Putin's greatest fear is coming true with the Ukraine incursion and he's panicking | The Independent


https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/kursk-ukraine-russia-kyiv-zelensky-win-b2594019.html

*I doubt Putin will go nuclear. He has waged war in the Ukraine like the US waged war in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan (and the Soviets did there) with handcuffs on…..all wars that could have been won quickly with mass killing of civilians and tactical nukes (in Vietnam bombing the dams in the North). This is warfare where the Super Power bleeds out against a grossly inferior enemy because it doesn't want to start World War III, and it is facing an enemy that won't quit.

bearister said:

---

Putin's greatest fear is coming true with the Ukraine incursion and he's panicking | The Independent


https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/kursk-ukraine-russia-kyiv-zelensky-win-b2594019.html

*I doubt Putin will go nuclear. He has waged war in the Ukraine like the US waged war in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan (and the Soviets did there) with handcuffs on…..all wars that could have been won quickly with mass killing of civilians and tactical nukes (in Vietnam bombing the dams in the North). This is warfare where the Super Power bleeds out against a grossly inferior enemy because it doesn't want to start World War III, and it is facing an enemy that won't quit.

---

He's winning nine out of ten battles with 300,000 troops in reserve, and 100,000 in reserve in Belarus.

Putin is actually a centrist who is quite familiar w the West.

The effect of the Ukrainian offensive into Kursk is that Russia is going to ratchet up its war effort intensity from about a 4-5 out of 10 to a 6 or 7.

What does it take to convince Putin that this war is not worth the effort and expense?

sycasey said:

---

What does it take to convince Putin that this war is not worth the effort and expense?

---

Abiding by Minsk I, Minsk II, the Istanbul peace agreement, and working towards a settlement that sees Ukraine as a neutral state?

The ultimate goal of this war, as clearly stated by leading NATO strategists like Brzezinski or the recent Rand Institute whitepaper on Russia ("Overextending and Unbalancing Russia"), or statements from leading European diplomats like Kaja Kalas and from EU/US think tanks, the ultimate goal is to break up Russia and get to its huge pools of resources, the world's largest.

NATO got its hands on that wealth in the 1990s, when in collusion with local oligarchs they've sucked off Russian resources and heavy industry and destroyed the Russian state, putting Yeltsin, a Biden-like decrepit figure at the top of the country and inflicting enormous misery on its people, levels of poverty and misery unprecedented in Russia since the pre-war Bolchevik genocidal reign of terror.

Jeffrey Sachs, who was in the center of that era in the 90s, as an advisor to Yeltsin and an economic planner documented that process of Russian economic and social collapse, engineered by NATO.

During these crisis times of the 1990s, Putin moonlighted as a cab driver in St Petersburg, as his fixed income KGB salary vaporized through hyperinflation. His entire outlook and policies today are geared towards preserving Russian sovereignty and economic welfare.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

What does it take to convince Putin that this war is not worth the effort and expense?

---

Abiding by Minsk I, Minsk II, the Istanbul peace agreement, and working towards a settlement that sees Ukraine as a neutral state?

The ultimate goal of this war, as clearly stated by leading NATO strategists like Brzezinski or the recent Rand Institute whitepaper on Russia ("Overextending and Unbalancing Russia"), or statements from leading European diplomats like Kaja Kalas and from EU/US think tanks, the ultimate goal is to break up Russia and get to its huge pools of resources, the world's largest.

NATO got its hands on that wealth in the 1990s, when in collusion with local oligarchs they've sucked off Russian resources and heavy industry and destroyed the Russian state, putting Yeltsin, a Biden-like decrepit figure at the top of the country and inflicting enormous misery on its people, levels of poverty and misery unprecedented in Russia since the pre-war Bolchevik genocidal reign of terror.

Jeffrey Sachs, who was in the center of that era in the 90s, as an advisor to Yeltsin and an economic planner documented that process of Russian economic and social collapse, engineered by NATO.

During these crisis times of the 1990s, Putin moonlighted as a cab driver in St Petersburg, as his fixed income KGB salary vaporized through hyperinflation. His entire outlook and policies today are geared towards preserving Russian sovereignty and economic welfare.

---

I didn't ask, "What gives Putin whatever he wants?"

I said, "What convinces him this effort is not worth it?"

What convinces NATO (USA) their war provocations and efforts aren't worth it?

With the Gaza War, empty stockpiles? Limited capability to support Israel or the homeland? The election of a pragmatist peacemaker POTUS like Donald J Trump?

movielover said:

---

What convinces NATO (USA) their war provocations and efforts aren't worth it?

---

I'm gonna say we're a little bit past that now.

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

What convinces NATO (USA) their war provocations and efforts aren't worth it?

