The Official Russian Invasion of Ukraine Thread

940,886 Views | 10275 Replies | Last: 7 hrs ago by movielover
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 10:06a, 7/19/23
oski003 said:
Cal88 said:
blungld said:
Cal88 said:
T

Russia invaded for these reasons:

-Ukraine had been violently suppressing Russians in the Donbass, killing 11,000 civilians between 2014-21 ("Our children will go to school, their children will grow up hiding in their basements" Poreshenko 2015)

-Ukraine mobilized an army of 60,000 and was about to overrun the Donbass rebels, with the next objective being the takeover of Crimea.

-Ukraine's post-Maidan ethno-nationalist regime is ideologically hostile to Russia, had been rearming, becoming the strongest army in Europe and a de facto hostile NATO arm, and was acquiring nuclear weapons.

It is NATO here that has had the maniacal plan of eastwards expansion, an outgrowth of the neocon Wolfowitz doctrine of US global hegemony.


Regardless, the point here is that despite NATO injecting its substantial military and financial weight into this war, Russia is winning, Ukraine is getting wrecked after being led down the primrose path by NATO, just as Mearsheimer had predicted in 2015.

This policy has been a disaster for Ukraine.

What's your solution, more weapons? Escalation? Who has escalatory dominance in Ukraine?

Another quarter million Ukrainians killed, most of them against their will, and more territory lost? Or maybe if you could light up another dozen votive Zelensky candles and prayed to your blue and yellow bedroom shrine you could reverse that outcome??


If Ukraine had the largest army in Europe, why did Russia think it could walk into Kyiv at the beginning of the war? Why did they talk like it would be over in weeks?

Jeffrey Sacks answers your question in the 28th min, your answer here in 4min from 26' to 30' (bookmarked below in this new interview):




Reply Quote
1
2 edits
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:20a, 7/19/23
Reply Quote
1 edit
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dimitrig • 10:23a, 7/19/23
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
oski003 said:


What if NATO gives air support? I think they will if Russia gets near Kyiv.

There are only about a dozen air bases in the eastern half of Poland and northern half of Romania, they would be disabled in the first 48hrs of a stepped-up air war through hypersonic missiles.

Any tanker or AWACS flying within 400km of an S-400 installation would be in danger of being shot down.

Russia has about 9,000 anti-air missiles, if NATO were to attempt a comprehensive A2/AD suppression campaign (SEAD), they would have to take a loss of several hundred jets before they could make a dent into Russian air defenses.

NATO's wildcard could be its long-range stealth bombers that could fly out from western Europe, but the USAF has fewer than 20, and them being big and slow, and not particularly maneuverable might not last very long.

If the air war were a viable option for NATO, we would have had F-16s in year 1. I believe there is a handful of Ukrainian pilots who have already trained on the F-15 before the war, they would have been used by now. Part of this reluctance is that the US MIC doesn't want to see its jets being shot down, bad for business and for US/NATO prestige and soft power, The venerable old but still quite solid F-15's main claim to fame is that it has never been shot down in nearly 50 years of operation, that would quickly end in a direct confrontation with Russian Su-35s or Mig-31s, whose R-37 missiles outrange all NATO jets today.




Bob's NATO gig has been a good one to date, but the waters ahead are choppy...

Reply Quote
1
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 11:02a, 7/19/23
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
oski003 said:


What if NATO gives air support? I think they will if Russia gets near Kyiv.

There are only about a dozen air bases in the eastern half of Poland and northern half of Romania, they would be disabled in the first 48hrs of a stepped-up air war through hypersonic missiles.

Any tanker or AWACS flying within 400km of an S-400 installation would be in danger of being shot down.

Russia has about 9,000 anti-air missiles, if NATO were to attempt a comprehensive A2/AD suppression campaign (SEAD), they would have to take a loss of several hundred jets before they could make a dent into Russian air defenses.

NATO's wildcard could be its long-range stealth bombers that could fly out from western Europe, but the USAF has fewer than 20, and them being big and slow, and not particularly maneuverable might not last very long.

If the air war were a viable option for NATO, we would have had F-16s in year 1. I believe there is a handful of Ukrainian pilots who have already trained on the F-15 before the war, they would have been used by now. Part of this reluctance is that the US MIC doesn't want to see its jets being shot down, bad for business and for US/NATO prestige and soft power, The venerable old but still quite solid F-15's main claim to fame is that it has never been shot down in nearly 50 years of operation, that would quickly end in a direct confrontation with Russian Su-35s or Mig-31s, whose R-37 missiles outrange all NATO jets today.




Bob's NATO gig has been a good one to date, but the waters ahead are choppy...



