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:
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.
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.
Egregious Violations within countries are different to egregious acts of unprovoked war on sovereign countries.
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:
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.
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.
Egregious Violations within countries are different to egregious acts of unprovoked war on sovereign countries.
Both are egregious but countries do have same legal standings to intervene …
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:
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.
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.
Egregious Violations within countries are different to egregious acts of unprovoked war on sovereign countries.
Both are egregious but countries do have same legal standings to intervene …
Do not sorry -
Also this thread pertains to Ukraine but no we should not look the other way at atrocities carried out anywhere … when human rights abuses are within borders there is less room for the world to respond …
In long term, UN Security Ciuncil membership should be conditioned upon not commuting either war crimes or genocide within own borders.
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:
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.
Agree he's wanted to do this a long time and he made two of his major moves during Obama and now Biden/Harris. Nothing to unmask. You always strike when your adversaries are weak and in disarray. Oh, and wait for the olympics to be over so your athletes can compete.
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:
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.
Agree he's wanted to do this a long time and he made two of his major moves during Obama and now Biden/Harris. Nothing to unmask. You always strike when your adversaries are weak and in disarray. Oh, and wait for the olympics to be over so your athletes can compete.
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:
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.
Agree he's wanted to do this a long time and he made two of his major moves during Obama and now Biden/Harris. Nothing to unmask. You always strike when your adversaries are weak and in disarray. Oh, and wait for the olympics to be over so your athletes can compete.
And then get stuck in the mud and get completely humiliated by the guy you think is weak, lol.
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:
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.
Agree he's wanted to do this a long time and he made two of his major moves during Obama and now Biden/Harris. Nothing to unmask. You always strike when your adversaries are weak and in disarray. Oh, and wait for the olympics to be over so your athletes can compete.
And then get stuck in the mud and get completely humiliated by the guy you think is weak, lol.
what's your point? a tank got stuck in the mud in winter and Putin is so humiliated he's pulling all his 1000s of military artillary out? What new softie Disney movie is this?
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:
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.
Agree he's wanted to do this a long time and he made two of his major moves during Obama and now Biden/Harris. Nothing to unmask. You always strike when your adversaries are weak and in disarray. Oh, and wait for the olympics to be over so your athletes can compete.
And then get stuck in the mud and get completely humiliated by the guy you think is weak, lol.
what's your point? a tank got stuck in the mud in winter and Putin is so humiliated he's pulling all his 1000s of military artillary out? What new softie Disney movie is this?
My point is simple. This has been an embarrassing disaster for Russia. They underestimated Biden and by doing China a favor they got stuck in the mud. Russia is a global joke. Enjoy your new life as China's servant.
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:
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.
Agree he's wanted to do this a long time and he made two of his major moves during Obama and now Biden/Harris. Nothing to unmask. You always strike when your adversaries are weak and in disarray. Oh, and wait for the olympics to be over so your athletes can compete.
And then get stuck in the mud and get completely humiliated by the guy you think is weak, lol.
what's your point? a tank got stuck in the mud in winter and Putin is so humiliated he's pulling all his 1000s of military artillary out? What new softie Disney movie is this?
My point is simple. This has been an embarrassing disaster for Russia. They underestimated Biden and by doing China a favor they got stuck in the mud. Russia is a global joke. Enjoy your new life as China's servant.
OK U.S. mass media. Thanks for toeing the line on that the last 10 days. I disagree, this is not a disaster for Russia, though many Americans want to believe that.
Besides, end game is what again? The same. Putin gets more of Ukraine.
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:
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.
Agree he's wanted to do this a long time and he made two of his major moves during Obama and now Biden/Harris. Nothing to unmask. You always strike when your adversaries are weak and in disarray. Oh, and wait for the olympics to be over so your athletes can compete.
And then get stuck in the mud and get completely humiliated by the guy you think is weak, lol.
what's your point? a tank got stuck in the mud in winter and Putin is so humiliated he's pulling all his 1000s of military artillary out? What new softie Disney movie is this?
My point is simple. This has been an embarrassing disaster for Russia. They underestimated Biden and by doing China a favor they got stuck in the mud. Russia is a global joke. Enjoy your new life as China's servant.
DP-I don't get your point. How is it an embarrassing disaster for Russia? If they are such a global joke, why aren't we able to do something about?
