Will Russia Attack Ukraine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverman

The inhabitants of Donbas and Crimea, that's a clear case, beyond that, I don't know.

---

So you believe that Donbas rebels are genuine local rebels and citizens of Ukraine (as of 2014)?

Because in 2014 there were many reports saying that they were actually soldiers from Russia who pretended to be local inhabitants.

We don't know what % of the armies of these 2 breakaway republics are actually locals, and what % came from Russian Federation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomenable

So you believe that Donbas rebels are genuine local rebels and citizens of Ukraine (as of 2014)?

Because in 2014 there were many reports saying that they were actually soldiers from Russia who pretended to be local inhabitants.

We don't know what % of the armies of these 2 breakaway republics are actually locals, and what % came from Russian Federation.

---

There surely was an infiltration from Russia, but there also is a genuine local support, that's as sure.
These people don't share, majority wise, the position of the Western Ukrainians, which is their good right.
The majority of the Ukrainians, more clearly in the West, don't want to be part of Russia these days, and the majority of the Eastern fringe regions and Crimea prefer Russia.
Its fairly simple, like in most such cases, both should go their way.
The Ukrainian position on these fringe regions is as "imperialistic" as is the position of some Russians on Ukraine as a whole.

So what will happen to all of those right-wingers that fellatio'd Putin? Now that he showed the whole world that he's a total thug? All of those admirers of his that rationalized his behavior. Now please the apologists of his on this forum, please don't go on what-about-isms. The is not about the US and what they did in Afghanistan or Iraq. This about Putin and Ukraine.

If something good can come out this I hope are these 3 things:
1. Never become dependent for your energy on one country or one source of energy
2. Spend money on your own defense
3. Heart still counts for something

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverman

There surely was an infiltration from Russia, but there also is a genuine local support, that's as sure.
These people don't share, majority wise, the position of the Western Ukrainians, which is their good right.
The majority of the Ukrainians, more clearly in the West, don't want to be part of Russia these days, and the majority of the Eastern fringe regions and Crimea prefer Russia.
Its fairly simple, like in most such cases, both should go their way.
The Ukrainian position on these fringe regions is as "imperialistic" as is the position of some Russians on Ukraine as a whole.

---

It's not that easy. While Russian speakers might have a slight majority in some places, there is a substantial minority of Ukranians. I have a solution that you might not like but it's this. Those Russian speakers should go back to mother Russia. Since they are relatively recent arrivals there is not a historical right for them. Leave Ukraine to the Ukranians.

Now, not just Ukraine but pretty much all of Eastern Europe has a depopulation problem due to immigration and low birth rates.

Very engaging talk by journalist Vladimir Pozner to students at Yale, from 2018. First forty minutes of video are an overview of US policy toward Russia over past 30 years. He then fields a wide range of questions, a few touching on Ukraine.

For background on Pozner, see --->> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Pozner_Jr.

https://youtu.be/8X7Ng75e5gQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverman

No, I wouldn't say so. And it doesn't matter anyway, because Russia already accepted it, by and large.

---

They accept souvernty of the Baltic States untill there will be a genocide there by the Nazi rulers. Then Putin will attack.
Just what is happening in Ukraine right now.
Right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bicicleur 2

They accept souvernty of the Baltic States untill there will be a genocide there by the Nazi rulers. Then Putin will attack.
Just what is happening in Ukraine right now.
Right?

---

There's no way he would leave Kaliningrad isolated from Russia, so if he wins in Ukraine, the Baltic states would be next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northener

Clear story and stance Malaparte. The more different (qualified) voices on this forum the better. I disagree with you about the 'ability' of the US to stay an outsider in this conflict.

---

Thank you for the kind words. I am not arguing that the US should stay outside of the conflict. It's too late for that. It has been arming the Ukraine for quite some time now, at least since 2017, most likely dating back to 2008. Therefore, the US cannot wash its hands of the situation. What it can do is serve as a constructive voice for resolution rather than fan the flames of conflict.

My position, again, is that we need a fundamental re-think of our policy toward Russia and the wider region. At this point, I think the best solution is a partition of Ukraine, with the Russian-speaking areas in the south and east joining Russia, and the west and north left as an independent Ukraine. I leave it to the Russians and the Ukrainians to determine the precise boundaries. However, what remains of Ukraine will have to be a neutral & completely demilitarized state. Otherwise, the simple reality is that Russia will park its army and missiles right up to the border of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary & Romania.

