US has no good options in Ukraine

[Anonymous]

I just watched a video from a former Serbian ambassador to Russia, from over 6 years ago.
He clearly stated that there will be a war in Ukraine. Then he went on to say, that it will not be localized to just Ukraine. Quite frankly it scared the heck out of me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am heartened that a large majority of Americans - both democratic and Republican - agree with bans on Russian oil even if it means higher prices, which we are already seeing.

Well done Americans!

Now America needs to increase domestic oil production.

Drill baby. Drill!

And look at Kalingrad. an island of Russian land surrounded by NATO. Avotor is a giant car plant in Kalingrad- ie BMW, Toyota. Putin wants borders from 1000 years ago? Turn Kalingrad back into NATO land. Poland intead of Germany...https://www.hotcars.com/the-real-reason-why-bmw-stopped-making-cars-in-russia-and-halted-exports/

Besides Georgia, Moldova, Latvia etc who else should be on alert? Turkey! Speak Kievan Rus and the nut could try to take back Constantinople, current name Istanbul.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Iran, n Korea, China and Russia all made significant strides in 2009 onward. U.S. diplomacy then was extremely weak, even the CFR admits that. sect Hillary Clinton was neutered and told to fly around and say Hi to FSO offices. Meanwhile Iran cancels UN nuke tours, n Korean did enrichment, China swallowed up IP, and Russia military mobilized. Pirates took ships, Cuba got more tourism dollars, Venezuela went nuts, An executive order illegally mobilized US military to Libya to help secure EU oil and failed at the bS Spring Awakening and domestic race relations took ten turns for the worse.

Huh it’s almost like the financial melt down of 08 had really significant ripple effects. That’s really surprising.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just watched a video from a former Serbian ambassador to Russia, from over 6 years ago.
He clearly stated that there will be a war in Ukraine. Then he went on to say, that it will not be localized to just Ukraine. Quite frankly it scared the heck out of me.

Link please

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Iran, n Korea, China and Russia all made significant strides in 2009 onward. U.S. diplomacy then was extremely weak, even the CFR admits that. sect Hillary Clinton was neutered and told to fly around and say Hi to FSO offices. Meanwhile Iran cancels UN nuke tours, n Korean did enrichment, China swallowed up IP, and Russia military mobilized. Pirates took ships, Cuba got more tourism dollars, Venezuela went nuts, An executive order illegally mobilized US military to Libya to help secure EU oil and failed at the bS Spring Awakening and domestic race relations took ten turns for the worse.

Putin’s invasion of Georgia began in August 2008, while GW was in power and prior to US elections. You have a confirmation bias and trying to pick events to fit your narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched a video from a former Serbian ambassador to Russia, from over 6 years ago.
He clearly stated that there will be a war in Ukraine. Then he went on to say, that it will not be localized to just Ukraine. Quite frankly it scared the heck out of me.

Link please

Ah yes, Serbians the warmongers of Europe, they cannot wait for mother Russia to expand its sphere of influence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Iran, n Korea, China and Russia all made significant strides in 2009 onward. U.S. diplomacy then was extremely weak, even the CFR admits that. sect Hillary Clinton was neutered and told to fly around and say Hi to FSO offices. Meanwhile Iran cancels UN nuke tours, n Korean did enrichment, China swallowed up IP, and Russia military mobilized. Pirates took ships, Cuba got more tourism dollars, Venezuela went nuts, An executive order illegally mobilized US military to Libya to help secure EU oil and failed at the bS Spring Awakening and domestic race relations took ten turns for the worse.

Putin’s invasion of Georgia began in August 2008, while GW was in power and prior to US elections. You have a confirmation bias and trying to pick events to fit your narrative.

Poster just wants to blame democrats, undermine the US and aid Putin. So sick of conservatives and their blame America first. What is wrong with these people. They are Putin’s 5th column.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just watched a video from a former Serbian ambassador to Russia, from over 6 years ago.
He clearly stated that there will be a war in Ukraine. Then he went on to say, that it will not be localized to just Ukraine. Quite frankly it scared the heck out of me.

cite please, I would like to look at this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Big Russia lacked the power to attack tiny Georgia prior to 2008? You really have thought about this deeply, haven't you?

All you are doing is speculating. That is all that any of us can do when it comes to reading Putin's mind.