NATO Nate?
Reply Quote
2
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bearister • 11:10a, 7/19/23
bearister said:

The main difference is that Ukraine is an existential issue for Russia, Vietnam wasn't existential for the US, the domino theory was bunk. Even Vietnam has been ditching communism, reverting back to its mercantile cultural roots, after being left alone a couple of decades. The Viet Congs harnessed Vietnamese nationalism, just as the Taliban did in Afghanistan.

The ratio so far in the war has been between 4.5 and 7 to 1 in favor of Russia, unsustainable for Ukraine, whose population has gone from 46M in 2010 to around 17M today (for Ukraine minus Russia-held territories), and contrary to the case of Vietnam or Afghanistan, that population is very old. This is the pop. pyramid for Afghanistan:


Ukraine:


I was talking last year with someone with a UN background who had access to inside intel, he told me that the US and its proxy army were killing an average of 75,000 Afghans every year, but that wasn't enough of a dent into their population, so the occupation was unsustainable.

Note that the above pyramid for Ukraine doesn't even exclude Ukrainian refugees and emigrants, the real picture for military-aged men is even worse. As well it doesn't account for internal political dynamics, the pro-Russian minority, and the large segment of neutrals who want a settlement and never wanted this war with Russia.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
dimitrig
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 11:33a, 7/19/23
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
oski003 said:


What if NATO gives air support? I think they will if Russia gets near Kyiv.

There are only about a dozen air bases in the eastern half of Poland and northern half of Romania, they would be disabled in the first 48hrs of a stepped-up air war through hypersonic missiles.

Any tanker or AWACS flying within 400km of an S-400 installation would be in danger of being shot down.

Russia has about 9,000 anti-air missiles, if NATO were to attempt a comprehensive A2/AD suppression campaign (SEAD), they would have to take a loss of several hundred jets before they could make a dent into Russian air defenses.

NATO's wildcard could be its long-range stealth bombers that could fly out from western Europe, but the USAF has fewer than 20, and them being big and slow, and not particularly maneuverable might not last very long.

If the air war were a viable option for NATO, we would have had F-16s in year 1. I believe there is a handful of Ukrainian pilots who have already trained on the F-15 before the war, they would have been used by now. Part of this reluctance is that the US MIC doesn't want to see its jets being shot down, bad for business and for US/NATO prestige and soft power, The venerable old but still quite solid F-15's main claim to fame is that it has never been shot down in nearly 50 years of operation, that would quickly end in a direct confrontation with Russian Su-35s or Mig-31s, whose R-37 missiles outrange all NATO jets today.




Bob's NATO gig has been a good one to date, but the waters ahead are choppy...



This article is headlined:

"Ukraine and the West are facing a devastating defeat"

However, if you read it that isn't what is says at all. What it says is that if the Ukrainian counteroffensive fails then the likely outcome is a negotiated settlement where Russia keeps the territory it has already acquired.

I wouldn't call that outcome "a devastating defeat." In fact, I would call that somewhat embarrassing for Russia.


Reply Quote
4
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dimitrig • 11:40a, 7/19/23
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
oski003 said:


What if NATO gives air support? I think they will if Russia gets near Kyiv.

There are only about a dozen air bases in the eastern half of Poland and northern half of Romania, they would be disabled in the first 48hrs of a stepped-up air war through hypersonic missiles.

Any tanker or AWACS flying within 400km of an S-400 installation would be in danger of being shot down.

Russia has about 9,000 anti-air missiles, if NATO were to attempt a comprehensive A2/AD suppression campaign (SEAD), they would have to take a loss of several hundred jets before they could make a dent into Russian air defenses.

NATO's wildcard could be its long-range stealth bombers that could fly out from western Europe, but the USAF has fewer than 20, and them being big and slow, and not particularly maneuverable might not last very long.

If the air war were a viable option for NATO, we would have had F-16s in year 1. I believe there is a handful of Ukrainian pilots who have already trained on the F-15 before the war, they would have been used by now. Part of this reluctance is that the US MIC doesn't want to see its jets being shot down, bad for business and for US/NATO prestige and soft power, The venerable old but still quite solid F-15's main claim to fame is that it has never been shot down in nearly 50 years of operation, that would quickly end in a direct confrontation with Russian Su-35s or Mig-31s, whose R-37 missiles outrange all NATO jets today.




Bob's NATO gig has been a good one to date, but the waters ahead are choppy...



This article is headlined:

"Ukraine and the West are facing a devastating defeat"

However, if you read it that isn't what is says at all. What it says is that if the Ukrainian counteroffensive fails then the likely outcome is a negotiated settlement where Russia keeps the territory it has already acquired.