---

I'm gonna say we're a little bit past that now.

---

It's not NATO doing most of the dying so no skin off their back, and Blackrock, Graham and co don't want to give up on all this lithium and black earth in eastern Ukraine.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

What convinces NATO (USA) their war provocations and efforts aren't worth it?

---

I'm gonna say we're a little bit past that now.

---

It's not NATO doing most of the dying so no skin off their back, and Blackrock, Graham and co don't want to give up on all this lithium and black earth in eastern Ukraine.

---

Regardless, this whole thing seems like a waste of time and resources for Russia, doesn't it? How long are they going to persist with this invasion?

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

What convinces NATO (USA) their war provocations and efforts aren't worth it?

---

I'm gonna say we're a little bit past that now.

---

It's not NATO doing most of the dying so no skin off their back, and Blackrock, Graham and co don't want to give up on all this lithium and black earth in eastern Ukraine.

---

Regardless, this whole thing seems like a waste of time and resources for Russia, doesn't it? How long are they going to persist with this invasion?

---

The military situation is untenable for Ukraine, I would guess a year or two.

---

Eh, you said it would be a month or two back in spring of 2022.

golden sloth said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

What convinces NATO (USA) their war provocations and efforts aren't worth it?

---

I'm gonna say we're a little bit past that now.

---

It's not NATO doing most of the dying so no skin off their back, and Blackrock, Graham and co don't want to give up on all this lithium and black earth in eastern Ukraine.

---

Regardless, this whole thing seems like a waste of time and resources for Russia, doesn't it? How long are they going to persist with this invasion?

---

The military situation is untenable for Ukraine, I would guess a year or two.

---

Eh, you said it would be a month or two back in spring of 2022.

---

A lot of folks here overestimated and underestimated Russia in early 2022. It doesn't invalidate future predictions. If so, we should all just ignore each other. Wait, aren't we already kind of doing that?

golden sloth said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

What convinces NATO (USA) their war provocations and efforts aren't worth it?

---

I'm gonna say we're a little bit past that now.

---

It's not NATO doing most of the dying so no skin off their back, and Blackrock, Graham and co don't want to give up on all this lithium and black earth in eastern Ukraine.

---

Regardless, this whole thing seems like a waste of time and resources for Russia, doesn't it? How long are they going to persist with this invasion?

---

The military situation is untenable for Ukraine, I would guess a year or two.

---

Eh, you said it would be a month or two back in spring of 2022.

---

Also notice how he didn't answer the question.

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

What convinces NATO (USA) their war provocations and efforts aren't worth it?

---

I'm gonna say we're a little bit past that now.

---

It's not NATO doing most of the dying so no skin off their back, and Blackrock, Graham and co don't want to give up on all this lithium and black earth in eastern Ukraine.

---

Regardless, this whole thing seems like a waste of time and resources for Russia, doesn't it? How long are they going to persist with this invasion?

---

The military situation is untenable for Ukraine, I would guess a year or two.

---

Eh, you said it would be a month or two back in spring of 2022.

---

Also notice how he didn't answer the question.

---

I did provide a writeup on the important context and background of Russian motivations in this war, which you have ignored.

Quote:

---

sycasey said:

Regardless, this whole thing seems like a waste of time and resources for Russia, doesn't it? How long are they going to persist with this invasion?

---

The other point here is that Russia has offered several proposals for a settlement, which would have been decent starting points for a negotiated settlement, and which Ukraine has completely rejected. Ukraine's only starting point for negotiation is a complete withdrawal of Russia from the Donbas and Crimea, which is never going to happen.

Ukraine's government has assassinated one of their own negotiators in the recent past, their KGB taking him out mafia-style with a shot to the head on a city street, and they have formally banned any attempt at negotiation with Russia, going as far as enshrining this ban in their constitution. Ukraine is going to keep fighting and keep bombing Russian positions in Crimea, so Russia is not going to stop either.

Your question ignores these basic premises.

Putin scrambles as Ukraine claims more territory inside Russia


https://www.axios.com/2024/08/14/ukraine-russia-offensive-troops-new-line

Mediazona confirms identities of over 61,800 Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine


https://kyivindependent.com/mediazona-confirms-identities-of-over-61-800-russian-soldiers-killed-in-ukraine/

Quote:

---

JEFFREY SACHS:

"The whole point of American behavior is that we never ask the questionever: How would we react on the other side?

The whole point of American foreign policy is the belief by these officials that we can do what we want with impunity, against any norm, standard, international law, principle, vote of the UN, UN Security Council resolution, treaty, or anything else that we would say would limit the behavior of others.

After all, the most basic point that the United States has made for 201 years, since the enunciation of the Monroe Doctrine, is to the rest of the world: stay out of the Western Hemisphere.