That is, the alternative is this: (1) a renewed & very tense cold war with Russian position advanced to the western edge of Ukraine & Belarus; or (2) the creation of "buffer zones" between Russia and Western Europe, with Ukraine, Belarus, and the ex-Warsaw Pact (now eastern NATO) states demilitarized. All NATO troops drawn back to Germany. That's the alternative that Russia has forced upon us. We should choose wisely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northener

Secondly since WW2 the West of Europe lives under a Pax Americana. That was liberal in politics and economics. It brought us peace, prosperity and a prolongation (and sometimes introduce like in Spain) of democracy. The NATO was the defender of this all. After the fall of the wall this all loosened up. Some former communist countries became part of it. And (now naive of course) it was thought that through trade etc even Russia would be part of the liberal world. The Ukrainians have self chosen to be a part of Europe, the West and are even longing for NATO.

---

The historical record shows that Russia wanted to join both EU and NATO in the early 2000s. The West told Russia absolutely "no." We rejected Russia, we excluded Russia, and we pushed NATO ever eastward in violation of Russia's legitimate security concerns. The Russia was no longer the Soviet Union, and yet we punished it regardless, with the seeming expectation that it would never rise again.

We created a Russia that is, at best, deeply distrustful of the West, and, at worst, hostile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northener

Nevertheless the last thing we in Europe and especially in this crisis imo need is an USA who isolates itself from Europe or even more thinks Ukraine not of our interest or 'give it to' Putin....thanks for choosing for the West and goodbye.

---

First, I am not advocating that US become isolationist, even if I think this desirable over the (very) long term. What I believe must now happen, however, is that the US *pivot* to East Asia. Indeed, such a pivot is imperative because China is by far the greatest threat to the US.

I have yet to see a single person on this forum even attempt to face this fact. Instead, people here seem to imagine that it's 1945 and that the Soviet Union is the primary opponent. But we live in 2022, and it is China that poses the greatest threat.

If the US does what it ought to do, which is shift the great preponderance of its military capability to East Asia, then Europe *must come to a new security arrangement* with Russia. Whether this means (1) recasting the purpose of NATO, such that it is no longer a de facto anti-Russia alliance, and allowing Russia membership or some kind of affiliation or partnership, or (2) dissolving NATO and forging entirely new terms, I leave to the Europeans, primarily France & Germany, to decide. At least in the near term, Europe cannot afford to get into an arms race with Russia, for it is too far behind Russia to ever catch up. Europe should therefore have modest ambitions for its military, but certainly more of a military capacity that it has now, in its condition of utter dependence on the US.

This is all a roundabout way of saying that we need to create a *multipolar* world. Right now we are racing heedlessly toward a renewed bipolar conflict, with Russia & China on one side, and the US and its allies on the other. Russia + China taken as a block is a far more formidable adversary, and has far more resources at its disposal, than the Soviet Union ever did. The US is unlikely to prevail against it. People who think otherwise are delusional. They might talk the noble talk, but they will lead us only to ruin.

The picture changes, however, if we can create a multipolar world. Russia & China are allies now, but they will inevitably fall into competition over Siberia and other matters. They are not natural allies. They are allies of convenience only, mainly because US & NATO have driven Russia toward China.

If the US exits the security picture of Europe, then Europe will have no choice other than to develop closer ties with Russia. Europe will then have the potential to again pull Russia westward from China. The world that will emerge is China in the Far East, the US in the Americas with a strong East Asian presence with its allies Japan & Australia, and then a third pole will consist of Russia plus Carolingian Europe plus the former Warsaw Pact. Iran will likely emerge as a regional hegemon in the Middle East, and India as a fifth pole.

Angela: Back in thread I am more use to be in! UK Government pressuring BP to pull out of Russia, they could take a $25 Billion Asset write down and thus hit to Earnings. My guess is Russian currency could be in serious trouble based on some early reports from market watchers.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...oducer-rosneft

Malaparte: I think I have said "many times" that China is the biggest geopolitical threat in the USA. I picked up from some Armed forces blogs and and other media sources, and posted it here, that the USA now has 55K troops in Japan and 28K in Korea..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bicicleur 2

when you monopolise the official media and when you incarcerate your most important opponents when elections are due, it's not so difficult to get a 56 % vote
that's not my idea of democracy

---

I never said Russia is a democracy. (In fact I wouldn't even claim that of the West these days.) Rather, I said that Putin is not a dictator. He should be understood as the head of vast state bureaucracy and he proceeds in a very lawyerly fashion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bicicleur 2

it seems some oligarchs have ousted their concerns about what Putin is doing now, in a discrete way of course
they also feel that the endresult will not be favourable to their 'bussiness'
it looks like some of the oligarchs are loosing grip and Putin gets more influenced military hardliners who are acting less rational

---

I would counter that it is the Western leaders who are not acting rationally. Irrational & extremely short-sighted.

