Politics Will Russia Attack Ukraine?

[Vallicanus]

What exactly is nonsense of what I wrote?
So everybody which disagrees is a troll and what not, but people which demand a "No-fly zone" and want NATO to start shooting down Russian jets are reasonable?
To risk a nuclear war for a regime which doesn�t take negotiations seriously and wants to escalate a war on the back of its own people is the unbiased truth?
I just hope that this kind of warmongering never makes it among the NATO decision makers, it would be utterly disastrous. They promised they won't, I just hope they keep at least that promise, because regardless of what many of you say now, you might regret it if they don't.

One piece of nonsense was saying that the Ukrainians are using human shields when actually over a million women and children have been sent to safe countries and the men are determined to resist the illegal onslaught.

A partisan war is never dirty but an invasion is.

 

[Angela]

Most of those idiots who engage in pro-Russian (often anti-semitic) conspiracy theories are usually migrants from Eastern Europe who live in the "evil" West. I have yet to see a single German (or an Italian, Iberian etc.) that was vehemently pro-Russia. Even the neo-Nazi ethnic Germans (or the original ones) don't support them.

Why did they migrate to the so called "ZOG" West in the first place? Why don't they go live in Russia?

Bkz it's a third world country. Where do all the Russian billionaires who bled their country dry go to live?

Even those just high in the food chain prefer the west. I recently saw a video of a "famous" Russian television host all upset because Italy seized his villa in Lake Como. I hope they never give it back no matter what happens.

If you're getting paid to spread disinformation like all those twitter accounts during the last U.S. Presidential election, I'm sure you're praying you're not called back to Russia.

Russia can't give the average Russian a decent standard of living, it can't make a decent car, it can't even make, as we've seen, a decent tank or figure out how to supply them and their men, and that if there are rivers in the way of the advance of your tanks you better have engineers with you to rebuild the bridges. Their planes as well as their atomic bombs also aren't what they were said to be, as we learned about the latter during the disarmament inspections.

They can, of course, carpet bomb cities full of civilians, civilians they claim are their countrymen, and freeze and starve them to death. They also can just throw their soldiers into the line of fire, wave after wave of them, as they did in WWI and WWII instead of having decent war materiel and intelligent strategy.

It's a Potemkin country. Who the hell would want to live there? It's not like the U.S., which they so hate, but where people are willing to take their children and cross a desert on foot to reach it even if they risk death.

 

[Riverman]

One piece of nonsense was saying that the Ukrainians are using human shields when actually over a million women and children have been sent to safe countries and the men are determined to resist the illegal onslaught.

A partisan war is never dirty but an invasion is.

The civilians largely fled on their own and the Ukrainian government does not enough to evacuate its civilians for tactical reasons. But ok, you might have a different impression.

Men being forced to stay, whether they want or not. I'm sure, a large portion of the Ukrainian men being volunteers and willing to fight, but to portray them all this way is propaganda. Many surely don't want to die for the Selenski regime.

A partisan war is never dirty? Seriously?
Probably you don't know enough about it. Most partisan war targeted the own population as well, did attacks out of civilian structures and without a clearly recognisable signal for combatants.
They included civilian death and suffering, as well as retaliation by the occupants, to instigate hate, into their calculation.
A partisan warfare is per se not good or bad, but its usually an even more dirty and brutal warfare with way more transgressions on both sides.
Simply because it completely blurrs the lines between combatants and civilians. Deliberate cruelty and blurred lines for combatants is a dirty war and strategy, what else is?

To plan a war from the start to escalate to that level includes the willingness to cause maximal destruction and suffering of the population for the own political goals.

The Russians didn't come to exterminate the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians made their point by fighting with their regular forces. That way they proved to the world their will to resist and stay independent.

There is absolutely no reason for a responsible leader to escalate the situation to this point and either ruining the Ukrainian people and country or escalating to a potential nuclear war.

The conclusion is this Selenski regime is irresponsible and doesn't care for the potential consequences.
You could also say its Putins Russia's fault, because they made the first step to the current escalation, and I would agree on that as well.

But what does it help if they both act irresponsible and being unwilling to accept a compromise? How far is this supposed to go, just because they don't get back to the negotiations table!

