Zippergate said:

---

Come in like you're still for Ukraine in this. Even bump up their weapons a little bit. Then, when in more of a position of strength, get Ukraine to negotiate a peace deal with the Rooskies. As a bargaining chip, promise that Ukraine will never be in NATO, as long as they are allowed to remain a neutral sovereign state.


Make a deal in which Putin gets a little something in order to save face, but not so much that he looks like a big winner. Make a deal to work with Russia where we share common interests (such as anti-terrorism), but they need to stop the election interference and minimize the nasty spying. Tell Putin he can still push his enemies out of windows for all we care, but it's got to be his people, in his country.

Instead, we've already capitulated, basically, thus giving Putin a better point from which to negotiate.

Had the US/NATO affirmed Ukraine's neutrality and renounced further NATO expansion, the invasion never would have happened. So were the million lives lost on both sides worth it?

I think your belief that more weapons and aide will bring Russia to the table is sadly not grounded in reality. Russia is winning a war of attrition. No amount of NATO weapons can reverse the numerical manpower advantage that Russia has. Having suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties, I don't think the Russians will be bullied into accepting less than they think they deserve.

---

No, this war hasn't been worth it. However, if the alternative was to roll over and play dead and let Russia take all of Ukraine, that doesn't seem so great either.

Despite the costs (again, not worth it), there have nonetheless been some ancillary benefits for the US:

+ the Pentagon got to see where we need to modernize (to avoid "fighting the last war" next time)
+ we got to see the Russian military in action and learned a lot about their strengths and weaknesses
+ sent a message to China and others that, if they plan to invade a sovereign state, there will be a heavy cost

Our best move would have been to head this off at the pass, years and years ago, but we failed to do that.

Our best move would have been to head this off at the pass, years and years ago, but we failed to do that.

Exactly. Maybe Biden should have maintained diplomatic contact. Maybe we should have not armed Ukraine to the teeth, flooded the country with CIA operatives and pushed them to join NATO. To be clear, I'm not blaming only Biden and the Dems. The neocon ghouls who are responsible for this calamity have had support from both wings of the Uniparty.

I think the problem was way back when we started talking about expanding NATO to Ukraine, effectively rubbing Russia's nose in the fact that they lost the Cold War. Putin wasn't exactly liking Poland in NATO, but he could accept it. Ukraine? Nyet!

Instead, we should've given Russia a hand up and welcomed them into the modern world of regulated capitalism. Heck, we could've dismantled NATO as a gesture of friendship (with secret plans to quickly reconstitute it, if things went awry).

Agree. Welcome to the dark side.

….and Putin, by nature, was such a good guy until we hurt his feelings. I'm sure if he was ever charged with any of these murders that he could successfully assert this like the Twinkie Defense:

The mysterious, violent and unsolved deaths of Putin's foes and critics


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/16/the-mysterious-violent-and-unsolved-deaths-of-putins-foes-and-critics-alexi-navalny?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Zippergate said:

---

Agree. Welcome to the dark side.

---

Just callin' 'em as I see 'em. If we agree on this, that's great.

bearister said:

---

….and Putin, by nature, was such a good guy until we hurt his feelings. I'm sure if he was ever charged with any of these murders that he could successfully assert this like the Twinkie Defense:

The mysterious, violent and unsolved deaths of Putin's foes and critics


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/16/the-mysterious-violent-and-unsolved-deaths-of-putins-foes-and-critics-alexi-navalny?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

---

Putin's a b******. I just think he's a b****** who wanted Ukraine back (from his good ol' USSR days), but didn't necessarily want to go west from there. And he apparently was willing to use any means necessary to get it back.

The problem for him was, Ukraine's now been sovereign for years, long enough to build up a national identity in much of their country. So we were going to have to oppose him on that.

Overall, I still say that, once we got past the communist vs. capitalist ideology thing*, the US and Russia are not "natural enemies". It's the b******s on both sides that keep turning up the heat. I raised this point in my International Relations class many years ago at Cal (first time I ever asked a question in a large lecture). The prof, a Cold Warrior on loan from the Naval War College, belittled my "naive" view. Turned out to be great for me, as I really began to think about stuff.



* When I was 7 or 8, there was Khruschev on TV, talking about the US: "We will bury you." I immediately ran to my mommy! She explained that it was Marxist ideology, that he meant that metaphorically, not literally, but I didn't understand those fancy words, so I think I started crying.

