Politics Will Russia Attack Ukraine?

Oh I also think that the offer of talks is a ruse and will be an excuse to resupply the Russian troops. Did the Ukrainian drones target the Russian resupply lines?
 
Riverman said:
I don't think it was right what he did, he indeed went to far. I'm rather concerned about the outcome of this mess, as should everybody else. There is definitely nothing to celebrate about this. If it remains a regionalised conflict, its the best we can hope for either way.
Click to expand...

But Austria is not likely to get into this conflict, correct, as you all have never been a Member of NATO. Yes, I know the history, the USA, UK and Soviets all had occupation forces. The USSR agreed to elections in 1955 and to they were surprised that you all did not choose communism. To stop a potential clash between the Soviet Communist and the West, Austria pledged neutrality.
 
bigsnake49 said:
Both Obama and Trump did not provide Ukraine with"lethal defensive weapons" instead providing them with non-lethal weapons. I got to give credit to Cruz before the 2016 election he tried to put in a strong statement in the GOP platform in support of Ukraine which got totally watered down. Then he got emasculated...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...adb3b0-4cf3-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html
Click to expand...

That isn't quite what I meant. World leaders size each other up. I think Putin knew that Trump would not be a Carter or even a Biden, who was, btw, the only Obama advisor who voted against going in to Bin Laden. Just my opinion; can't prove it.

Yes, Cruz was my man in a lot of ways. Imploded, though.

I could have lived with Romney too. He was right to say Russia was still a huge threat, for all the guff he got from Democrats and Republicans both. I do think long term China is the bigger threat.
 
Northener said:
I think the crux is in the first comment. You only miss it when it's gone. Just like we take tap water for granted.....until.


The US has never experienced occupation by any other power. In Europe this was by the NAZIs (Germany) and/or the Commies. In Western Europe, the generation up to about 1975, still shared the experiences of their parents about the NAZI occupation. In Central Eastern Europe, the history of the communist era is much longer. The generation born around 1990 is the first to no longer have active memories, and they are now having children.


And personally I find a comparison between the 'woke aggression of our government' and the aggression of Putin from of an entirely different order. Apples and oranges. And in my view is also a total disregard for what is at stake in the Ukraine. Not to offend you, not at all, but I don't agree with your view c.q. supposed of much US citizens...


In the West we have to realize what it is like to live under repression without self-determination, free press, free speech, etc. I have the idea that that message has at least got through in Europe.


By the way, for a good understanding of Putin's agenda, I can recommend everyone to read Aleksandr Dugin's works (just read his fourth political theory, but it seems that Last War of the World-Island: The Geopolitics of Contemporary Russia is even more spot on for what we are seeing. His works really laid on Putin's bedside table. Rhetoric, intentions and the political (ideological) agenda are crystal clear. be awake ;)
Click to expand...
Riverman said:
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.

The main thing I would tell him is obviously to accept a second best compromise and peace and keep his fingers from the button as long as possible, as long as Russia being not directly attacked by a foreign power, he has no justification whatsoever to even think about that desastrous option.
But then again, the Ukraine and the West need to compromise with giving up on Crimea, that's the minimum prize. 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.

I honestly didn't thought that Putin would attack the whole Ukraine, but rather use a limited operation for getting water supply and a connection for the Crimean and preserving the Donbas. That he was going all-in like came rather unexpected. But it just shows that he plays everything with one big card and this is extremely dangerous, but also kind of logical since the West would have done all the things it does regardless of whether the operation would have been more limited or not. Which is yet another problem with the Western measures: They said they will hurt Russia if they cross the border regardless of how they do it and where. So he just don't cares any more.
And that's typical for him and the Russian leadership: If you don't give them options, they will go even further. The less options they got, the more radical the solutions will get, which is exactly the situation of which I warned before and which might escalate even into a nuclear war in a worst case scenario.
Click to expand...

Malaparte redux.
 
bicicleur 2 said:
They obviously are not the sharpest tools in the shed.

But maybe they believe the Putin propaganda : they would come as liberators and the Ukrainian people would welcome them?

Somebody else here can suggest another explanation?

If it were not be so tragic ... this whole invasion is looking more and more like a farce.

Click to expand...

The Russians do as they're told. How many years have they lived under a democracy? Less than a decade if memory serves.

I don't think there's anything surprising in the fact their "invasion" is a fiasco. Ever since the inspectors reported that a very large percentage of their missiles were inoperable or at least very faulty and would never have hit the proposed targets I knew I had to take every claim about their military might with extreme skepticism. It was said even then that Russia was a third world country with nukes. I think it was true then and is true now. Thing is, even their nukes don't work.