I refuse to accept that no matter on which side you are more inclined to, that fighting this out to the botter end with all means is the best or even only solution.
This is pure madness and its the fault of both regimes that it went that far already.

 

[Vallicanus]

The civilians largely fled on their own and the Ukrainian government does not enough to evacuate its civilians for tactical reasons. But ok, you might have a different impression.
Men being forced to stay, whether they want or not. I'm sure, a large portion of the Ukrainian men being volunteers and willing to fight, but to portray them all this way is propaganda. Many surely don't want to die for the Selenski regime.
A partisan war is never dirty? Seriously?
Probably you don't know enough about it. Most partisan war targeted the own population as well, did attacks out of civilian structures and without a clearly recognisable signal for combatants.
They included civilian death and suffering, as well as retaliation by the occupants, to instigate hate, into their calculation.
A partisan warfare is per se not good or bad, but its usually an even more dirty and brutal warfare with way more transgressions on both sides.
Simply because it completely blurrs the lines between combatants and civilians. Deliberate cruelty and blurred lines for combatants is a dirty war and strategy, what else is?
To plan a war from the start to escalate to that level includes the willingness to cause maximal destruction and suffering of the population for the own political goals.
The Russians didn't come to exterminate the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians made their point by fighting with their regular forces. That way they proved to the world their will to resist and stay independent.
There is absolutely no reason for a responsible leader to escalate the situation to this point and either ruining the Ukrainian people and country or escalating to a potential nuclear war.
The conclusion is this Selenski regime is irresponsible and doesn't care for the potential consequences.
You could also say its Putins Russia's fault, because they made the first step to the current escalation, and I would agree on that as well.
But what does it help if they both act irresponsible and being unwilling to accept a compromise? How far is this supposed to go, just because they don't get back to the negotiations table!
I refuse to accept that no matter on which side you are more inclined to, that fighting this out to the botter end with all means is the best or even only solution.
This is pure madness and its the fault of both regimes that it went that far already.

It's clear to me you believe might is right.

 

[Vallicanus]

As the author Harari said in a recent TV interview... Russia is just a gas station with nukes.

 

[Northener]

I refuse to accept that no matter on which side you are more inclined to, that fighting this out to the botter end with all means is the best or even only solution.

I agree with that. Bennett of Israel is already putting an effort.

Nevertheless the question stays how to prevent that Putin enrolls his revanchist agenda even further....

 

[Riverman]

It's clear to me you believe might is right.

Absolutely not. This is about much more than that, from legitimate claims Russia had to the risk of an escalation which would be dangerous far beyond that regional conflict.
This should have been solved diplomatically 8 years ago, but being boiled up to this escalation by various actors. But even now its better to find a peaceful diplomatic solution as soon as possible than to fight it out with all potential consequences.

 

[Riverman]

I agree with that. Bennett of Israel is already putting an effort.

Nevertheless the question stays how to prevent that Putin enrolls his revanchist agenda even further....

I don't think Putin would have escalated that far with a reasonable compromise being offered in the last 8 years.
And I see no proof for serious ambitions beyond the current or former GUS states.
Both NATO and Russia have Red lines, and it was so far never Russia which crossed those of NATO, but always the other way around.

If the same rhetoric some use these days would have been applied in the Cold War, we would have had a nuclear catastrophy decades ago, because it creates a vicious cycle.

NATO already pushed things to the limits in Ukraine, now they need to create a way out for Russia which allows an acceptable peace for all sides. The maximal demands from the Selenski regime are simply not helpful, they never were.
There needs to be an open discussion about serious peace talks.
A NATO membership of the Ukraine in its current official borders without any agreement with Russia Was just never a serious peaceful option, everybody knew it.
Russia just stepped up once it became clear that there won't be an acceptable compromise coming from the Ukraine anyway.
And the Ukrainian regime never stepped down from their maximal demands and both together brought us to that point.
Russia and Ukraine acted irresponsible in this conflict and while I simply want peace in Ukraine I'm absolutely against risking a nuclear war.

