Politics Will Russia Attack Ukraine?

there will be peace negotiations on the border between Ukraine and Bellorussia
at least, that is what is agreed
 
bicicleur 2 said:
there will be peace negotiations on the border between Ukraine and Bellorussia
at least, that is what is agreed
Click to expand...

So these are Ukrainian-Belarusian peace talks, NOT Ukrainian-Russian.

In such case, I support. Maybe Belarusians finally realized their mistake.
 
Tomenable said:
In case if Putin decides to push the button, I'm sure the West could nuke Russia out of existence while suffering minimal casualties.

The West has technology which allows to intercept enemy nuclear missiles on the ground or in the air, before they hit their targets.

Poland has this anti-missile shield too.
Click to expand...

Isn't NATO acting to reinforce the shields in Poland and Roumenia?
Doesn't Russia allready have ultrasone missiles?
 
Tomenable said:
So these are Ukrainian-Belarusian peace talks, NOT Ukrainian-Russian.

In such case, I support. Maybe Belarusians finally realized their mistake.
Click to expand...

No, Russian-Ukranian peace talks on the Ukranian-Bellarusian border.
Not that I expect any breakthrough.
But it's good they are already considering this.
 
Tomenable said:
In case if Putin decides to push the button, I'm sure the West could nuke Russia out of existence while suffering minimal casualties.
The West has technology which allows to intercept enemy nuclear missiles on the ground or in the air, before they hit their targets.
Poland has this anti-missile shield too.
Click to expand...
They can intercept a certain percentage, but what would go through would be enough destruction by any means.
Poland in particular won't be saved by the "shield" they got from NATO.
This is no game and no regular, limited war. Putin set everything on one card, he is determined and a very bad loser, that's part of his personality.
In a worst case scenario, you might hope for his military to not follow his orders if he wants to press the button, but that hope is a bad option.
They need to negotiate!
 
aalexa said:
It seems that the insane murderer Putin, after filling Ukraine with Russian scrap metal, forcing innocent Russians to go to death to kill other innocent people, has now also alerted the Russian nuclear forces! The total disaster of humanity is at the mercy of this lunatic, at any moment! Is there still room for discussions and sanctions like the ones so far ?! I hope that the world powers will find a radical solution as soon as possible, we will get rid of this madman. Even those next to him from the Kremlin and from his own reasoning army, his own citizens, could be the ones to put him in his straitjacket immediately and place him in a specialized sanatorium!
Click to expand...

I remember when the Sovjet Union went bankrupt.
Luckily Ronald Reagan had succeeded the whimp Carter as president of the U.S.
We need cowboys to handle this, not softies.
You can't make them feel for a moment they can get away with this.
 
Riverman said:
They can intercept a certain percentage, but what would go through would be enough destruction by any means.
Poland in particular won't be saved by the "shield" they got from NATO.
This is no game and no regular, limited war. Putin set everything on one card, he is determined and a very bad loser, that's part of his personality.
In a worst case scenario, you might hope for his military to not follow his orders if he wants to press the button, but that hope is a bad option.
They need to negotiate!
Click to expand...

So going preemptive is the option?
 
This is the age old question what to do to prevent worse.
Nuke wherever Putin is located to avoid the outbreak of much worse?
 
Riverman said:
They can intercept a certain percentage, but what would go through would be enough destruction by any means.
Poland in particular won't be saved by the "shield" they got from NATO.
This is no game and no regular, limited war. Putin set everything on one card, he is determined and a very bad loser, that's part of his personality.
In a worst case scenario, you might hope for his military to not follow his orders if he wants to press the button, but that hope is a bad option.
They need to negotiate!
Click to expand...

If you think you know Putin's personality, what would you tell him?
 
bicicleur 2 said:
I remember when the Sovjet Union went bankrupt.
Luckily Ronald Reagan had succeeded the whimp Carter as president of the U.S.
We need cowboys to handle this, not softies.
You can't make them feel for a moment they can get away with this.
Click to expand...

At this point, that would require a major event. Past negotiation.
 
Palermo Trapani said:
Are you sure that Trump said that?
Click to expand...

He called him a genius, savvy, wonderful and smart. I can provide references for all those if you want. Do you know why he called him a genius? Because he used the pretext of protecting Ethnic Russians to invade Ukraine. He praised Putin for invading Crimea:
"So he has the Olympics," Trump said that May. "The day after the Olympics, he starts with Ukraine. The day after. How smart? You know, he didn’t want to do it during the Olympics. Boom. The day after. So our athletes leave, we all leave, and the day after. And you know, when he goes in and takes Crimea, he’s taking the heart and soul because that’s where all the money is."
 