Then, there was, of course, Chernobyl. Yes, there was operator error, but after seeing the series I went and read the actual reports. Yes, there was operator error, but the design itself was faulty, and they knew it and let their people live in the shadow of 17 reactors with the same flaw because a) it was too expensive to fix them, and b) they couldn't admit to the west that they had made such a huge error. They only "saved the day" or saved the rest of Europe from nuclear fallout by sacrificing their own people.

Now we have the Potemkin Village nature of Russia on display once again. They don't have control of the skies, and they haven't managed to put a dent in the communications systems so Ukrainian command and control is operational. One of their three prongs of attack, from the northwest, never happened, because they let their supply lines get cut.

The only time they win is when they carpet bomb. Then nobody can tell there was no accuracy.

That's not to say Russia isn't a dangerous adversary. A country with nukes led by a megalomaniac who believes his own lies about his country's "capability" if not "superiority" is a dangerous figure.

One thing you can never do with a man like that, however, is show fear.
 
Riverman said:
It was always clear that Ukraine, Belorussia and Georgia are red lines which should not be crossed. The USA and NATO broke all promises made in the past by interfering there, which they did, in these "orange revolutions" and by pushing and backing up Ukraine with unnecessary provocations. Especially Ukraine with the Crimea/Sevastopol is just an absolute no go. What should the Russians have done, just watch while they get kicked out by the "souvereign state of Ukraine" out of their largest military port and one of their strategically most precious positions, to let American troops take it afterwards?
If anybody thinks that the Western media coverage is that great and objective, I have to remind everybody on the Syrian conflict and how things got distorted there, with the "freedom fighters" which were for the most part most extreme Sunni Islamists, which butchered from the start of the "revolution" all non-Sunni Islamists and nobody cared, nobody helped, but they let the weapons flow from Turkey and the Free Syrian Army to those Islamists. On the same day one bomb went the wrong way from the Syrians, while Islamists shelled deliberately a market place frequented mostly by Christian Armenians in Aleppo. They only reported the Syrian "barrel bomb" which went wrong, no word about the other side of the city. That's how they always report things. Same here with the Donbas. If the Donbas troops shot back, it was a report, if they get shelled, nobody noticed.
There is no way one can only blame one side for this conflict and its escalation, that doesn't work out. They are "both guilty" and they chould come to terms with each other in a compromise with which both sides can live with. The alternative is just horrific for them and probably, in a worst case scenario, for the whole world. That's absolutely not worth it.

Talking about laws and what's just, when did the USA or England ever cared about that if it was not in their interest? That's just a fig leaf. Just like they only care about suppressed media and persecuted reporters when they do what is in the interest of the USA and GB, never when its about revealing their own crimes and conspirations, because than its just "fake news" which needs to be censored and suppressed, with people like Assange and Snowden having to fear for their life and freedom just like a Russian or Chinese dissident would have to.

There was absolutely no need to push Russia that far, by trying to get Ukraine in the current borders into the NATO without any agreement on Crimea/Sevastopol even. That is completely insane and like a declaration of war. Nobody in his right mind can see this otherwise, because there is some pretext to this conflict, and the Western alliance broke every promise given to the Russians over time. They are now desperate enough to say "stop" that way, which is horrible and insane too, but what did people expect? How far do they want to push the Russian leadership from now on? They can just hope, if the invasion fails, that Putin has just a mental breakdown and gives up, or otherwise we don't know where it ends.
And nobody can tell in all seriousness this was about freedom or laws, it was a geostrategical the West played with Russia, and they pushed the Ukraine to the point of confrontation. Absolutely not necessary. Just a neutral Ukraine with promises to Russia for its ethnic minorities and military bases might have sufficed 2014, but now its too late and everything went wrong for both the Russians and the Ukrainians.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Denmark and Britain approve the idea of Ukraine's Foreign Legion with international volunteers.

Denmark:

https://twitter.com/afp/status/1498009972512280576

"Denmark says will let volunteers join foreign brigade in Ukraine: Prime Minister"

And Britain - Liz Truss said:

"In an interview on BBC One?s Sunday Morning programme, the UK foreign secretary replied ?absolutely? when asked whether she would back anyone wanting to volunteer to help the Ukrainians fighting for their freedom.
She told the programme: ?That is something people can make their own decisions about. The people of Ukraine are fighting for freedom and democracy, not just for Ukraine, but for the whole of Europe. Absolutely, if people want to support that struggle, I would support them in doing that.?
 
Palermo Trapani said:
To stop a potential clash between the Soviet Communist and the West, Austria pledged neutrality.
Click to expand...

The same offer was made to Germany: Neutrality or partitioning. Adenauer chose partitioning for Germany, since he was largely an US agent on the one hand, but also because he didn't trust the US and even less the Soviets to fulfil any such treaty. Like they could demand neutrality first and then invade nevertheless. But this was an option in a lot of cases, similar for Finland, Sweden etc.