 

[Riverman]

According to CNN, this is what Chinese officials said:

"China supports all efforts conducive to de-escalation and political settlement of the situation, while opposing any moves which are adverse to promoting a diplomatic solution and add fuel to the flames," Wang said

I know what many might say about the Chinese position, but this is, if taken seriously, the only reasonable approach to the current situation.
Just don't add fuel to the fire!
It will cost only more lifes and risks further escalation to a level nobody should want.

 

[Northener]

I don't think Putin would have escalated that far with a reasonable compromise being offered in the last 8 years.
And I see no proof for serious ambitions beyond the current or former GUS states.
Both NATO and Russia have Red lines, and it was so far never Russia which crossed those of NATO, but always the other way around.
If the same rhetoric some use these days would have been applied in the Cold War, we would have had a nuclear catastrophy decades ago, because it creates a vicious cycle.
NATO already pushed things to the limits in Ukraine, now they need to create a way out for Russia which allows an acceptable peace for all sides. The maximal demands from the Selenski regime are simply not helpful, they never were.
There needs to be an open discussion about serious peace talks.
A NATO membership of the Ukraine in its current official borders without any agreement with Russia Was just never a serious peaceful option, everybody knew it.
Russia just stepped up once it became clear that there won't be an acceptable compromise coming from the Ukraine anyway.
And the Ukrainian regime never stepped down from their maximal demands and both together brought us to that point.
Russia and Ukraine acted irresponsible in this conflict and while I simply want peace in Ukraine I'm absolutely against risking a nuclear war.

I guess that marks were we sharply disagree. This is turn back the time into the SU time and before. With sphere of influences, and agreements between 'leaders' etc, take this from Churchill and Stalin:


When people like the Ests, or the Poles and recently the Ukrainians choose to get part of (a form of) liberal democracy, not laid up on, but self-chosen is it up to Putin's Russia to cross that and get them back in his sphere of influence? Driven by revanche agenda to draw the clock before 1989 and even unto the 10th century (Kyiv as cradle of Rus)?

Obviously Putin needs force to 'get them back', is that force the norm Riverman? Are you longing for the world of Von Metternich?

I don't and that's the core. I am pro liberal parlementair democracy, pro sovereignty of people and against a brutal attempt to turn back the clock' a millennium ago...'. No leading revanchist agenda for Europe....

 

[Vallicanus]

I don't think Putin would have escalated that far with a reasonable compromise being offered in the last 8 years.
And I see no proof for serious ambitions beyond the current or former GUS states.
Both NATO and Russia have Red lines, and it was so far never Russia which crossed those of NATO, but always the other way around.
If the same rhetoric some use these days would have been applied in the Cold War, we would have had a nuclear catastrophy decades ago, because it creates a vicious cycle.
NATO already pushed things to the limits in Ukraine, now they need to create a way out for Russia which allows an acceptable peace for all sides. The maximal demands from the Selenski regime are simply not helpful, they never were.
There needs to be an open discussion about serious peace talks.
A NATO membership of the Ukraine in its current official borders without any agreement with Russia Was just never a serious peaceful option, everybody knew it.
Russia just stepped up once it became clear that there won't be an acceptable compromise coming from the Ukraine anyway.
And the Ukrainian regime never stepped down from their maximal demands and both together brought us to that point.
Russia and Ukraine acted irresponsible in this conflict and while I simply want peace in Ukraine I'm absolutely against risking a nuclear war.

You make the mistake of thinking that Putin is a reasonable man who would have taken the democratic path back in the Nineties but for imagined wrongs perpetrated by the arrogant, triumphalist West.

Putin was as much a kleptocrat as any of his crooked oligarchic friends, probably worse in fact.

 

[Vallicanus]

Vladimir Putin is more like that cowardly tyrant Ivan the Terrible than Lenin (who supported Ukrainian self-determination).

 

[Riverman]

Vladimir Putin is more like that cowardly tyrant Ivan the Terrible than Lenin (who supported Ukrainian self-determination).

As if Lenin was a friend of humanity, he was destroying and killing more in Russia than Putin ever did. You really want to compare Putin with Lenin? The Bolshevists always promised freedoms at the beginning, but in the end they took more away than the Tsarist regime before and this didn't start with Stalin, but with Lenin already. And if looking at the brutality of the civil war, there is also no way you can say that Lenin would have been better than Putin.