Russian actions have been 20 years in the making. They have proceeded very rationally and very deliberately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani

Malaparte: I think I have said "many times" that China is the biggest geopolitical threat in the USA. I picked up from some Armed forces blogs and and other media sources, and posted it here, that the USA now has 55K troops in Japan and 28K in Korea..

---

Great. Now that you have accepted the premise, what follows from it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

Russia may ultimately prevail, but tanks running out of gas doesn't sound like good logistics, the failure to completely dominate the airspace is inexplicable, and even more inexplicable is that they haven't managed to take out communications and power in the Ukraine through cyber warfare.

Guess they needed more than 20 years, or perhaps it's all just been Potemkin houses again, and nothing they build or plan actually works.

---

Has it not occurred to you that Russia is taking a fairly "soft" approach in its military operations? They are acting with relative restraint. Evidently you can imagine only the American mode of warfare, wherein helpless populations get bombed into the stone age, water plants destroyed, power grids taken out, etcetera, ad nauseam

As for the control of the airspace, the Russians established that within hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malaparte

Great. Now that you have accepted the premise, what follows from it?

---

Well I don't think you can deal with Putin. Sorry, He is and will always be a KGB agent at heart. He has shown his true colors and this has been going on for years. You need to wait him out and hope that whoever comes after him is someone that you can try a new détente with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

You're a phoney, first and foremost, using a sock account. Did you think you could fool me? Members can't see what I can see.

Second, you sound like all those Russian plants on twitter. Did the U.S. also incite all the Eastern Bloc countries and beg them to join NATO? Or was it the other way around? If Putin somehow pulls if off in Ukraine and goes after the Baltic countries next, should NATO fulfill their obligations or are treaties worthless?

---

I was previously Dominique_Nuit. Ask Jovialis. He remembered me. Not that I wish to draw him into such silliness. If you want to call me a sock account, then fine. It makes no difference to the merits of the argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

Read it again. The cable is about how RUSSIA would view the matter, and that RUSSIA feared civil war. The only people living on Ukrainian soil who didn't want to be part of the west were and are the Russians who moved into those two break away provinces on Russia's border.

All of that spiel is Russia trying to deter the U.S. and other NATO countries from supporting Ukraine.

Perhaps you're unaware, but all of the Eastern Bloc countries SOUGHT and pleaded for NATO status out of fear of being taken over by Russia again. If you think they were wrong to do so, and NATO was wrong to accept them, and they should rightfully all be happy to be controlled by Russia again you should volunteer to go live in Russia yourself to show them they have nothing to fear from the "new order" you think is best for them and the rest of Europe.

---

I posted the Burns cable to demonstrate how a competent diplomat of the old school reported the matter. But his words were to no avail, as the US state department has long been in the hands of neo-con ideologues

Malaparte: I think in another post, you stated you studied European History (I think). Well you know that Ukrainians were always independent and did not support Stalin too much and he starved millions of them to death. Now Stalin was a Georgian, not Russian Like Putin, but Putin worked in the KGB which was part of the Soviet Union and its main intelligence agency. I suspect countries like Ukraine have long collective memories. This event is probably imprinted in their DNA and conscious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

There's no way he would leave Kaliningrad isolated from Russia, so if he wins in Ukraine, the Baltic states would be next.

---

Kaliningrad would just be another pretext.
And once he gets there, he would talk about genocidal Germans or whatever.
This man just won't stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani

I am more of a Reaganite, but I do believe in nationalism that is just that, wanting to secure and take care of its own economy, border, etc and get away from this global supply chain brought about by all this Free Trade deals with countries that are rogue states thinking these trade deals would make those countries adopt USA and European models on free elections, freedom of the press, etc, etc, (i.e. China, who ain't gonna do it). So Nationalism in form yes, but not to the exclusion of alliances and partnerships and thus not a nationalistic policy that seeks to expand and hurt the countries that it borders (that I would hope goes without saying). NATO is a good alliance, but as I have said numerous times in this thread, it needs to be updated (greater contribution by all NATO partners) and NATO policy can't be in contradiction to your economic policy, which has been the case in Europe for the last 25-30 years.

---

I am definitely not a Reaganite. I am more like a neo-Taftian, if anything. However, I am not so naive as to think the US can return to splendid isolation in the near term. I am arguing, rather, for a re-ordering of our strategic priorities, and a gradual, controlled retreat (over the course of decades) to a post-imperial condition.