The facts are not clear, in my view, as to whether the West's actions are motivating Putin to act, or whether we are responding to Putin's actions. It is a circle the feeds back on itself, round and round.

In regard to the latest chapter of this saga, the fact is that a US-Ukraine strategic partnership was signed on Nov 10, 2021, just prior to Putin's build up of troops on Ukraine's border. I think it is plausible that this partnership agreement motivated Putin's invasion of Ukraine. I'm not excusing Putin's actions. I'm just trying to make some guesses as to his logic. I don't believe by the idea that is trying to rebuild the USSR. I think he views his moves as a kind of pro-active form of defense against the West. But, just like you, I can't read his mind (although you seem to believe you have direct access to his thoughts).

Good lord, again the ignorance about Russia is astounding. No one has to guess at what Vladimir Putin is thinking. In July of 2021, he wrote an extensive treatise about what he thinks about the history of Russia and the lands that formerly were a part of Russia. The TL;DR version - Belarus, Ukraine and Russia are one people who have been evilly separated by others. Belarus and Ukraine must return to Russia in order to exercise their true sovereignty. (Never mind what the people of those countries have voted to do.).

Please note that Putin declines to talk about the historical aspects that explain why Ukraine will never willingly be a part of Russia again - just one example is the Holodomor - the deliberate starvation of millions of Ukrainians by Stalin during the period of forced collectivization.

You can read his delusional and self-serving account of history here - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

And before you agree with it, please read

http://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/vladimir-putins-revisionist-history-of-russia-and-ukraine/amp

and

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/01/28/putin-russia-ukraine-myths/

Each of which is by a noted scholar of Ukrainian history.

I think a lot of you guys could better spend your time reading books instead of posting on DCUM.

I think your argument is just as weak as the one you are responding to. None of you really know what's going on there, none. All you know is what you are shown, the info you have access to and what you are interested in learning. Confirmation bias is a big thing. Reality is you don't know what's going on in the head of ANY person, not to mention all the wheels in motion behind large scale world events and complex relationships. Even yourself you don't know how you would react in complex situations that will test your own system of beliefs. There is plenty of stuff out there to support any opinion or bias. The links you have, I can find you a 100 more confirming what you said and your opponent can find links confirming what she is arguing about.

This is relativistic nonsense.
There are bright red lines in international law that sputum has crossed over and over again. This time do egregiously that almost the entire world agrees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Iran, n Korea, China and Russia all made significant strides in 2009 onward. U.S. diplomacy then was extremely weak, even the CFR admits that. sect Hillary Clinton was neutered and told to fly around and say Hi to FSO offices. Meanwhile Iran cancels UN nuke tours, n Korean did enrichment, China swallowed up IP, and Russia military mobilized. Pirates took ships, Cuba got more tourism dollars, Venezuela went nuts, An executive order illegally mobilized US military to Libya to help secure EU oil and failed at the bS Spring Awakening and domestic race relations took ten turns for the worse.

Putin’s invasion of Georgia began in August 2008, while GW was in power and prior to US elections. You have a confirmation bias and trying to pick events to fit your narrative.

Cool deflection. Brookings and CFR disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched a video from a former Serbian ambassador to Russia, from over 6 years ago.
He clearly stated that there will be a war in Ukraine. Then he went on to say, that it will not be localized to just Ukraine. Quite frankly it scared the heck out of me.

cite please, I would like to look at this

It's in Serbian though.

[Anonymous]

The only electrical grid supplying the Chornobyl NPP and all its nuclear facilities occupied by Russian army is damaged. CNPP lost all electric supply. That's terrifying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Iran, n Korea, China and Russia all made significant strides in 2009 onward. U.S. diplomacy then was extremely weak, even the CFR admits that. sect Hillary Clinton was neutered and told to fly around and say Hi to FSO offices. Meanwhile Iran cancels UN nuke tours, n Korean did enrichment, China swallowed up IP, and Russia military mobilized. Pirates took ships, Cuba got more tourism dollars, Venezuela went nuts, An executive order illegally mobilized US military to Libya to help secure EU oil and failed at the bS Spring Awakening and domestic race relations took ten turns for the worse.

Putin’s invasion of Georgia began in August 2008, while GW was in power and prior to US elections. You have a confirmation bias and trying to pick events to fit your narrative.