You make the mistake of thinking that Putin is a reasonable man who would have taken the democratic path back in the Nineties but for imagined wrongs perpetrated by the arrogant, triumphalist West.

Putin was as much a kleptocrat as any of his crooked oligarchic friends, probably worse in fact.

He is definitely not as bad as Yeltsin was, because Putin had to deal with an Oligarchy the catastrophy of Yeltsin created. There is a nice saying, for Eastern Europe they call it oligarchs, in the west we're calling them philanthropists.

The Ukraine is as much an oligarchic country as Russia, actually even more so, because there was no stronger political force than the few oligarchs which controlled the media. So you might say that two oligarchic and in part corrupted states with two irresponsibly acting regimes have now a war on the back of their people. That's something one could say, but not more. And Putin if anything controlled the oligarchs in his country better than other politicians in the East. Which is also why some of them wanted to shoot him down, not because they want a better social existence or more seriously taken democracy for the people. Its quite telling that especially the UK supported those "oppositional" oligarchs and tried to establish media and social networks to support their influence. The Yeltsin catastrophy was of course a trauma for Russia, because weakness and corruption was never that bad before or afterwards.

Obviously Putin needs force to 'get them back', is that force the norm Riverman? Are you longing for the world of Von Metternich?

No, if Putin would prove to follow that path as a hardliner, I wouldn't agree with him at all. The problem is that the Ukraine made no acceptable offer to Russia as far as I know. I think they should have the freedom to organise themselves as they want, but not with the minority groups which don't want to belong to this state, not with the Russian base Sevastopol possibly taken away from Russia and if they would be allowed to join NATO at all, not in the current borders. That would be a fair compromise. They got territories which don't even belong to the historical Ukraine, with people which don't want to be part of this state and with areas of vital interest to Russia.

Why had they to cut Crimea from water supply? Why did they kill Donbas leaders? Why did they shell Donbas areas and never really implement the Minsk agreement? Why did they proceed banning all pro-Russian media and began to persecute pro-Russian people? Why did they took such an aggressive stance towards Russia and ostentatiously said they will joing NATO anyway and don't care for Russian concerns at all, consider them a hostile state?

If they were not on war course why did they do these things, with a president which got voted for with the promise of bringing an end to this conflict and peace?

This means its absolutely not about Russia just "bringing Ukraine back" with force out of nothing, this was a serious series of conflicts and provocations between these states. With both sides to blame. Many wars in the recent years started by far less than that.

Putin had no right for this level of escalation, but the West threatened him with basically the same measures even if he would have just entered Donbas, which had no perspective for ending that way without negotiations. The West should have supported Ukraine in negotiations, and its right for self-determination, but also making clear that a compromise with Russia is what they want too and that they don't support a hardliner position which risks everything and calculates such a war. No license for Kiev to do what they want and get maximal support anyway. That's the problem. Yes, we support Ukraine, but no unconditional support if they act irresponsible themselves. And that's exactly what happened and why especially Germany and France kept back for so long, to not pushing them to the confrontation.

 

[Vallicanus]

As if Lenin was a friend of humanity, he was destroying and killing more in Russia than Putin ever did. You really want to compare Putin with Lenin? The Bolshevists always promised freedoms at the beginning, but in the end they took more away than the Tsarist regime before and this didn't start with Stalin, but with Lenin already. And if looking at the brutality of the civil war, there is also no way you can say that Lenin would have been better than Putin.



He is definitely not as bad as Yeltsin was, because Putin had to deal with an Oligarchy the catastrophy of Yeltsin created. There is a nice saying, for Eastern Europe they call it oligarchs, in the west we're calling them philanthropists.

The Ukraine is as much an oligarchic country as Russia, actually even more so, because there was no stronger political force than the few oligarchs which controlled the media. So you might say that two oligarchic and in part corrupted states with two irresponsibly acting regimes have now a war on the back of their people. That's something one could say, but not more. And Putin if anything controlled the oligarchs in his country better than other politicians in the East. Which is also why some of them wanted to shoot him down, not because they want a better social existence or more seriously taken democracy for the people. Its quite telling that especially the UK supported those "oppositional" oligarchs and tried to establish media and social networks to support their influence. The Yeltsin catastrophy was of course a trauma for Russia, because weakness and corruption was never that bad before or afterwards.