To the extent it was not determined by the duplicity of certain elite groups, our policy toward China post-1989 was a reflection of the sheer naivete of our elites, their foolish notion that a liberal trading order would lead by certain benign laws of history to the relaxed & friendly comity of liberal democratic states, a world without military competition, spiritual tension or strife. Too foolish for me to waste words on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani

I am not here to hammer German politicians as I have already expressed my total disdain towards Merkel, but it seems like Germany because of its Oil and Gas integration with Putin and Russia were almost drifting away from NATO and heading to becoming a neutral EU country. I think this invasion seems to have changed their way of thinking. Again, that is just an assessment from this side of the Atlantic by a layman geo-political analyst:sun:.

---

My view is that Germany's economic integration with Russia is natural and inevitable. A wise US policy would accommodate this reality, and try to turn in a direction that harmonizes with our interests. Of course, nobody in charge seems to consider what our true interests might be.

As for the current hysterical reaction of European leaders to the Russian invasion, I believe this is a passing phenomenon. Certainly German business leaders will not be happy for long with the consequences that are about to suffer. Nor will the European people. The US policy toward the Ukraine has been so transparent in its aim to precipitate a divorce between Germany and Russia that it will soon backfire. Give it a few months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani

But I am watching various news sources and last Night Kim and North Korea fired an unidentified object (I assume it was a missile launch to test his delivery systems). China yesterday conducted war game exercises (Taiwan). The USA has 55K troops stationed in Japan, that is more than what was in Germany before this Ukraine invasion (35K) and another 28k in South Korea. So prior to Russian expansion into Ukraine, there were more USA personnel in Japan and Korea than the combined number in NATO countries. I think that was strategic decision and the USA has been increasing slowly the number of personnel in Australia, although I can't find a hard number (there are 2 bases in Australia).

---

I expect China will make some kind of move soon, whether against Taiwan or elsewhere in the region, I don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani

But given China to me is the greater geopolitical threat (Russia is one as well)

---

Russia is a geopolitical threat because that is what we have forced it to become. That's the tragedy of the entire situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani

that is why NATO allies in Europe, especially the ones with huge economies need to put in their recommended 2% of GDP to help support NATO. The USA needs to have a presence in NATO but it(we) can't be the only one as the USA needs to also address China in the Pacific and work with our allies there (Australia, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand) to contain China. I would hope our European friends here, who are not anti USA and support NATO would see that the USA has to be involved in two spheres or theatres of containment and deal with 2 Rogue states, China and Russia, thus the need for our European NATO partners to spend more on NATO defense and decouple themselves from Russian Oil and Gas.

---

So long as the Europeans imagine they can rely on the US security umbrella, it is frankly in their interest to "free ride" on American largesse. This is why NATO must be dissolved and Europe must take responsibility for their own fate. This means, first and foremost, forging a responsible relationship with Russia, founded on mutual respect.

Also, I don't find the term "rogue state" to be at all helpful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani

Malaparte: I think in another post, you stated you studied European History (I think). Well you know that Ukrainians were always independent and did not support Stalin too much and he starved millions of them to death. Now Stalin was a Georgian, not Russian Like Putin, but Putin worked in the KGB which was part of the Soviet Union and its main intelligence agency. I suspect countries like Ukraine have long collective memories. This event is probably imprinted in their DNA and conscious.

---

I majored in History many years ago, and continue to take an interest in it. (This is why I am here in the first place.) But I would not want to hold myself out as an expert. Strictly an armchair reader.

As for the Ukraine, it was in fact the birthplace of the Russian people, the Principality of Kievan Rus, circa 1000. The Grand Duchy of Moscow was the leading successor state of the Kievan Rus.

However, it was not until 1783 that Crimea and most of Ukraine became part of the Russian Empire, after decades of struggle against the Ottoman Turks.

As for the Holomodor, it's an incredibly controversial subject that requires a real command of facts to even hazard discussing (and I don't pretend to have such knowledge). But I would characterize it as more of a Soviet crime than a Russian crime. Regardless, I don't doubt for a second that it is deeply imprinted in the consciousness of all Ukrainians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverman

He is now in, he can't get out easily. Obviously he needs to negotiate, but its clear that the Russians need Crimea/Sevastopol, that's non-negotiable, and the Ukrainians didn't compromise, they even stopped the water supply for the Crimea.
The Russians demanded at least autonomy for the Donbass, but they never fulfilled the Minsk agreement and shelled the "republics" constantly, threatening to eliminate his allies by force.
Putin and basically all important Russian leaders said that a NATO membership for the Ukraine is thick red line, but the West never stopped to move forward in that direction. They even motivated the Ukrainians to go on with the provocations and not compromise with Russia.