Big C said:

---

bearister said:

---

….and Putin, by nature, was such a good guy until we hurt his feelings. I'm sure if he was ever charged with any of these murders that he could successfully assert this like the Twinkie Defense:

The mysterious, violent and unsolved deaths of Putin's foes and critics


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/16/the-mysterious-violent-and-unsolved-deaths-of-putins-foes-and-critics-alexi-navalny?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

---

Putin's a b******. I just think he's a b****** who wanted Ukraine back (from his good ol' USSR days), but didn't necessarily want to go west from there. And he apparently was willing to use any means necessary to get it back.

The problem for him was, Ukraine's now been sovereign for years, long enough to build up a national identity in much of their country. So we were going to have to oppose him on that.

Overall, I still say that, once we got past the communist vs. capitalist ideology thing*, the US and Russia are not "natural enemies". It's the b******s on both sides that keep turning up the heat. I raised this point in my International Relations class many years ago at Cal (first time I ever asked a question in a large lecture). The prof, a Cold Warrior on loan from the Naval War College, belittled my "naive" view. Turned out to be great for me, as I really began to think about stuff.


* When I was 7 or 8, there was Khruschev on TV, talking about the US: "We will bury you." I immediately ran to my momma! She explained that it was Marxist ideology, that he meant that metaphorically, not literally, but I didn't understand those fancy words, so I think I started crying.

---

Nice post Big C, I will just quibble over a couple of points indulging my annoying contrarian tendencies:

-Putin never wanted to conquer Ukraine, ideally for Russia, Ukraine would be a friendly buffer state between them and NATO, sort of like Belarus or even Finland and Austria in Cold War time.

-The kind of Ukrainian identity that was pushed after the NATO-backed 2014 Maidan Coup and was nurtured by countries like the US, Canada and the UK was a second coming of 1930s Banderist nationalism. It was very hostile to and completely incompatible with the cultural heritage of southern and eastern Ukraine. The civil war that started in 2014 was entirely predictable, even US high-profile analysts like former ambassador to Russia and Biden CIA chief Bill Burns acknowledged it.

In other words, we (NATO) knew exactly what we were doing there.

-Putin didn't want to intervene, sought to solve the problem through the Minsk Agreements, and was greatly criticized at home for being too passive in his support for the ethnic Russian rebels in the Donbas, whose leadership resented him for that. He was forced to intervene in the winter of 22 as Ukraine had built up its army and was about to overwhelm the rebels and retake Donetsk with 60,000 NATO-trained troops. And Crimea, which is more difficult for Russia to defend due to geography, was going to be the next Ukrainian target. This forced Putin's hand.

Big C said:

---

I think the problem was way back when we started talking about expanding NATO to Ukraine, effectively rubbing Russia's nose in the fact that they lost the Cold War. Putin wasn't exactly liking Poland in NATO, but he could accept it. Ukraine? Nyet!

Instead, we should've given Russia a hand up and welcomed them into the modern world of regulated capitalism. Heck, we could've dismantled NATO as a gesture of friendship (with secret plans to quickly reconstitute it, if things went awry).

---

Yeah, if I had to blame NATO/The West for anything I would go all the way back to the fall of the USSR and not having much of a "Marshall Plan" for helping them recover and become an ally, way more so than anything from the last 10 years.

Agreed. But Russia hasn't lost a million men, if they did, they'd really go full tilt. All indications are they've lost 100K to 200K men, a historically lopsided war.

Zippergate said:

---

Our best move would have been to head this off at the pass, years and years ago, but we failed to do that.

Exactly. Maybe Biden should have maintained diplomatic contact. Maybe we should have not armed Ukraine to the teeth, flooded the country with CIA operatives and pushed them to join NATO. To be clear, I'm not blaming only Biden and the Dems. The neocon ghouls who are responsible for this calamity have had support from both wings of the Uniparty.

---

Biden was never calling the shots. Sullivan, and incompetent Blinken, Austin, CIA and the MIC?

Seth Rich, JFK, Trumps 2-3 assassination attempts.

So where do peace talks stand now, as the EU backs Zelensky rejecting any compromise.