Angela said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's like accusing you and anybody else which says "brute force against the Russians to the bitter end, no matter what" is the same person. Obviously there are more people out there which don't want this conflict to escalate for nothing and prefer a diplomatic solution, while seeting that both the Russian and the Ukrainian part didn't really try hard enough to achieve a compromise. Its always sad if two states and populations need to start a war, just to get back to the table for negotiations again, so useless. But the current escalation is not just the fault of Russia and Putin. They might have done it, but this war has a history, with preceding events leading up to this mess and the West and the Ukraine did their fair share for this.

"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?"
Click to expand...


I think we can't compare countries like Poland, the Czech Republic or Romania with Belarussia, Ukraine and Georgia. The latter are much closer to, more important and have a very different history than the former. Also, its always a process and in this case, unlike the others, Russia made very clear that the West and the Ukraine crossed various red lines, which demanded a response. And the West was just going on.
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.

There was never a serious threat of Russia to keep Poland, Czechia or Romania for example, that's just a different situation altogether. Also, Russia didn't intervene into Ukrainian policy and freedom all that much, as long as they kept some promises and basic ties. Its just when they threatened to join NATO in their current borders, and with the demands for the East and Crimea still up, unresolved, that they went mad. But this was predictable, you can't just proceed with such hostile plans against a neighbour like Russia without even trying to come to a compromise and diplomatic solution acceptable for it. Putin actually begged for a diplomatic solution, for some basic guarantees, quite long. There was just no response from the West, they just pushed the Ukraine to keep a hard stance and move forward regardless of what Russia was saying, while constantly supplying Ukraine with weapons.


I'm not saying what Russia does right now is right, absolutely not, but what the USA and other Western countries, together with the current political leadership of the Ukraine did, was also wrong, the wrong way to do it and a direct path to a foreseeable escalation. Its just horrific that it really did happen, I hoped it won't, but here we are.

Both the Ukraine and Russia should be pushed to the negotiation table and no side should believe it can win this war with brute force alone. Because if it does, this could escalate to yet another level no sane human being should want it to.
 
Tomenable said:
Russian official Oleg Anisimov has apologized to the United Nations for the invasion:

https://www.france24.com/en/live-ne...logises-for-war-in-ukraine-at-un-climate-meet

Putin must be raging now.
Click to expand...

Russians are also protesting in the streets, troops don't want to be there, and this Russian official apologizes for the war, but apologists in western Europe and the U.S. think the west "provoked" him, so the west is to blame.

That about covers it in a nutshell.

As for giving deference to the Russian apologists point of view, should Churchill have given deference to Chamberlain, or should he have continued shouting from the rooftops that Hitler should be stopped? My opinion is obviously he should have done the latter, which he did, to his everlasting credit. Too bad his countrymen didn't listen. It was a near thing for Britain because the U.S. got in so late, with Roosevelt having to fight the isolationists all the way, until Japan pushed us over the edge.
 
Palermo Trapani said:
Well not to laugh but notice it was the Climate group of the UN. Good Lord. I am all for getting to less dependence on Fossil fuel, but it is not a switch you can just turn on. It is a transition that is going to take years and you can't do what Biden here in the USA did, stop domestic production as soon as you get in, and now he is looking for other countries to provide extra Oil and Gas to meet demand. I read where the USA may start buying from Iran again if some agreement on the Nuclear deal can be reached. So it is ok to buy from Iran, but not from Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska, Louisiana, etc, etc, etc, and all other Oil and Gas producing states.
Click to expand...

Sure, let Iran keep the jobs and get the money and energy independence. What's wrong with that?
 
OK, maybe defending Poland, Hungary, and Romania is justifiable, but there's a deafening silence about Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Oh well, they're small states, and have been turned over before, so I guess they're expendable?

Oh, and btw, maybe people who think it's only Ukraine which Putin was willing to go to war for, and only because the west "provoked" him should go back and read that long rambling, maniacal screed where he lays out clearly his ultimate goal. He wants it all back, guys, all of it, all of the former eastern bloc.

When dictators tell you what they want, believe them.
 
Tomenable said:
Denmark and Britain approve the idea of Ukraine's Foreign Legion with international volunteers.

Denmark:

https://twitter.com/afp/status/1498009972512280576

"Denmark says will let volunteers join foreign brigade in Ukraine: Prime Minister"

And Britain - Liz Truss said:

"In an interview on BBC One�s Sunday Morning programme, the UK foreign secretary replied �absolutely� when asked whether she would back anyone wanting to volunteer to help the Ukrainians fighting for their freedom.
She told the programme: �That is something people can make their own decisions about. The people of Ukraine are fighting for freedom and democracy, not just for Ukraine, but for the whole of Europe. Absolutely, if people want to support that struggle, I would support them in doing that.�
Click to expand...