I wouldn't call that outcome "a devastating defeat." In fact, I would call that somewhat embarrassing for Russia.




Why would that outcome be embarrassing to Russia? It isn't all or nothing. It sounds like a compromise, given the terrible circumstances.
Reply Quote
2
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 11:42a, 7/19/23
oski003 said:
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
oski003 said:


What if NATO gives air support? I think they will if Russia gets near Kyiv.

There are only about a dozen air bases in the eastern half of Poland and northern half of Romania, they would be disabled in the first 48hrs of a stepped-up air war through hypersonic missiles.

Any tanker or AWACS flying within 400km of an S-400 installation would be in danger of being shot down.

Russia has about 9,000 anti-air missiles, if NATO were to attempt a comprehensive A2/AD suppression campaign (SEAD), they would have to take a loss of several hundred jets before they could make a dent into Russian air defenses.

NATO's wildcard could be its long-range stealth bombers that could fly out from western Europe, but the USAF has fewer than 20, and them being big and slow, and not particularly maneuverable might not last very long.

If the air war were a viable option for NATO, we would have had F-16s in year 1. I believe there is a handful of Ukrainian pilots who have already trained on the F-15 before the war, they would have been used by now. Part of this reluctance is that the US MIC doesn't want to see its jets being shot down, bad for business and for US/NATO prestige and soft power, The venerable old but still quite solid F-15's main claim to fame is that it has never been shot down in nearly 50 years of operation, that would quickly end in a direct confrontation with Russian Su-35s or Mig-31s, whose R-37 missiles outrange all NATO jets today.




Bob's NATO gig has been a good one to date, but the waters ahead are choppy...



This article is headlined:

"Ukraine and the West are facing a devastating defeat"

However, if you read it that isn't what is says at all. What it says is that if the Ukrainian counteroffensive fails then the likely outcome is a negotiated settlement where Russia keeps the territory it has already acquired.

I wouldn't call that outcome "a devastating defeat." In fact, I would call that somewhat embarrassing for Russia.




Why would that outcome be embarrassing to Russia? It isn't all or nothing. It sounds like a compromise, given the terrible circumstances.

Because they started this war attacking Kiev and clearly thought they were getting the whole thing.
Reply Quote
4
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 11:59a, 7/19/23
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
oski003 said:


What if NATO gives air support? I think they will if Russia gets near Kyiv.

There are only about a dozen air bases in the eastern half of Poland and northern half of Romania, they would be disabled in the first 48hrs of a stepped-up air war through hypersonic missiles.

Any tanker or AWACS flying within 400km of an S-400 installation would be in danger of being shot down.

Russia has about 9,000 anti-air missiles, if NATO were to attempt a comprehensive A2/AD suppression campaign (SEAD), they would have to take a loss of several hundred jets before they could make a dent into Russian air defenses.

NATO's wildcard could be its long-range stealth bombers that could fly out from western Europe, but the USAF has fewer than 20, and them being big and slow, and not particularly maneuverable might not last very long.

If the air war were a viable option for NATO, we would have had F-16s in year 1. I believe there is a handful of Ukrainian pilots who have already trained on the F-15 before the war, they would have been used by now. Part of this reluctance is that the US MIC doesn't want to see its jets being shot down, bad for business and for US/NATO prestige and soft power, The venerable old but still quite solid F-15's main claim to fame is that it has never been shot down in nearly 50 years of operation, that would quickly end in a direct confrontation with Russian Su-35s or Mig-31s, whose R-37 missiles outrange all NATO jets today.




Bob's NATO gig has been a good one to date, but the waters ahead are choppy...



This article is headlined:

"Ukraine and the West are facing a devastating defeat"

However, if you read it that isn't what is says at all. What it says is that if the Ukrainian counteroffensive fails then the likely outcome is a negotiated settlement where Russia keeps the territory it has already acquired.

I wouldn't call that outcome "a devastating defeat." In fact, I would call that somewhat embarrassing for Russia.




Why would that outcome be embarrassing to Russia? It isn't all or nothing. It sounds like a compromise, given the terrible circumstances.

Because they started this war attacking Kiev and clearly thought they were getting the whole thing.


Ukraine and NATO have acted like they were going to take back the Donbass and Crimea, so I guess any compromise would be an embarrassing defeat for both parties. With this warhawk mindset, how do you ever achieve peace?
Reply Quote
2
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 12:05p, 7/19/23
sycasey said:
oski003 said:




Why would that outcome be embarrassing to Russia? It isn't all or nothing. It sounds like a compromise, given the terrible circumstances.

Because they started this war attacking Kiev and clearly thought they were getting the whole thing.