We regard any incursion in the Western Hemisphereanywhere from the southern tip of Tierra del Fuego to our immediate neighborhoodas an infringement on U.S. security.

But when we say, 'Of course, we have the right to push NATO right up to Russia's borders, put in missile systems wherever we want, and engage Georgia in the Caucasus region as a "North Atlantic partner" as part of NATO,' that's our right.

Everything about American foreign policy is built on hypocrisy from beginning to end.

And then we can't understand why that's just a little bit annoying to others and why it gets us into perpetual war."

---

🇺🇸JEFFREY SACHS:

"The whole point of American behavior is that we never ask the question—ever: How would we react on the other side?

The whole point of American foreign policy is the belief by these officials that we can do what we want with impunity, against any norm,… pic.twitter.com/PtIbL8Zf4n

— Sony Thang (@nxt888) August 14, 2024

Cal88 said:

---

Quote:

---

JEFFREY SACHS:

"The whole point of American behavior is that we never ask the questionever: How would we react on the other side?

The whole point of American foreign policy is the belief by these officials that we can do what we want with impunity, against any norm, standard, international law, principle, vote of the UN, UN Security Council resolution, treaty, or anything else that we would say would limit the behavior of others.

After all, the most basic point that the United States has made for 201 years, since the enunciation of the Monroe Doctrine, is to the rest of the world: stay out of the Western Hemisphere.

We regard any incursion in the Western Hemisphereanywhere from the southern tip of Tierra del Fuego to our immediate neighborhoodas an infringement on U.S. security.

But when we say, 'Of course, we have the right to push NATO right up to Russia's borders, put in missile systems wherever we want, and engage Georgia in the Caucasus region as a "North Atlantic partner" as part of NATO,' that's our right.

Everything about American foreign policy is built on hypocrisy from beginning to end.

And then we can't understand why that's just a little bit annoying to others and why it gets us into perpetual war."

---

🇺🇸JEFFREY SACHS:

"The whole point of American behavior is that we never ask the question—ever: How would we react on the other side?

The whole point of American foreign policy is the belief by these officials that we can do what we want with impunity, against any norm,… pic.twitter.com/PtIbL8Zf4n

— Sony Thang (@nxt888) August 14, 2024

---

Agree with Sachs on this and that is a point I have been making for 2 1/2 years. We were talking about NATO expansion and including Ukraine in the discussion. Imagine how we'd feel if Russia was doing similarly with Mexico.

Well, I was wrong about the pipeline (IF this report is to be believed. But then again, it wasn't the Russians either, contrary to the propaganda accepted by many here.

In any case, the US looks stupid and inept. Either they did know and couldn't stop the Ukrainians despite the hundreds of billions in aid, or they did know and allowed (or even encouraged) Ukraine to bomb an ally's important infrastructure. No skin off our nose regardless, but if I'm the Germans, I thinking ***?

'It's a problem for Germany, as a senior official said:

"An attack of this scale is a sufficient reason to trigger the collective defense clause of NATO, but our critical infrastructure was blown up by a country that we support with massive weapons shipments and billions in cash."'

🇺🇦ZELENSKY APPROVED PLAN TO BLOW UP NORD STREAM PIPELINES

Despite the mainstream media saying for months that Russia blew up the pipelines, the Wall Street Journal has now revealed it was planned and executed by Ukraine at a cost of $300,000.

When the CIA learned of the plan… pic.twitter.com/toNZ3xwGRf

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) August 15, 2024

They are jointly owned by Russian, German, French, and Dutch companies, and the explosion caused 800 million cubic meters of gas, equivalent to about 3 months of Danish gas supplies, to escape.

In other words, NATO was attacked by a non-NATO nation state and as a result, the greatest man-made, non-accidental, environmental disaster was created under the watchful eyes of the United States.

bearister said:

---

Putin scrambles as Ukraine claims more territory inside Russia

Mediazona confirms identities of over 61,800 Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine

---

The key determinant of success in a war of attrition is the casualty-exchange ratio, not capturing territory, which Western commentators obsess over. - Mearsheimer

What is the attrition rate for Ukrainian soldiers?

MEARSHEIMER: THE KURSK OFFENSIVE IS A FOOLISH MOVE

"Ukraine’s invasion (of Kursk) was a major strategic blunder, which will accelerate its defeat. The key determinant of success in a war of attrition is the casualty-exchange ratio, not capturing territory, which Western…

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) August 15, 2024

I doubt the Ukrainians did it, with the sailboat and the Gilligan's crew, this most likely is a coverup story for a NATO military operation.

In any case, they are throwing Zaluzhny under the bus here, as the story goes he was supposed to have approved and overseen the operation. He is/was the most likely successor to Zelensky.