No, if Putin would prove to follow that path as a hardliner, I wouldn't agree with him at all. The problem is that the Ukraine made no acceptable offer to Russia as far as I know. I think they should have the freedom to organise themselves as they want, but not with the minority groups which don't want to belong to this state, not with the Russian base Sevastopol possibly taken away from Russia and if they would be allowed to join NATO at all, not in the current borders. That would be a fair compromise. They got territories which don't even belong to the historical Ukraine, with people which don't want to be part of this state and with areas of vital interest to Russia.

Why had they to cut Crimea from water supply? Why did they kill Donbas leaders? Why did they shell Donbas areas and never really implement the Minsk agreement? Why did they proceed banning all pro-Russian media and began to persecute pro-Russian people? Why did they took such an aggressive stance towards Russia and ostentatiously said they will joing NATO anyway and don't care for Russian concerns at all, consider them a hostile state?

If they were not on war course why did they do these things, with a president which got voted for with the promise of bringing an end to this conflict and peace?

This means its absolutely not about Russia just "bringing Ukraine back" with force out of nothing, this was a serious series of conflicts and provocations between these states. With both sides to blame. Many wars in the recent years started by far less than that.

Putin had no right for this level of escalation, but the West threatened him with basically the same measures even if he would have just entered Donbas, which had no perspective for ending that way without negotiations. The West should have supported Ukraine in negotiations, and its right for self-determination, but also making clear that a compromise with Russia is what they want too and that they don't support a hardliner position which risks everything and calculates such a war. No license for Kiev to do what they want and get maximal support anyway. That's the problem. Yes, we support Ukraine, but no unconditional support if they act irresponsible themselves. And that's exactly what happened and why especially Germany and France kept back for so long, to not pushing them to the confrontation.

It was Stalin who was the butcher especially in Ukraine with the destruction of the kulaks.

Putin not as bad as Yeltsin as a kleptocrat? Both as bad as each other.

Ukraine is a sovereign state, end of story, and it's Putin who is the war criminal.

 

[Riverman]

Another issue which being largely ignored is the long pressure and attacks on pro-Russian people:

By early August, at least 730,000 had fled fighting in the Donbas and left for Russia.[33] This number, much larger than earlier estimates, was given by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Numbers of internal refugees rose to 117,000.[33] By the start of September, after a sharp escalation over the course of August, the number of people displaced people from Donbas within Ukraine more than doubled to 260,000.[34] The number of refugees that fled from Donbas to Russia rose to 814,000.[35] The UNHCR expressed concerns over the displaced refugees as the winter sets in and was providing supplies to help them cope with the winter.[36]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hum...ernal refugees rose,to Russia rose to 814,000.

Ukraine was escalating the situation as Russia did, but even worse, since they refused to accept the status quo as of 2020 instead of finding a peaceful solution.
The Ukrainian regime is by no means just a victim of an unprovoked aggressor, that narrative is nothing but propaganda.
They are both to blame for the escalation. Still Russia went to far, but its not as simple as good vs bad, not at all.

 

[Vallicanus]

The Crimea was part of Ukraine until Putin stole it in 2014.

 

[Angela]

I said it on the first page of this thread and I still believe it; the West will let Ukraine go.

All of these sanctions avoid the one thing that Putin needs to prop himself up: his oil and gas sales.

Western Europe will not endanger those because it would impact its own economy; the deal it still no doubt hopes it will be able to implement one day is still waiting.

The U.S., with a President who was so risk averse he didn't want to go in after Bin Laden, will not lead the way. Nor will he put up a no-fly zone, which at least we did for the Kurds.

All of this despite the fact there is a written agreement on the table, guaranteed by Russia, the U.S., and the U.K., that Ukraine's sovereignty would be respected.

In light of that fact does anyone really believe the west will suddenly find its courage and moral compass because of another piece of paper, the NATO agreements?

If I were a leader of one of the former Eastern Bloc countries, I wouldn't believe it for a second and I would start preparing now.

The rest is just theater.