They've attacked Kiev with the goal of forcing a Minsk plus-type of political settlement with Zelensky's government, it also worked before NATO intervened (see Sachs's interview excerpt above). They never planned on conquering a city of 3.5M with 20,000 soldiers.

The Russians don't want to annex western Ukraine, which is largely hostile to them, they would only annex the russophone south and east, along these lines:



Reply Quote
1
1 edit
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dimitrig • 12:24p, 7/19/23
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
oski003 said:


What if NATO gives air support? I think they will if Russia gets near Kyiv.

There are only about a dozen air bases in the eastern half of Poland and northern half of Romania, they would be disabled in the first 48hrs of a stepped-up air war through hypersonic missiles.

Any tanker or AWACS flying within 400km of an S-400 installation would be in danger of being shot down.

Russia has about 9,000 anti-air missiles, if NATO were to attempt a comprehensive A2/AD suppression campaign (SEAD), they would have to take a loss of several hundred jets before they could make a dent into Russian air defenses.

NATO's wildcard could be its long-range stealth bombers that could fly out from western Europe, but the USAF has fewer than 20, and them being big and slow, and not particularly maneuverable might not last very long.

If the air war were a viable option for NATO, we would have had F-16s in year 1. I believe there is a handful of Ukrainian pilots who have already trained on the F-15 before the war, they would have been used by now. Part of this reluctance is that the US MIC doesn't want to see its jets being shot down, bad for business and for US/NATO prestige and soft power, The venerable old but still quite solid F-15's main claim to fame is that it has never been shot down in nearly 50 years of operation, that would quickly end in a direct confrontation with Russian Su-35s or Mig-31s, whose R-37 missiles outrange all NATO jets today.




Bob's NATO gig has been a good one to date, but the waters ahead are choppy...



This article is headlined:

"Ukraine and the West are facing a devastating defeat"

However, if you read it that isn't what is says at all. What it says is that if the Ukrainian counteroffensive fails then the likely outcome is a negotiated settlement where Russia keeps the territory it has already acquired.

I wouldn't call that outcome "a devastating defeat." In fact, I would call that somewhat embarrassing for Russia.



The counteroffensive failed.
Reply Quote
1
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 12:27p, 7/19/23
Agreed. Russia could easily have:

1. 20% of Ukraine, the most valuable 20%.
2. Crimea cemented.
3. NATO crushed.
4. Neutral Ukraine.
5. Russia's military vastly stronger.

Cal88: the clip from above dovetails with Colonel McGregor assessment.

And proof that Russia didn't want to conquer all of their former territories - how could they do that with their previously modest military?
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 12:40p, 7/19/23
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
oski003 said:


What if NATO gives air support? I think they will if Russia gets near Kyiv.

There are only about a dozen air bases in the eastern half of Poland and northern half of Romania, they would be disabled in the first 48hrs of a stepped-up air war through hypersonic missiles.

Any tanker or AWACS flying within 400km of an S-400 installation would be in danger of being shot down.

Russia has about 9,000 anti-air missiles, if NATO were to attempt a comprehensive A2/AD suppression campaign (SEAD), they would have to take a loss of several hundred jets before they could make a dent into Russian air defenses.

NATO's wildcard could be its long-range stealth bombers that could fly out from western Europe, but the USAF has fewer than 20, and them being big and slow, and not particularly maneuverable might not last very long.

If the air war were a viable option for NATO, we would have had F-16s in year 1. I believe there is a handful of Ukrainian pilots who have already trained on the F-15 before the war, they would have been used by now. Part of this reluctance is that the US MIC doesn't want to see its jets being shot down, bad for business and for US/NATO prestige and soft power, The venerable old but still quite solid F-15's main claim to fame is that it has never been shot down in nearly 50 years of operation, that would quickly end in a direct confrontation with Russian Su-35s or Mig-31s, whose R-37 missiles outrange all NATO jets today.




Bob's NATO gig has been a good one to date, but the waters ahead are choppy...



This article is headlined:

"Ukraine and the West are facing a devastating defeat"

However, if you read it that isn't what is says at all. What it says is that if the Ukrainian counteroffensive fails then the likely outcome is a negotiated settlement where Russia keeps the territory it has already acquired.

I wouldn't call that outcome "a devastating defeat." In fact, I would call that somewhat embarrassing for Russia.




Why would that outcome be embarrassing to Russia? It isn't all or nothing. It sounds like a compromise, given the terrible circumstances.

Because they started this war attacking Kiev and clearly thought they were getting the whole thing.