Putin has unleashed the whirlwind.
 
Angela said:
Sure, let Iran keep the jobs and get the money and energy independence. What's wrong with that?
Click to expand...

I am not sure on the specifics but because there are sanctions by the USA on Iran, they can't export Gas and Oil as part of OPEC to the USA. But once they get back a Nuclear Deal, and OPEC allows them to sell their oil with the rest of OPEC, how does the US not buy it. Psaki was asked the question the other day, but she of course dodged it. Here is a pretty good summary on the politics and what has to happen.

https://money.usnews.com/investing/...would-seek-to-bring-iran-into-oil-supply-deal
 
Angela said:
OK, maybe defending Poland, Hungary, and Romania is justifiable, but there's a deafening silence about Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Oh well, they're small states, and have been turned over before, so I guess they're expendable?

Oh, and btw, maybe people who think it's only Ukraine which Putin was willing to go to war for, and only because the west "provoked" him should go back and read that long rambling, maniacal screed where he lays out clearly his ultimate goal. He wants it all back, guys, all of it, all of the former eastern bloc.

When dictators tell you what they want, believe them.
Click to expand...

I don't want to make this all about economics, but you can't totally decouple economic policy from your national security policy, imo. But those 3 countries to their credit are hitting the > 2% of GDP on their NATO commitment

In addition, this foreign policy analysis article, from 2017, clearly showed these 3 countries recognized the need to move away from dependence on Russian Oil and Gas

https://www.fpri.org/article/2017/06/baltic-energy-sources-diversifying-away-russia/

Smart leaders who recognize being dependent on Russian Oil and Gas is not only a threat to your economy, it is is also a threat to national security.

These 3 countries know what it is like to live under the boot of Soviet Communism and they deserve NATO support. I have seen nothing from these 3 countries other than being good NATO partners both in terms of shared security obligations and economic decisions.
 
Angela said:
OK, maybe defending Poland, Hungary, and Romania is justifiable, but there's a deafening silence about Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Oh well, they're small states, and have been turned over before, so I guess they're expendable?
Click to expand...

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

Oh, and btw, maybe people who think it's only Ukraine which Putin was willing to go to war for, and only because the west "provoked" him should go back and read that long rambling, maniacal screed where he lays out clearly his ultimate goal. He wants it all back, guys, all of it, all of the former eastern bloc.
Click to expand...

That's absurd, where did he really say that? He did not, he desperately tries to not provoke the NATO and keep it at a distance. Russia in its current borders and with its current military can't bring all Eastern states back under its control. Of course, he might dream about it on the very long run, probably over generations, but that's not what he said. Some remarks shouldn't be taken literally, but I never heard him saying that he e.g. wants Poland and Romania back by force. Rather he wants to be a counterweight in Europe as such to the Washington-London influence, politically.

When dictators tell you what they want, believe them.
Click to expand...

As if the USA is more believable to any sovereign state around the world. There are plenty of cases which prove the opposite in the recent years alone.

The most insidious and hypocritical comments came of course from Erdogan, the butcher of the Kurds, the spreader of Islamist terror, the occupier of foreign countries against international law. He was the first to condemn Putins transgression of international law. Probably Saudi Arabia should send a message from Yemen too, if they like, just like Erdogan from Syria, Iraq and Kurdistan in general.

What did happen to Erdogan for what he did? Nothing. These are just double standards, just like it suits the Washington-London alliance. If they like it, its ok, if not, its against international law and needs to be fought with all measures. These kind of double standards make absolutely clear with which kind of geopolitical game we're dealing with.
 
Gypsies who live in a country ruled by a "Nazi drug addict" president - capture a Russian tank:

https://168-hu.translate.goog/kulfo...zNkXrwXeqoFcboZxXc3zDDxK49CZ2g87vQfAPmjQ-OR28

"Local Roma occupied a Russian tank from the village of Ljubimivka in Herson Oblast, local residents said on 27 February. According to them, "Herszon county is on fire" - writes Transcarpathia.ma.

Earlier, UNIAN reported that civilians had taken to the streets in the village of Koryukivka in Chernivtsi County to stop Russian tanks.

The bold venture of the villagers was also shared by Adviser to the Interior Minister Anton Herashchenko. The head of the ministry expressed his appreciation for their courage."
 
^^^
So from Kremlin's point of view, the Russian army is facing Nazi Gypsies, led by a Nazi Jew, and supported by many drug addicts.

Makes sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 303934 times.

Back
Top