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:
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.
Agree he's wanted to do this a long time and he made two of his major moves during Obama and now Biden/Harris. Nothing to unmask. You always strike when your adversaries are weak and in disarray. Oh, and wait for the olympics to be over so your athletes can compete.
+1
This is all just soooooo exciting for all these policy wonks and bored journalists. They were even leading questions last week with WWIII questions. What an industry!
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:
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.
Agree he's wanted to do this a long time and he made two of his major moves during Obama and now Biden/Harris. Nothing to unmask. You always strike when your adversaries are weak and in disarray. Oh, and wait for the olympics to be over so your athletes can compete.
And then get stuck in the mud and get completely humiliated by the guy you think is weak, lol.
what's your point? a tank got stuck in the mud in winter and Putin is so humiliated he's pulling all his 1000s of military artillary out? What new softie Disney movie is this?
My point is simple. This has been an embarrassing disaster for Russia. They underestimated Biden and by doing China a favor they got stuck in the mud. Russia is a global joke. Enjoy your new life as China's servant.
DP-I don't get your point. How is it an embarrassing disaster for Russia? If they are such a global joke, why aren't we able to do something about?
Why wasn't Nato or UN already IN Ukraine the last few years given the Crimea debacle and takeover?
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:
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.
Agree he's wanted to do this a long time and he made two of his major moves during Obama and now Biden/Harris. Nothing to unmask. You always strike when your adversaries are weak and in disarray. Oh, and wait for the olympics to be over so your athletes can compete.
And then get stuck in the mud and get completely humiliated by the guy you think is weak, lol.
what's your point? a tank got stuck in the mud in winter and Putin is so humiliated he's pulling all his 1000s of military artillary out? What new softie Disney movie is this?
My point is simple. This has been an embarrassing disaster for Russia. They underestimated Biden and by doing China a favor they got stuck in the mud. Russia is a global joke. Enjoy your new life as China's servant.
DP-I don't get your point. How is it an embarrassing disaster for Russia? If they are such a global joke, why aren't we able to do something about?
Why wasn't Nato or UN already IN Ukraine the last few years given the Crimea debacle and takeover?
Are you joking? Countries have been supplying Ukraine with defense weapons since Russia invaded. Countries have also been supplying Ukraine with defense weapons and military training (apparently very effective military training) for years before this.
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:
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.
Agree he's wanted to do this a long time and he made two of his major moves during Obama and now Biden/Harris. Nothing to unmask. You always strike when your adversaries are weak and in disarray. Oh, and wait for the olympics to be over so your athletes can compete.
And then get stuck in the mud and get completely humiliated by the guy you think is weak, lol.
what's your point? a tank got stuck in the mud in winter and Putin is so humiliated he's pulling all his 1000s of military artillary out? What new softie Disney movie is this?
My point is simple. This has been an embarrassing disaster for Russia. They underestimated Biden and by doing China a favor they got stuck in the mud. Russia is a global joke. Enjoy your new life as China's servant.
DP-I don't get your point. How is it an embarrassing disaster for Russia? If they are such a global joke, why aren't we able to do something about?
We have. Russia is now a global pariah. They've tripled the size of the Ukrainian tank battalion through sheer incompetence. Their economy is done and they will never be able to hold Ukraine. Enjoy your new life as China's serfs.
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:
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.
Agree he's wanted to do this a long time and he made two of his major moves during Obama and now Biden/Harris. Nothing to unmask. You always strike when your adversaries are weak and in disarray. Oh, and wait for the olympics to be over so your athletes can compete.
And then get stuck in the mud and get completely humiliated by the guy you think is weak, lol.
what's your point? a tank got stuck in the mud in winter and Putin is so humiliated he's pulling all his 1000s of military artillary out? What new softie Disney movie is this?
My point is simple. This has been an embarrassing disaster for Russia. They underestimated Biden and by doing China a favor they got stuck in the mud. Russia is a global joke. Enjoy your new life as China's servant.
OK U.S. mass media. Thanks for toeing the line on that the last 10 days. I disagree, this is not a disaster for Russia, though many Americans want to believe that.
Besides, end game is what again? The same. Putin gets more of Ukraine.
Oh please, illuminate us. Tell us about all the successes.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