Ukraine and NATO have acted like they were going to take back the Donbass and Crimea, so I guess any compromise would be an embarrassing defeat for both parties. With this warhawk mindset, how do you ever achieve peace?
Russia starts a war which I oppose and I'm the warhawk. Hilarious.
Reply Quote
9
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 12:59p, 7/19/23
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
oski003 said:


What if NATO gives air support? I think they will if Russia gets near Kyiv.

There are only about a dozen air bases in the eastern half of Poland and northern half of Romania, they would be disabled in the first 48hrs of a stepped-up air war through hypersonic missiles.

Any tanker or AWACS flying within 400km of an S-400 installation would be in danger of being shot down.

Russia has about 9,000 anti-air missiles, if NATO were to attempt a comprehensive A2/AD suppression campaign (SEAD), they would have to take a loss of several hundred jets before they could make a dent into Russian air defenses.

NATO's wildcard could be its long-range stealth bombers that could fly out from western Europe, but the USAF has fewer than 20, and them being big and slow, and not particularly maneuverable might not last very long.

If the air war were a viable option for NATO, we would have had F-16s in year 1. I believe there is a handful of Ukrainian pilots who have already trained on the F-15 before the war, they would have been used by now. Part of this reluctance is that the US MIC doesn't want to see its jets being shot down, bad for business and for US/NATO prestige and soft power, The venerable old but still quite solid F-15's main claim to fame is that it has never been shot down in nearly 50 years of operation, that would quickly end in a direct confrontation with Russian Su-35s or Mig-31s, whose R-37 missiles outrange all NATO jets today.




Bob's NATO gig has been a good one to date, but the waters ahead are choppy...



This article is headlined:

"Ukraine and the West are facing a devastating defeat"

However, if you read it that isn't what is says at all. What it says is that if the Ukrainian counteroffensive fails then the likely outcome is a negotiated settlement where Russia keeps the territory it has already acquired.

I wouldn't call that outcome "a devastating defeat." In fact, I would call that somewhat embarrassing for Russia.




Why would that outcome be embarrassing to Russia? It isn't all or nothing. It sounds like a compromise, given the terrible circumstances.

Because they started this war attacking Kiev and clearly thought they were getting the whole thing.


Ukraine and NATO have acted like they were going to take back the Donbass and Crimea, so I guess any compromise would be an embarrassing defeat for both parties. With this warhawk mindset, how do you ever achieve peace?
Russia starts a war which I oppose and I'm the warhawk. Hilarious.


We both oppose the war, and we both are apparently talking past each other.
Reply Quote
2
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 1:11p, 7/19/23
sycasey said:
oski003 said:




Ukraine and NATO have acted like they were going to take back the Donbass and Crimea, so I guess any compromise would be an embarrassing defeat for both parties. With this warhawk mindset, how do you ever achieve peace?
Russia starts a war which I oppose and I'm the warhawk. Hilarious.

US administrations knew what they were doing, and deliberately crossed Russia's red lines. This is well-documented, Sachs above referred in particular to the "Nyet means nyet" memo sent by Burns:




Quote:
Burns cautioned that the issue of NATO membership for Ukraine "could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene."
Reply Quote
4
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:40p, 7/19/23
Business Insider discusses Russia's various missiles and drones which will 'never run out'.

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-searching-for-missiles-to-attack-ukraine-wont-run-out-2023-7
Reply Quote
4
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 1:47p, 7/19/23
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:




Ukraine and NATO have acted like they were going to take back the Donbass and Crimea, so I guess any compromise would be an embarrassing defeat for both parties. With this warhawk mindset, how do you ever achieve peace?
Russia starts a war which I oppose and I'm the warhawk. Hilarious.

US administrations knew what they were doing, and deliberately crossed Russia's red lines. This is well-documented, Sachs above referred in particular to the "Nyet means nyet" memo sent by Burns:
Ukraine was not admitted to NATO or even particularly close to joining NATO when Russia invaded. We have been over this, and your argument here is not convincing.

Here's what I will say for your position: I have said some time back that we need to wait and see what happens after Ukraine's offensive push in the spring/summer. It could be that it demonstrates the lines are not moving any time soon, and then it may be time to negotiate a compromise. Maybe that will happen. No, it's not over yet, and you guys shouldn't spike the ball on the 30 yard line.
Reply Quote
6
blungld
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 4:21p, 7/19/23
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:




Ukraine and NATO have acted like they were going to take back the Donbass and Crimea, so I guess any compromise would be an embarrassing defeat for both parties. With this warhawk mindset, how do you ever achieve peace?
Russia starts a war which I oppose and I'm the warhawk. Hilarious.