Zelensky rejects:
- "minerals deal"
- U.N peacekeepers
- the predicate for peace that Russia will retain part of Eastern Ukraine geography
- the offered security guarantees, ergo he is also rejecting the idea that American taxpayers should be repaid for all their support

President Trump could cut our aid 50% (or 100%), and let the EU foot the bill.

He could also resume USA normal relations w Russia.

But Lagley is not happy as the Trump Administration looks to end the last vestiges of USAID (C-A).

This could end up being more trouble in the region down the line. The Baltic states openly discriminate against their Russian minorities, they should be held to basic EU standards.

🇷🇺🇪🇪 Russian ethnics in Estonia will now have their voting rights removed.

Just begging to be denazified at this point... pic.twitter.com/Ki96TyJpuZ

— Spetsnaℤ 007 🇷🇺 (@Alex_Oloyede2) March 30, 2025

AI: "In Estonia, approximately 296,268 people identify as ethnic Russians, constituting about 22% of the total population."

Colonel MacGregor, Scott Ritter, and others proven right... again.

Pocahontas Says Yes said:

---

NYT story confirms what we already knew: The Pentagon and the CIA have been running almost every aspect of the Ukrainian military for the entire war. US provided targeting data for inside Russia and Biden lied to America about US boots on the ground pic.twitter.com/PUEjTwxRTM

— Saagar Enjeti (@esaagar) March 30, 2025

Here's the full NYT article on how the Biden fully integrated the US military into the war against Russia: in complete secrecy without the consent of Americans or US Congress.

But the view that Ukraine bears blame for the war is international:https://t.co/solkwnXZ7e

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 30, 2025

Quote:

---

The war in Ukraine is at an inflection point, with President Trump seeking rapprochement with the Russian leader, Vladimir V. Putin, and pressing for an end to the fighting.

But for nearly three years before Mr. Trump's return to power, the United States and Ukraine were joined in an extraordinary partnership of intelligence, strategy, planning and technology whose evolution and inner workings have been known only to a small circle of American and allied officials.

With remarkable transparency, the Pentagon has offered a public accounting of the $66.5 billion in weaponry it has supplied to Ukraine. But a New York Times investigation reveals that America's involvement in the war was far deeper than previously understood. The secret partnership both guided big-picture battle strategy and funneled precise targeting information down to Ukrainian soldiers in the field.

1. A U.S. base in Wiesbaden, Germany, supplied the Ukrainians with the coordinates of Russian forces on their soil.

2. U.S. intelligence and artillery helped Ukraine quickly turn the tide against the Russian invasion.

3. The Biden administration kept moving its red lines.

4. Ultimately, the U.S. military and C.I.A. were allowed to help with strikes into Russia.

5. Political disagreements in Ukraine contributed to the 2023 counteroffensive's collapse.

---

Are we allowed to call it a proxy war now, or is that still “Russian disinformation”? 🤞🏻 https://t.co/ASckBkTitN

— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) March 30, 2025

---

I think a lot of the reason Trump wants to settle or at least freeze the conflict in Ukraine is that its 2000km long frontline mobilizes most of the US military intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance apparatus, which they now intend to use in the potentially upcoming Iran bombing campaign.

What do you think the odds are that this actually happens?

And why, Bibbi, AIPAC, and MIC?

Iran isn't threatening us, unless we want to blame it on the Houthi.

movielover said:

---

What do you think the odds are that this actually happens?

And why, Bibbi, AIPAC, and MIC?

Iran isn't threatening us, unless we want to blame it on the Houthi.

---

Trump's cabinet is stuffed with Iran hawks, Hegseth, Walz, Rubio - let's hope cooler heads prevail. Vance might be the adult in the room, along with Tulsi, who knows...

Gotta say that I'm not shocked at all that the US was providing tons of military intelligence to Ukraine and frankly I support us doing that. We probably should have been more transparent about it (with our allies especially) but I don't really have a problem with helping the Ukrainians in that way.

It also appears that the desire to push for more and more victories after the Russians had retrenched in the East was coming more from Ukraine than from the US, contrary to the narrative often repeated here. I'm not surprised by that either.

Pocahontas Says Yes said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Gotta say that I'm not shocked at all that the US was providing tons of military intelligence to Ukraine and frankly I support us doing that. We probably should have been more transparent about it (with our allies especially) but I don't really have a problem with helping the Ukrainians in that way.