Cool deflection. Brookings and CFR disagree.

That’s not a deflection, that’s a simple fact. Putin’s strategy, his end goal and progress towards that goal were cast well before Obama came into power. Baltics and Eastern Europeans have been saying this for years.

Hindsight is 20/20 but the truth is all Western leaders brought Russia into the fold, in good faith, this is why everyone was shocked (including ultra nationalists like Orban) when he invaded Ukraine.

Biden’s/Obama’s admin has just unmasked him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO we need elder statesmen to be involved in some type of diplomatic resolution (and maybe they are, behind the scenes) Obama, Clinton, Bush, even Jimmy Carter. We need seasoned experienced leaders to get involved and behind this.

You are joking.
The same "seasoned experienced leaders" who have got us where we are?

I agree this administration has failed in its efforts. And, it makes me angry.
They didn't enact sanctions soon enough.
They didn't send lethal arms to Ukraine for their defense soon enough, even though they had weeks if not months to do this.
They are still buying oil from Russia.
These are the same people who planned the withdrawal from Afghanistan, so I was not optimistic.

But, most of the people you listed are not any more capable of dealing with Russia. Remember Hillary's "reset" with Russia? Remember what happened to Crimea under Obama?
And, Jimmy Carter? Probably the worst in terms of decision making when it comes to foreign policy?
No thanks.

Most of the things you suggest would have rapidly and needlessly escalated the situation. Also would have made it impossible for US to rally support from around the world and would have antagonized China.

We can't keep overstretching ourselves in conflicts around the world. The painful reality is that our leadership has to make very tough choices. I think Biden and team have handled this very well thus far.

BS. The situation escalated on Putin's timeline because we didn't act.
You are believing the narrative this administration is spinning because they have been utter failures.

The US was warning the world that Putin was going to invade, and no one believed them. Plenty of people on this site didn't believe it. How much could the US have done at that point?

Once Putin made the decision to invade, there was nothing the US could have done. Sending in troops to Ukraine would have led to Russians shooting at US soldiers, and vice versa. Does anyone really want the countries that hold the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals shooting at each other?

Honestly, we should have been more aggressive with Putin after he annexed Crimea. The US and European response to that was weak and sent the message to Putin that he could escalate and the response would not be anything he couldn’t handle.

By doing what? Specifically?

And how do you suppose Trump repeating Russian propaganda and the GOP falling in line may have negatively impacted things over the past 4 years?

I never said Trump didn’t negatively impact things, but if you’ve been following Russia since 2014, you can see that the cycle of Putin becoming more aggressive globally really started with the Crimea annexation and the lackluster Western response.

Specifically, we should have placed US/NATO forces on high alert and placed US aircraft carriers in the Bosporus strait. European leaders should have called Putin and told him that if he does not withdraw all Russian presence from Crimea (outside of Black Sea fleet access, which we could negotiate), we will not remove the carriers. Blocking him into the Black Sea would have been disastrous for him and I believe there’s a chance he would have backed down at that point.

If i remember correctly, Putin and Erdogan were buddy buddy at the time. NATO was unfortunately not unified then.

True. However, the US could have unilaterally placed aircraft carriers, if not in the Bosphorus Strait (if Turkey wouldn’t have allowed it), in international waters as close as we could get to it.

That would have been a bad move. Our (NATO and EU, Japan, et al) unity has been our strength. A go it alone strategy would have demonstrated weakness.

Well, the alternative was essentially no action, which—as we’ve seen—has led to Putin feeling empowered to escalate for the past 8 years around the world, culminating in a brazen invasion of Ukraine.

...which has led to the complete destruction of the Russian economy, humiliation of the Russian military, and the reunified strength of NATO.

And the destruction of Ukraine, which continues.

NP. I have been thinking a lot about this, and I am going to copy and paste the comment above yours because of the collapse features...

[\quote][\quote]Well, the alternative was essentially no action, which—as we’ve seen—has led to Putin feeling empowered to escalate for the past 8 years around the world, culminating in a brazen invasion of Ukraine.