US administrations knew what they were doing, and deliberately crossed Russia's red lines. This is well-documented, Sachs above referred in particular to the "Nyet means nyet" memo sent by Burns:
Ukraine was not admitted to NATO or even particularly close to joining NATO when Russia invaded. We have been over this, and your argument here is not convincing.

Here's what I will say for your position: I have said some time back that we need to wait and see what happens after Ukraine's offensive push in the spring/summer. It could be that it demonstrates the lines are not moving any time soon, and then it may be time to negotiate a compromise. Maybe that will happen. No, it's not over yet, and you guys shouldn't spike the ball on the 30 yard line.


You don't get it. Russia was super super scared of big bad terrible Ukraine who might join up with NATO and attack Russia. They really really didn't want a war with Ukraine and NATO and so they started a war with Ukraine that will help them join NATO. Get it? It has NOTHING to do with Putin's imperialism, ego, and authoritarianism. Russia is an innocent little lamb that had to proactively assault the neighboring evil wolf.
Reply Quote
7
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 4:21p, 7/19/23
I don't think anyone is spiking a ball. Even BHO knew Ukraine was an existential threat to Russia if NATO pushed Eastward. NATO did, we directly aided a coup, and culturally Russian citizens were being murdered in this neophyte state.

Russia desired a neutral state, we, NATO, and the MIC had other plans. European leaders openly confessed to lying about their intentions for peace (Minsk).

Cal88, myself, and others post facts on the ground. Cal88 has probably posted more basic facts and military overviews than most MSM outlets. Russia has "escalation dominance".

It's said an attacking force needs 3x the manpower to overcome a set-in-place defense. Which explained Bakhmut. If NATO was really serious and sober about wanting to unseat Russia in eastern Ukraine, the USA would institute a draft, they'd marshall 1 to 2 million men, and attack the Russian positions. But what would they use for shelling - organic noodles, old appliances?

It's not bias or propoganda, it's reality.

P.S. The more the pro-war crowd pushes Ukraine joining NATO talk, the more likely it is that Putin goes all the way to the Polish border. Why not? Annex 20% to Russia, and have 80% be a Russian-enforced neutral zone.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:55p, 7/19/23
I find Cal88's and movielover's assertion that Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia to be completely hilarious. It's not possible in this or any other alternate timeline.
Reply Quote
10
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 5:03p, 7/19/23
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
I find Cal88's and movielover's assertion that Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia to be completely hilarious. It's not possible in this or any other alternate timeline.

No, you have to follow the flowchart: USA > NATO > Ukraine.

Even though Ukraine is not in NATO, they were on double secret probation that was about to be lifted. Trust me.
Reply Quote
4
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 5:13p, 7/19/23
sycasey said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
I find Cal88's and movielover's assertion that Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia to be completely hilarious. It's not possible in this or any other alternate timeline.

No, you have to follow the flowchart: USA > NATO > Ukraine.

Even though Ukraine is not in NATO, they were on double secret probation that was about to be lifted. Trust me.
NATO is certainly a potential existential threat to Russia. If the Ukraine war is an existential threat to Russia, then it's because Russia's invasion brought NATO support into play. Invasions have global consequences. Ukraine by itself is no more an existential threat to Russia than Belarus, Latvia or Estonia.

Maybe the takeaway is to play nice with your neighbors and not assume you have the right to force their obedience. Don't be an existential threat to your neighbors.
Reply Quote
5
2 edits
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 17 • 5:52p, 7/19/23
Nikita Khrushchev said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
I find Cal88's and movielover's assertion that Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia to be completely hilarious. It's not possible in this or any other alternate timeline.
I find President Kennedy's assertion that Cuba is an existential threat to the United States to be completely hilarious. It's not possible in this or any other alternate timeline.
I see Yogi has dropped all his pretenses and is openly declaring his deep and abiding love for Mother Russia.
Reply Quote
7
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 6:33p, 7/19/23
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
Nikita Khrushchev said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
I find Cal88's and movielover's assertion that Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia to be completely hilarious. It's not possible in this or any other alternate timeline.
I find President Kennedy's assertion that Cuba is an existential threat to the United States to be completely hilarious. It's not possible in this or any other alternate timeline.
I see Yogi has dropped all his pretenses and is openly declaring his deep and abiding love for Mother Russia.

Why does anyone think the invocation of the Cuban Missile Crisis is some kind of own? Yeah, our invasion of Cuba was foolish and led to a bunch of stuff we didn't want, same as Russia in Ukraine.