---

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107414/replies/2141174

Quote:

---

The US is not actually in this war

---

---

I'm pretty sure I've acknowledged elsewhere that we were probably doing intelligence sharing and strategic assistance. What this means is that our troops were not fighting in it.

TRUMP: "Zelensky, by the way, I see he's trying to back out of the rare earth deal — and if he does that, he's got some problems."

pic.twitter.com/w3OoSZkzXN

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) March 31, 2025

What was Zelensky's job prior to becoming president of Ukraine and persona that filled the personal emptiness inside that Biden couldn't fill for the libs?

Playing a piano w his pecker.

Crickets here about the MIC / CIA leak to the NYT yesterday.

The New York Times published two articles revealing:

- that U.S. military boots are on the ground in Ukraine
- our military is actively involved in the ongoing targeting of strikes into Russia
- the CIA is operating in Ukraine and conducting targeted strikes into the Russian mainland

So Biden or his Autopen had to approve it, and the Gang of Eight (Rubio) were in on it.

Some guess the MIC is trying to put a strain between POTUS Trump and Putin. 3D chess might suggest bc of our new reciprocal tariffs in Europe, their funding the Ukraine war becomes even more difficult.

President Trump could withdraw all CIA operatives and revealed U.S. military boots on the ground in Ukraine.

Carry on.

US boots on the ground in Ukraine is my personal line in the sand. It apparently has been crossed. I am pissed. The talk of playing with fire over WW3 now makes tangible sense. This is so damn stupid.

It looks like whoever leaked this to the NYT felt the risk of peace with Russia was a greater evil than the risk of escalating the war. Sad.

tequila4kapp said:

---

US boots on the ground in Ukraine is my personal line in the sand. It apparently has been crossed. I am pissed. The talk of playing with fire over WW3 now makes tangible sense. This is so damn stupid.

---

The article talks about US reps sharing military intelligence and strategic assistance, not actually fighting in the war. If that was your line, then fine. It wasn't mine.

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

US boots on the ground in Ukraine is my personal line in the sand. It apparently has been crossed. I am pissed. The talk of playing with fire over WW3 now makes tangible sense. This is so damn stupid.

---

The article talks about US reps sharing military intelligence and strategic assistance, not actually fighting in the war. If that was your line, then fine. It wasn't mine.

---

US and NATO brass were a lot more active than that in this war, from day 1. A lot of the big strategic decisions were led by US and British leadership, like the Spring Offensive of 23 and more recently the Kurk offensive, both disastrous decisions which resulted in great Ukrainian losses.

The article maintains the narrative of Russians as militarily inept, and their Slav counterparts Ukrainians only losing because they didn't stick to the brilliant NATO gameplan, and the conclusion that the Biden team would have seen this through and been in Crimea or halfway to Moscow by now.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

US boots on the ground in Ukraine is my personal line in the sand. It apparently has been crossed. I am pissed. The talk of playing with fire over WW3 now makes tangible sense. This is so damn stupid.

---

The article talks about US reps sharing military intelligence and strategic assistance, not actually fighting in the war. If that was your line, then fine. It wasn't mine.

---

US and NATO brass were a lot more active than that in this war, from day 1. A lot of the big strategic decisions were led by US and British leadership, like the Spring Offensive of 23 and more recently the Kurk offensive, both disastrous decisions which resulted in great Ukrainian losses.

The article maintains the narrative of Russians as militarily inept, and their Slav counterparts Ukrainians only losing because they didn't stick to the brilliant NATO gameplan, and the conclusion that the Biden team would have seen this through and been in Crimea or halfway to Moscow by now.

---

It's fine to be critical of the strategy, but when people say "boots on the ground" I think most will take that as "troops fighting in the war" which is not what was happening with American troops. And honestly, I'm surprised this is even being treated as a surprise; I thought it was fairly well-known that the US was coordinating closely with the Ukrainians.

There are a lot of NATO equipment operators on the ground, like MLRS, Patriot and ATACMS crews, as well as mercenaries, trainers and special forces. The number of dead NATO troops in this war is in the high 4 figures. This war is a bit more than a proxy war, it's practically a coalition war.

Cal88 said:

---

There are a lot of NATO equipment operators on the ground, like MLRS, Patriot and ATACMS crews, as well as mercenaries, trainers and special forces. The number of dead NATO troops in this war is in the high 4 figures. This war is a bit more than a proxy war, it's practically a coalition war.