...which has led to the complete destruction of the Russian economy, humiliation of the Russian military, and the reunified strength of NATO. [\quote]

The destruction of Ukraine is a tragedy. But the western world as a whole was falling dangerously complacent and seemingly forgetting the dangers of autocracy and not actually comprehending the amazing freedoms we have in functioning democracies. Countries all over the world were drifting back towards autocratic leaders. And we in the west, in our comfortable lives, started to believe that wars and evil men like Hitler were something from history. But the reality is that what we have now is an extreme anomaly in the history of humans. The last 70 years of relative world peace (not complete, of course, but relative to human history) are extremely atypical. Life is easier for more humans than it has been in all of human history. And again, that doesn't mean its not hard for many, but overall, it is better.

And so I would never say that I am happy that Ukraine was invaded and is suffering, I am not, it is heinous and horrific. I will say, that it is possible that Russia doing this and failing so spectacularly has also reminded the world of just how dangerous it is to forget about the dangers of autocracy. To forget about what armies are for, and what they can do. To forget about how one crazy horrible person, if they have enough power, can cause so much death and destruction. It has reminded us of the value of what we have. Reminded us who are real enemy is. And not just in the US, all of Europe and in a lot of the world. A house divided cannot stand. And we were getting dangerously divided. The whole of the western world was getting dangerously divided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Big Russia lacked the power to attack tiny Georgia prior to 2008? You really have thought about this deeply, haven't you?

All you are doing is speculating. That is all that any of us can do when it comes to reading Putin's mind.

The facts are not clear, in my view, as to whether the West's actions are motivating Putin to act, or whether we are responding to Putin's actions. It is a circle the feeds back on itself, round and round.

In regard to the latest chapter of this saga, the fact is that a US-Ukraine strategic partnership was signed on Nov 10, 2021, just prior to Putin's build up of troops on Ukraine's border. I think it is plausible that this partnership agreement motivated Putin's invasion of Ukraine. I'm not excusing Putin's actions. I'm just trying to make some guesses as to his logic. I don't believe by the idea that is trying to rebuild the USSR. I think he views his moves as a kind of pro-active form of defense against the West. But, just like you, I can't read his mind (although you seem to believe you have direct access to his thoughts).

Good lord, again the ignorance about Russia is astounding. No one has to guess at what Vladimir Putin is thinking. In July of 2021, he wrote an extensive treatise about what he thinks about the history of Russia and the lands that formerly were a part of Russia. The TL;DR version - Belarus, Ukraine and Russia are one people who have been evilly separated by others. Belarus and Ukraine must return to Russia in order to exercise their true sovereignty. (Never mind what the people of those countries have voted to do.).

Please note that Putin declines to talk about the historical aspects that explain why Ukraine will never willingly be a part of Russia again - just one example is the Holodomor - the deliberate starvation of millions of Ukrainians by Stalin during the period of forced collectivization.

You can read his delusional and self-serving account of history here - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

And before you agree with it, please read

http://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/vladimir-putins-revisionist-history-of-russia-and-ukraine/amp

and

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/01/28/putin-russia-ukraine-myths/

Each of which is by a noted scholar of Ukrainian history.

I think a lot of you guys could better spend your time reading books instead of posting on DCUM.

I think your argument is just as weak as the one you are responding to. None of you really know what's going on there, none. All you know is what you are shown, the info you have access to and what you are interested in learning. Confirmation bias is a big thing. Reality is you don't know what's going on in the head of ANY person, not to mention all the wheels in motion behind large scale world events and complex relationships. Even yourself you don't know how you would react in complex situations that will test your own system of beliefs. There is plenty of stuff out there to support any opinion or bias. The links you have, I can find you a 100 more confirming what you said and your opponent can find links confirming what she is arguing about.

This is relativistic nonsense.
There are bright red lines in international law that sputum has crossed over and over again. This time do egregiously that almost the entire world agrees.

Do China now.

The world condemned China and many face trade retribution for their critiques - but this is a false equivalence. Russia invaded a sovereign country of 44 million people under false pretenses and is indiscriminately massacring civilians and non military targets, Including Europe’s largest nuclear plant … China’s mass murder of its Muslim citizens was within its own borders. The West has much less standing to intervene. Even in Ukraine, the innocents are not getting the military aid and fighter jets they need to hold off the Russians.

Funny how bright red lines become fuzzy pink ones when the perpetrator is a big boy. The west intervenes when it wants to in intracountry matters in smaller countries all the time using fuzzy international law pretexts.