This isn't about thinking my own country is always right. It's noticing when another one is making similar mistakes.
Reply Quote
2
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:41p, 7/19/23
Brookings: The Obama Doctrine and Ukraine

March 18, 2016

"As regards the two-year-old conflict between Ukraine and Russia, the president said Ukraine is a core interest for Moscow, in a way that it is not for the United States. He noted that, since Ukraine does not belong to NATO, it is vulnerable to Russian military domination, and that "we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for." "

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-obama-doctrine-and-ukraine/

San Diego Union

David Ignatius: Ukraine an existential crisis for Obama, too

BY THE WASHINGTON POST
APRIL 16, 2014

"As President Obama looks at the Ukraine crisis, he sees an asymmetry of interests: Simply put, the future of Ukraine means more to Vladimir Putin's Russia than it does to the U.S. or Europe. For Putin, this is an existential crisis; for the West, so far, it isn't as the limited U.S. and European response has demonstrated...."

"Obama had regarded Putin as the ultimate transactional politician, so the White House has been flummoxed by Putin's unbending stance on Ukraine. ..."

"Obama's critics will argue that he has always misread Putin by failing to recognize the bullying side of his nature. Even now, Obama is wary of making Ukraine a test of wills. He appears ready to endorse a Cold War-style "Finlandization" for Ukraine, in which membership of the European Union would be a distant prospect and *** NATO membership would be off the table ***...."

"Obama doesn't want to turn Ukraine into a proxy war with Russia. For this reason, he is resisting proposals to arm the Ukrainians. ..."

"Obama's strategy is to make Putin pay for his adventurism, long term. Unless the Russian leader moves quickly to de-escalate the crisis, the U.S. will push for measures that could make Russia significantly weaker over the next few years. Those moves could include sanctions on Russian energy and arms exports, deployment of U.S. NATO troops in the Baltic States, and aggressive efforts to reduce European dependence on Russian gas...."

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sdut-ignatius-ukraine-crisis-obama-putin-2014apr16-story.html

Reply Quote
3
2 edits
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 6:45p, 7/19/23
Except Russia is winning. Bigly.
Reply Quote
4
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 8:13p, 7/19/23
sycasey said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
Nikita Khrushchev said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
I find Cal88's and movielover's assertion that Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia to be completely hilarious. It's not possible in this or any other alternate timeline.
I find President Kennedy's assertion that Cuba is an existential threat to the United States to be completely hilarious. It's not possible in this or any other alternate timeline.
I see Yogi has dropped all his pretenses and is openly declaring his deep and abiding love for Mother Russia.

Why does anyone think the invocation of the Cuban Missile Crisis is some kind of own? Yeah, our invasion of Cuba was foolish and led to a bunch of stuff we didn't want, same as Russia in Ukraine.

This isn't about thinking my own country is always right. It's noticing when another one is making similar mistakes.
Russia had nuclear missiles in Cuba. I haven't seen anyone claim that NATO or any country has put nuclear missiles in Ukraine. That's a rather substantial difference.

As for the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Kennedy administration realized within a couple of days that it was a failure and backed away from it. Russia just quadrupled down on an iffy bet.
Reply Quote
4
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:15p, 7/19/23
CNN: Eric Schmidt on the war - shocked at Russia countering Ukraine. 8 minutes.

Russia using 60,000 shells a day.
Ukraine using 5,000 shells a day.

Russia has been producing artillery for 50 years?

He thought drones were going to be a game changer.

Ukraine losing 10,000 drones a month. Their drones use old technologies.

Russia dominants the sky.

Only two ways Ukraine can win:

- massive drone attacks
- massive army (bodies) attacks

Reply Quote
3
1 edit
blungld
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:54a, 7/20/23
The Russian apologists refuse to acknowledge this basic truth: neither Ukraine or NATO would have EVER attacked Russia. NEVER. The only "threat" Ukraine and NATO represent is a roadblock to expansion and external control of the region.

Russia feeling threatened by Ukraine as justification for invasion is invented and only makes sense through the geopolitical lens of Russia believing that everything in the region is already theirs. It's analogous to conservatives in this country who see granting equivalent rights to others as losing something themselves rather than making it equal for everyone. Russia didn't believe that Ukraine was autonomous nation that was free to prosper on its own emergent democratic terms. And this is largely because Russia it seems is not able to thrive itself through entirely domestic means and seeks to control and exploit its neighbors for resources and ideological/political coercion.

It's no wonder that the farthest right members of BI have no issue with Russia's expansionism or their own need to control others here domestically.
Reply Quote
9
1 edit
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to blungld • 6:43a, 7/20/23
blungld said:
The Russian apologists refuse to acknowledge this basic truth: neither Ukraine or NATO would have EVER attacked Russia. NEVER. The only "threat" Ukraine and NATO represent is a roadblock to expansion and external control of the region.