Malaparte said:
@Palermo -- Although I have not made anywhere near the number or quality of contributions that you make to this forum (in fact when you first appeared here, I complimented you on the high quality of your contributions), I've frequented this site for about 4, maybe 5 years now. That's quite a bit of time to invest pretending to be half Calabrian, albeit most of my "time" has been silent reading of threads.

I consider myself a patriot & a nationalist, which also means anti-globalist & anti-imperialist. My practical politics lean toward populism, but as a theoretical matter I recognize the importance of a benevolent & far-sighted elite. I voted for Obama in 2008, Trump in 2016, and abstained from voting in all other presidential elections. In terms of international politics, I am a great believer in balance-of-power realism. This is why I despair of our policy with regard to Russia, even if the nationalist in me is sympathetic to Ukrainian aspirations for self-determination and sovereignty.
Click to expand...

Malaparte: Well I appreciate your statements regarding my contribution, I must confess I don't remember. On your 2nd statement, in the context of your post, I do see where you are coming from. I agree with you about the "elites" in the USA, I have several posts on that front above. 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 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:.

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).

But given China to me is the greater geopolitical threat (Russia is one as well), 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.
 
Didn't Zelenskyy just reject the offer of peace talks in Belorussian border city since Belarus is not neutral?
 
bigsnake49 said:
Didn't Zelenskyy just rejected the offer of peace talks in Belorussian border city since Belorussia is not neutral?
Click to expand...

Good if true. But source please?

We are being bombarded with contradictory news.
 
Palermo Trapani said:
Malaparte: Well I appreciate your statements regarding my contribution, I must confess I don't remember. On your 2nd statement, in the context of your post, I do see where you are coming from. I agree with you about the "elites" in the USA, I have several posts on that front above. 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 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:.

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).

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

With my knowledge as historian and a close observer from German politics I can't share that opinion. Yes there was some kind of naiveté of understatement of Putin's real agenda. Nevertheless certainly not Merkel was for an opt out. There is no indication for it. It was Wandel durch Handel. Change through trade. But not leaving the NATO.

I just heard the speech of Scholz, impressive. Yes he made a shift. And he granted this. Nevertheless determined to defend freedom and democracy. And I must stress that it was for Germany a turn also in delivering weapons that was tabu after ww2. And they spend 100 mil on the Bundeswehr with makes it more than 2%.

The Germans also spend money for LNG etc. They have totally turned their head of Russia.

And last but least this is a magnificent article about the neo Pax Americana, I guess the Europeans and the US still must join their forces, more than ever....no need for isolation on the contrary:

https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...-wrong-pax-americana-worth-defending-00011448
 
bigsnake49 said:
He called him a genius, savvy, wonderful and smart. I can provide references for all those if you want. Do you know why he called him a genius? Because he used the pretext of protecting Ethnic Russians to invade Ukraine. He praised Putin for invading Crimea:
"So he has the Olympics," Trump said that May. "The day after the Olympics, he starts with Ukraine. The day after. How smart? You know, he didn’t want to do it during the Olympics. Boom. The day after. So our athletes leave, we all leave, and the day after. And you know, when he goes in and takes Crimea, he’s taking the heart and soul because that’s where all the money is."
Click to expand...

Well I think what Trump is saying is that Putin outsmarted the US political leaders. I don't think he is saying I am glad Putin invaded Crimea. For goodness sake, Putin invaded the Northern Provinces of the Republic of Georgia in 2008. Nobody did anything. Bush 2 leaves office, he sizes up Obama-Biden administration and in their 2nd term, he takes Crimea.
So I have watched Trump since the 1980's when he tried to get an NFL football team, he was blocked by the other league owners, he helps start a league called the USFL and then he got the USFL owners to try to go head to head with the NFL (like the old AFL did in the 1960's before they merged in 1970) and the USFL would eventually go bankrupt (Trump has done that alot). He has been a public figure along time. So when Trump praises a leader or business adversary as being a tough strong leader, it is something Trump has always done. I have learned to discount whatever Trump says about another leader. It is all noise. Rather, I watch what he does so while Trump for example routinely praised the leader of Communist China, Premiere Xi, Trump over, and over again talked about China's predatory trade practices, how they manipulate their currency relative to other countries currency relative to trade with each respective country. He put tariffs on products from China that were priced for competitive advantage for China solely because of unfair trade policies. So Trump simultaneously praised Xi and praised a Chinese leader more than any US president I have ever seen for beign a tough and strong leader but no president ever cracked down on China's predatory trade practices (nothing free and fair about them).
 
bicicleur 2 said:
If you think you know Putin's personality, what would you tell him?
Click to expand...

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:
On 19 February 1954, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union issued a decree transferring the Crimean Oblast from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian SSR.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 304707 times.

Back
Top