I do understand the Ukrainian side, but the current borders are ethnically and historically artificial, basically wrong. It became part of the Ukraine very recently, with a transfer within the Soviet Union:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea

Crimea was always strategically extremely important and Sevastopol is the military and civilian door of the Russians to the Mediterranean. They can't give it up just like that, but the Ukraine never compromised and the sanctions didn't stop, while the water supply was blocked and this ruined the region.

The Ukraine need to, at least, compromise about Crimea and the West needs to aknowledge this. Of course, Russia might be forced to give this up and lose, but only by very brutal and very dangerous means. This is and always was insane. That the Ukraine could become a NATO member is bad enough, but with Crimea, that's just too much by any means. This cripples Russia for the future in a way which no Russian leader which cares for the future of his country could just accept without a fight.

Now Putin risked everything to force the Ukraine to a compromise, he is all-in. There needs to be a compromise with which Russia can live, or we don't know where the escalation might go. And I repeat that this would be a just thing, that the Ukraine in the current official borders, with the Crimean peninsula, could just join the NATO without Russian resistance is absurd.
Any Western state or leader which pushed the Ukraine in that direction must have known that this would escalate at some point, this was a wanted a conflict, nobody can be that stupid.

---

Very well said. I agree completely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverman

Anything else is just madness and every reasonable historian, military strategist and politician should know that. Crimea and Minks agreement, autonomy, possibly neutrality of the Ukraine.
That should have been the compromise from the start, but the Western powers pushed Ukraine to not move one inch in the Russian direction and even encourage them to continue with the conflict in Donbas being force. This was a blatant provocation and break of past promises to the Russians, this is not just an issue for Putin, but would have upset any Russian leader which tries to keep his country and people independent.

---

Totally true. But what the Russians really (and legitimately) want is a new security architecture for Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northener

And I don't think that Trump has left the building. Imo he is still the kingmaker in the Rep party, and if he wants to nominate in 2024 he is the one. And it's also obvious that the authoritarian -populist agenda of Trump near that of Putin. But enough said about him.

---

I definitely don't want to talk Trump, mean only to say that I don't think he will be Republican nominee in 2024. It will be a younger candidate who shares many of his "national populist" positions but without all the baggage. Maybe Ron DeSantis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

You know I thought you and Malaparte were the same person (as well as perhaps other people we know and love ;)), but perhaps not; perhaps you're a tag team.

None of the above is worthy of a response, so I'll leave it at that, except to state neither you or Malaparte have responded to my question.

"So, NATO should have refused the appeal of the former Eastern Bloc countries when they petitioned to join?

In order to "keep the peace" and "not provoke" Russia, the entire Eastern Bloc should have been told that no defensive treaties were possible and if Russia decided to move back in and reincorporate them it was just their bad luck?"

Just want to see how far modern appeasement goes.

---

NATO should have been dissolved as soon as the Soviet Union dissolved. A new security arrangement should have been constructed in its place, with Russia included as an equal partner.

Now it's your turn: If China is indeed the (far) greater security threat, how should this inform the strategic priorities of the US, including any necessary consequences for Europe arrangements? Please answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverman

Seriously, we almost got a nuclear war over Kuba, for much less than that, and Kennedy being even praised for not started a nuclear war immediately and negotiating first. Actually, that's pretty insanse, especially if comparing with this situation, which is much worse than Kuba for the USA.

---

You forgot to mention the most relevant point. It was the US deployment of Jupiter missiles in Turkey that led the Soviets to respond in kind in Cuba.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...crisis/309190/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malaparte

NATO should have been dissolved as soon as the Soviet Union dissolved. A new security arrangement should have been constructed in its place, with Russia included as an equal partner.

Now it's your turn: If China is indeed the (far) greater security threat, how should this inform the strategic priorities of the US, including any necessary consequences for Europe arrangements? Please answer.

---

Isolationism of the US, wil lead to nothing, the least for US themselves.

NATO is more needed than ever. We have a new Cold War. It's now time to stand united, cool and firm against the (nuclear) trait.

Putin is berserk by a pending war, economic sanctions (already the fall of the ruble), Germany and the EU turning away and massively arming themselves. Putin becomes a pariah. That makes him even more unpredictable. So don't blink now, there's a lot at stake.

For the more wider perspective:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...nding-00011448