Russia feeling threatened by Ukraine as justification for invasion is invented and only makes sense through the geopolitical lens of Russia believing that everything in the region is already theirs. It's analogous to conservatives in this country who see granting equivalent rights to others as losing something themselves rather than making it equal for everyone. Russia didn't believe that Ukraine was autonomous nation that was free to prosper on its own emergent democratic terms. And this is largely because Russia it seems is not able to thrive itself through entirely domestic means and seeks to control and exploit its neighbors for resources and ideological/political coercion.

It's no wonder that the farthest right members of BI have no issue in Russia's expansionism and their need to control others.

Russia and Ukraine have, for starts, a territorial dispute over Crimea. Ukraine was set to retake it with NATO's military assistance.

Ukraine isn't prospering, its GDP per capita was 1/3 that of Russia before the war. It was widely recognized as the most corrupt nation in Europe, and the poorest. It has been run by oligarchs, whereas in Russia their political power had been curtailed.

Mearsheimer, Chomsky and Sachs aren't exactly "farthest right", the issue here is not right or left, but understanding of the basic geopolitical dynamics and history, vs a more simplistic interpretation - see my post above on Burns' "Nyet means nyet" memo, showing that the recent more aggressive stance by NATO has been a deliberate recent policy that departed from Obama's more moderate and pragmatic approach.
Reply Quote
5
3 edits
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 9:45a, 7/20/23
P.S. When the USSR collapsed, President Bush promised that NATO wouldn't move Eastward. We see how that turned out.

Also, see meddling in Eastern Ukraine and the Wests open desire to "weaken Russia".

CC: Blungld
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 11:26a, 7/20/23
movielover said:
P.S. When the USSR collapsed, President Bush promised that NATO wouldn't move Eastward. We see how that turned out.
President Bush did? Cite your source.
Reply Quote
2
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 11:32a, 7/20/23
sycasey said:
movielover said:
P.S. When the USSR collapsed, President Bush promised that NATO wouldn't move Eastward. We see how that turned out.
President Bush did? Cite your source.

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
Reply Quote
5
blungld
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 11:43a, 7/20/23
Cal88 said:
blungld said:
The Russian apologists refuse to acknowledge this basic truth: neither Ukraine or NATO would have EVER attacked Russia. NEVER. The only "threat" Ukraine and NATO represent is a roadblock to expansion and external control of the region.

Russia feeling threatened by Ukraine as justification for invasion is invented and only makes sense through the geopolitical lens of Russia believing that everything in the region is already theirs. It's analogous to conservatives in this country who see granting equivalent rights to others as losing something themselves rather than making it equal for everyone. Russia didn't believe that Ukraine was autonomous nation that was free to prosper on its own emergent democratic terms. And this is largely because Russia it seems is not able to thrive itself through entirely domestic means and seeks to control and exploit its neighbors for resources and ideological/political coercion.

It's no wonder that the farthest right members of BI have no issue in Russia's expansionism and their need to control others.

Russia and Ukraine have, for starts, a territorial dispute over Crimea. Ukraine was set to retake it with NATO's military assistance.

Ukraine isn't prospering, its GDP per capita was 1/3 that of Russia before the war. It was widely recognized as the most corrupt nation in Europe, and the poorest. It has been run by oligarchs, whereas in Russia their political power had been curtailed.

Mearsheimer, Chomsky and Sachs aren't exactly "farthest right", the issue here is not right or left, but understanding of the basic geopolitical dynamics and history, vs a more simplistic interpretation - see my post above on Burns' "Nyet means nyet" memo, showing that the recent more aggressive stance by NATO has been a deliberate recent policy that departed from Obama's more moderate and pragmatic approach.


I see. When Russia takes Crimea it becomes an up for grabs territorial dispute rather than invaded land.

My point is that Ukraine was autonomous to succeed or fail in their emergent capitalist democratic attempts not that they were a model triumph. But they were succeeding and in the ascendancy. The corruption you point to was almost entirely of Russia's making so rather negligent that you would conveniently forget this.

Ukraine would not have invaded Russia. Ukraine would have continued to gain more prosperity, become more capitalist, and more democratic and THAT and nothing else was the threat to Russia: neighboring country, former Soviet territory, thriving independently of Putin's puppet strings. Assigning blame to Ukraine or ignoring this real root cause for war is mental gymnastics and Russian apology.
Reply Quote
7
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 11:44a, 7/20/23
Thank you, brother.

Never in my life did I think I'd be defending "evil" Russia. Russia bad, I got it. I also hated Ivan Drago.

In school we never really studied WWII. We forget, Russia killed approx 75% of the Germany forces killed, including Stalingrad.

Reply Quote
3
First Page Last Page
Page 175 of 294 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.