---

Where does this number come from?

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

There are a lot of NATO equipment operators on the ground, like MLRS, Patriot and ATACMS crews, as well as mercenaries, trainers and special forces. The number of dead NATO troops in this war is in the high 4 figures. This war is a bit more than a proxy war, it's practically a coalition war.

---

Where does this number come from?

---

That number represents 1% of total casualties on the Ukraine side, bearing in mind that the operators of expensive, high-end systems like the Patriot, ATACMS, NASAMs etc are not local, the presence of thousands of mercenaries and special forces, trainers, ISR relays and officers on the battlefront.

In addition to these losses, the Russians have mounted regular missile attacks on compounds or residences of NATO officers and personnel in the hinterland. Several of these attacks have resulted in dozens or even hundreds of casualties:

Two months ago, I wrote a thread about U.S. forces training Ukrainians at the de facto NATO base in Yavoriv.

Today, that base was leveled by Russian missiles. https://t.co/Vv8nxBsugt pic.twitter.com/rQUsaTWyN2

— Clint Ehrlich (@ClintEhrlich) March 13, 2022

The most obvious evidence of the effectiveness of the missile strike on Poltava was the swarm of NATO medical aircraft (USA, Germany, Poland, Romania).

They were evacuating both wounded instructors and the dead bodies. 👇 pic.twitter.com/sJr8YhfwVP

— Djole 🇷🇸 (@onlydjole) September 6, 2024

Breaking: A Russian Iskander-M missile has reportedly struck a NATO command post in Poltava, Ukraine killing 700 NATO soldiers. Reports also suggest that U.S. Brigadier General Johnathan Sines was among those killed. pic.twitter.com/xJECd5LkOI

— Sadepiippu🇫🇮🇺🇦 (@sadepiippu) September 4, 2024

Wonder how Macron is feeling about this??

Massive!!!

This

Video of the missile strike on the Druzhba Hotel in Krivi Rog earlier.

Russian sources say the hotel was used by "special foreign tourists."

🇷🇺🇺🇦 As a result of this missile strike on a hotel in Krivoy Rog, French… pic.twitter.com/IS2WW2nMY5

— SlavicFreeSpirit (@SlavFreeSpirit) March 13, 2025

Most recently, bombing last Friday of yacht club resort in Dnipro where a large party for NATO officers was being held:

💥 In Dnepropetrovsk, the Bartolomeo hotel and restaurant complex was destroyed by #Russian strikes.

Reports say that the place was used to house foreign mercenaries and service personnel for western weapons. pic.twitter.com/bE2XexAb69

— Иван ☦ (@lll_Ivan_H) March 28, 2025

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

There are a lot of NATO equipment operators on the ground, like MLRS, Patriot and ATACMS crews, as well as mercenaries, trainers and special forces. The number of dead NATO troops in this war is in the high 4 figures. This war is a bit more than a proxy war, it's practically a coalition war.

---

Where does this number come from?

---

That number represents 1% of total casualties on the Ukraine side, bearing in mind that the operators of expensive, high-end systems like the Patriot, ATACMS, NASAMs etc are not local, the presence of thousands of mercenaries and special forces, trainers, ISR relays and officers on the battlefront.

---

So you're kind of making it up.

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

There are a lot of NATO equipment operators on the ground, like MLRS, Patriot and ATACMS crews, as well as mercenaries, trainers and special forces. The number of dead NATO troops in this war is in the high 4 figures. This war is a bit more than a proxy war, it's practically a coalition war.

---

Where does this number come from?

---

That number represents 1% of total casualties on the Ukraine side, bearing in mind that the operators of expensive, high-end systems like the Patriot, ATACMS, NASAMs etc are not local, the presence of thousands of mercenaries and special forces, trainers, ISR relays and officers on the battlefront.

---

So you're kind of making it up.

---

The points I have made above about the presence of NATO personnel on the frontlines have been corroborated. if anything, my NATO losses estimate is too conservative.

Quote:

---

the NY Times article also admits that an undisclosed number of active duty US troops were deployed to Ukraine. "Time and again, the Biden administration authorized clandestine operations it had previously prohibited. American military advisers were dispatched to Kyiv and later allowed to travel closer to the fighting." And the British military "had placed small teams of officers in the country after the invasion."

---