years, culminating (finally) in Putin succumbing to their wily plan. Makes perfect sense.

---

1997 actually, well after the dissolution of the USSR, when Russia was at its military, economic and political nadir.

A decade later Dick Cheney also called for the dismemberment/partition of Russia. US foreign policy since then has been in a straight neoconservative pursuit, across all administrations from Dubya on, with somewhat of a small pause under Trump, though his administration with people like Bolton and Pompeo was full on on board with the neocon vision.

What you perceive as "out there" or obtuse is straight up geopolitics and realpolitik, as presented by analysts like Mearsheimer, as opposed to the Star Wars Hollywood narrative with Palputin vs Luke Zelensky.

---

I think we need to separate our foot faults from Putin's separate and overriding desire to rebuild the USSR.

Putin viewed Gorbachev as a failure and has always believed that USSR should have remained as a world power.

We allowed that narrative to flourish when NATO bombed Yugoslavia, namely Serbia that was a close ally of Russia. We exerted our might and ignored borders to bomb another country, most likely against international laws.

That made Russia feel powerless and fear what continued growth of Western might would mean for Russia's future and legacy.

I can recognize the error in NATO's actions in Yugoslavia, even if the ethnic war was horrific, without excusing Russia's actions in Ukraine. NATO did not take over areas of Yugoslavia, target civilians, or take military actions during a time of peace. And it was 25 years ago.

---

dimitrig said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

NATO contributed a great deal to creating the conditions which made this war inevitable, by design, with the goal of creating another Afghanistan-like situation for Russia in its western underbelly, in order to weaken Russia, using Ukraine.

Of course the narrative that will be sold to the public is framed in a simplistic good vs bad, big vs small, crazy dictator that can't help but invade his neighbors.

That much is clear if you care to do a bit of research on the subject, you will see that this plan is clearly outlined in works like Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard, or in a recent Rand whitepaper on EE policy, or jf you just listen to a 5min presentations from foremost policy analysts like Mearsheimer, Sachs or Chomsky.

"We must condemn those who wage war, but even more so, those that make it inevitable"
Montesquieu

---

So Putin was manipulated into doing exactly what NATO wanted him to do, despite it not being in the best interests of Russia?

Why did he play along with it?

---

Quote:

---

Everything in this war is going exactly as Russia's leaders planned it.

But also, they totally got duped into it by NATO.

---

#Russia stated that its Kinzhal destroyed 5 Patriot missile system launchers with one attack
🔗 https://t.co/UNmGKWnvd7#IOC #IOCmedia #Kyiv #RoadToParis2024 #Ukraine #BBCBreaking #Wimbledon pic.twitter.com/frZjPhY1f2

— European Media News 24 (@europeanMedia24) May 18, 2023

Ukraine war latest: Patriot missile system suffers minor damage, US officials tell CNN https://t.co/ZS6aw2Q7k0

— Just Me (@StormyVNV) May 18, 2023

Russia's progress in Ukraine is so slow that state TV reports on the war now feature street plans indicating which side controls *individual buildings* in Bakhmut

I'm pretty sure this wasn't the aim when Putin launched his "special military operation" last year... pic.twitter.com/2YFVWqyNTk

— Francis Scarr (@francis_scarr) May 18, 2023

Prigozhin made another public address to Shoigu and Gerasimov, blaming the Russian army for withdrawing north of Bakhmut and uncovering the flanks.

He begs them not to abandon flanks, complaining that his letters receive no reaction.

The plot thickens? pic.twitter.com/tHjYODx8ct

— Anton Gerashchenko (@Gerashchenko_en) May 18, 2023

Pretty simple explanation #Prigozhin, #Putin’s armies, like #Russia’s influence, is collapsing thanks to #Ukraine’s bravery and the Baltic States standing up to him— as Col. @JESweet2022, US Army, Rtd, and I explain today at @TheHill in Washington DC. https://t.co/9TRg8zJXV5

— Mark Toth (@MCTothSTL) May 18, 2023

2/ The head of the Kalashnikov Center for Tactical Medicine, Artem Katulin, says that more than half of the Russian soldiers who have died in Ukraine lost their lives because of improperly provided medical care, with a third of amputations due to improper tourniquet application.

— ChrisO_wiki (@ChrisO_wiki) May 17, 2023

4/ Training is even more basic for ordinary soldiers. "Twice a year the army has a class where the paramedic shows us how to put a splint on and how to put bandages on. And in the last class I attended, the paramedic did the bandage wrong.

— ChrisO_wiki (@ChrisO_wiki) May 17, 2023

26/ "The more so when you're drugged up, you'll die quicker because the blood pumps faster, so the blood loss will be greater. Yes, there are junkies everywhere. Someone does [take drugs] just because he's scared, but not to be a super-duper berserker." /end

— ChrisO_wiki (@ChrisO_wiki) May 17, 2023

2/ The 'Caution, News' and VChK-OGPU channels both report that a facility originally opened for COVID-19 patients at the Kommunarka Centre of Infectious Diseases in Voronovskoye, just outside Moscow, has been repurposed to treat Wagner fighters.

— ChrisO_wiki (@ChrisO_wiki) May 18, 2023

🇷🇺🇺🇦 Deputy of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, Pyotr Tolstoy :
"It is not a task to take Bakhmut. This task is to take Kyiv and completely demilitarize Ukraine." pic.twitter.com/SfBN6ObDcW

— Sinnaig (@Sinnaig) May 17, 2023

Developers of Kinzhal rockets were arrested, they are suspected of treason, Russian media report.

Two of them, Aleksandr Shiplyuk and Anatoliy Maslov, were arrested in the summer of last year. This April, another developer, Valeriy Zvegintsev, was placed under house arrest.… pic.twitter.com/bc126oTrQW

— Anton Gerashchenko (@Gerashchenko_en) May 17, 2023

Cal88 said:

---

I guess this debate has unfortunately turned very partisan,

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

I guess this debate has unfortunately turned very partisan,

---

It's one of the more remarkably non-partisan topics we've had in Off Topic. Conservatives and liberals alike coming together to tell you why you're wrong.

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

I guess this debate has unfortunately turned very partisan,

---

It's one of the more remarkably non-partisan topics we've had in Off Topic. Conservatives and liberals alike coming together to tell you why you're wrong.

---

Liz Cheney conservatives and Clinton liberals.

The other point, more importantly, is that the majority of people have a very distorted picture of what is actually going on in Ukraine now, and for the last decade. If people knew, we would be on the same page.

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

I guess this debate has unfortunately turned very partisan,

---

It's one of the more remarkably non-partisan topics we've had in Off Topic. Conservatives and liberals alike coming together to tell you why you're wrong.

---