 

[Vallicanus]

All of this despite the fact there is a written agreement on the table, guaranteed by Russia, the U.S., and the U.K., that Ukraine's sovereignty would be respected.

Do you understand this statement, Riverman and Malaparte?

 

[Northener]

No, if Putin would prove to follow that path as a hardliner, I wouldn't agree with him at all. The problem is that the Ukraine made no acceptable offer to Russia as far as I know. I think they should have the freedom to organise themselves as they want, but not with the minority groups which don't want to belong to this state, not with the Russian base Sevastopol possibly taken away from Russia and if they would be allowed to join NATO at all, not in the current borders. That would be a fair compromise. They got territories which don't even belong to the historical Ukraine, with people which don't want to be part of this state and with areas of vital interest to Russia.

Why had they to cut Crimea from water supply? Why did they kill Donbas leaders? Why did they shell Donbas areas and never really implement the Minsk agreement? Why did they proceed banning all pro-Russian media and began to persecute pro-Russian people? Why did they took such an aggressive stance towards Russia and ostentatiously said they will joing NATO anyway and don't care for Russian concerns at all, consider them a hostile state?

If they were not on war course why did they do these things, with a president which got voted for with the promise of bringing an end to this conflict and peace?

This means its absolutely not about Russia just "bringing Ukraine back" with force out of nothing, this was a serious series of conflicts and provocations between these states. With both sides to blame. Many wars in the recent years started by far less than that.

Putin had no right for this level of escalation, but the West threatened him with basically the same measures even if he would have just entered Donbas, which had no perspective for ending that way without negotiations. The West should have supported Ukraine in negotiations, and its right for self-determination, but also making clear that a compromise with Russia is what they want too and that they don't support a hardliner position which risks everything and calculates such a war. No license for Kiev to do what they want and get maximal support anyway. That's the problem. Yes, we support Ukraine, but no unconditional support if they act irresponsible themselves. And that's exactly what happened and why especially Germany and France kept back for so long, to not pushing them to the confrontation.

Why should the Ukraine when Russia started a war with the Ukraine without reason why it's up to the Ukraine to offer something.

That would the same as a thief comes in your house and that you would be accused not to offer him a drink, sounds quote absurd to me.

No one has threatened Putin but it happens that the majority of the Eastern European countries seem to prefer NATO and the EU, do you wonder why?

Yes of course Putins see it as a threat, freedom a d democracy is threatening for autocrats. And the agenda of Putin is clear revanche. Once again must that agenda be leading for the rest of Europe I guess not, Putin go home.

 

[Northener]

I said it on the first page of this thread and I still believe it; the West will let Ukraine go.

All of these sanctions avoid the one thing that Putin needs to prop himself up: his oil and gas sales.

Western Europe will not endanger those because it would impact its own economy; the deal it still no doubt hopes it will be able to implement one day is still waiting.

The U.S., with a President who was so risk averse he didn't want to go in after Bin Laden, will not lead the way. Nor will he put up a no-fly zone, which at least we did for the Kurds.

All of this despite the fact there is a written agreement on the table, guaranteed by Russia, the U.S., and the U.K., that Ukraine's sovereignty would be respected.

In light of that fact does anyone really believe the west will suddenly find its courage and moral compass because of another piece of paper, the NATO agreements?

If I were a leader of one of the former Eastern Bloc countries, I wouldn't believe it for a second and I would start preparing now.

The rest is just theater.

I guess the dumbest thing to do now is to rush in as US or NATO, because that would be a real risk of ww3 and even more a nuclear disaster. When you offer a type like Putin not a way to a kind of opt out he is like any authoritarian leader who is defeated: a time bomb. No one in the Kremlin has the position to say no.

No one wants this, and we are very close to it:

That's the whole dilemma, as the Ukraine is no member of NATO....that would have made it differently.

The West is already gone to the limit, the sanctions go for Putin sees this most probably as a severe threat and it is. And these sanctions go also to the expense of the EU economy no doubt. And different countries deliver already lots of weapons. A no fly zone means a battle between west if the Russians and the NATO, would simply mean ww3.

As more often the people of especially Ukraine but also Russia pay the price of war, that's undeniable true. And if that nucleair thing was not at stake it would have made it all very different.