US has no good options in Ukraine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why wasn't Nato or UN already IN Ukraine the last few years given the Crimea debacle and takeover?

The optimal strategy for protecting Ukraine over the last few years wasn't clear, and I still don't think it is clear.

After Crimea crisis, the options were
(1) do nothing at all (no military) assistance whatsoever,
(2) a massive and rapid increase of military assistance, or
(3) something in between (1) and (2)

Had we used option (2) a few years ago, this probably would have accelerated Putin's invasion. Had we taken option (1), then Ukraine would have had a harder time fighting the invasion once it occurred. I believe we took approach #3, which, I think, was a reasonable approach to take, even though it didn't lead to the desired outcome.

To have successfully prevented the invasion, I think we would have to roll the clock back 20 years and, starting around 2001, employ an entirely different strategy. Either we would have needed to rapidly expand NATO all the way to Ukraine during the period in which Russia was quite weak, or, alternatively, we could have taken the opposite approach, designating all countries that border Russia as neutral territory in which neither Russia nor NATO would have forces and/or weapons systems. The goal would have been to change the basic character of the Russia/West relationship, aiming for a higher level of trust, and perhaps some cooperation (Russia did cooperate with NATO with respect to Bosnia peace-keeping). This would have been difficult, requiring a lot of diplomacy, and perhaps would have failed, but we have no way of knowing.

Would have been a pointless approach as Russia does not want neutrality of those countries but wants them under its sphere of influence, and the countries refused. The strategy that was followed was to entice Russia to form strong connections to Europe.

We can't know that with certainty. However, it doesn't matter since there are no "do overs" -- we can't roll back time and start again from 2001.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's our old friend whataboutism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cool deflection. Brookings and CFR disagree.

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

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

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

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.

It's a military disaster. It's been two weeks and they haven't taken the capital yet? Something they thought they'd accomplish in a day or two? Their equipment is demonstrably crap. The worldwide perception of their military has gone from fearsome to clownish. They're pretty much going to be considered war criminal terrorists for the next decade. And their economy is going to be severely stunted for just as long. And it seems rather unlikely that they're going to get any more of Ukraine unless their battlefield performance dramatically improves. And even then, they'll be subjected to insurgency attacks from here until forever. What part of this "special military operation" resulted in something positive for them?

Who said they thought they'd accomplish that in a day or two? Did they tell us that? Or you heard that from western media?

You don't keep up?

Maybe you can point me to the link?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/27/ex-russian-official-putins-plan-is-full-victory-on-march-2

Ha! 🔥🔥🔥🔥

[Anonymous]

Is there any data that compares the americas to European continents for like the last 500 years? I really wonder which continent has more conflicts. North and South America have had a ton, but I assume Europe leads in deaths just from the world wars.
Would be interesting to see if Europe or americas have more jerks over history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why wasn't Nato or UN already IN Ukraine the last few years given the Crimea debacle and takeover?

The optimal strategy for protecting Ukraine over the last few years wasn't clear, and I still don't think it is clear.

After Crimea crisis, the options were
(1) do nothing at all (no military) assistance whatsoever,
(2) a massive and rapid increase of military assistance, or
(3) something in between (1) and (2)

Had we used option (2) a few years ago, this probably would have accelerated Putin's invasion. Had we taken option (1), then Ukraine would have had a harder time fighting the invasion once it occurred. I believe we took approach #3, which, I think, was a reasonable approach to take, even though it didn't lead to the desired outcome.

To have successfully prevented the invasion, I think we would have to roll the clock back 20 years and, starting around 2001, employ an entirely different strategy. Either we would have needed to rapidly expand NATO all the way to Ukraine during the period in which Russia was quite weak, or, alternatively, we could have taken the opposite approach, designating all countries that border Russia as neutral territory in which neither Russia nor NATO would have forces and/or weapons systems. The goal would have been to change the basic character of the Russia/West relationship, aiming for a higher level of trust, and perhaps some cooperation (Russia did cooperate with NATO with respect to Bosnia peace-keeping). This would have been difficult, requiring a lot of diplomacy, and perhaps would have failed, but we have no way of knowing.

Would have been a pointless approach as Russia does not want neutrality of those countries but wants them under its sphere of influence, and the countries refused. The strategy that was followed was to entice Russia to form strong connections to Europe.

We can't know that with certainty. However, it doesn't matter since there are no "do overs" -- we can't roll back time and start again from 2001.

Dp- Also: context matters. We were pretty busy in 2001.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10593177/Ukraine-war-Russia-reopens-evacuation-routes-besieged-cities.html

Enough already!

What are world leaders waiting for? Why do they trust Putin won't escalate or invade other countries as long as we stand down and let him take Ukraine?

I don't get it.

Putin does not have the resources or internal buy-in and will to invade other countries, not this decade at least. He will escalate in Ukraine, as he is doing, and make it extremely cruel. The West is counting on this being Russia's Afghanistan 2.0, and it may well turn out that way, but Putin has made it clear through his actions he is not pulling back without first ravishing Ukraine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why wasn't Nato or UN already IN Ukraine the last few years given the Crimea debacle and takeover?

The optimal strategy for protecting Ukraine over the last few years wasn't clear, and I still don't think it is clear.

After Crimea crisis, the options were
(1) do nothing at all (no military) assistance whatsoever,
(2) a massive and rapid increase of military assistance, or
(3) something in between (1) and (2)

Had we used option (2) a few years ago, this probably would have accelerated Putin's invasion. Had we taken option (1), then Ukraine would have had a harder time fighting the invasion once it occurred. I believe we took approach #3, which, I think, was a reasonable approach to take, even though it didn't lead to the desired outcome.

To have successfully prevented the invasion, I think we would have to roll the clock back 20 years and, starting around 2001, employ an entirely different strategy. Either we would have needed to rapidly expand NATO all the way to Ukraine during the period in which Russia was quite weak, or, alternatively, we could have taken the opposite approach, designating all countries that border Russia as neutral territory in which neither Russia nor NATO would have forces and/or weapons systems. The goal would have been to change the basic character of the Russia/West relationship, aiming for a higher level of trust, and perhaps some cooperation (Russia did cooperate with NATO with respect to Bosnia peace-keeping). This would have been difficult, requiring a lot of diplomacy, and perhaps would have failed, but we have no way of knowing.

Would have been a pointless approach as Russia does not want neutrality of those countries but wants them under its sphere of influence, and the countries refused. The strategy that was followed was to entice Russia to form strong connections to Europe.

We can't know that with certainty. However, it doesn't matter since there are no "do overs" -- we can't roll back time and start again from 2001.

We do know. There are several ex USSR Republics, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia that are not NATO members or EU members and Putin and the Russian policy has been very clear, I OWN you. Those countries don't have a chance to be neutral, which is in part why they turn their sights to Europe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's our old friend whataboutism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cool deflection. Brookings and CFR disagree.

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

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

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

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.

It's a military disaster. It's been two weeks and they haven't taken the capital yet? Something they thought they'd accomplish in a day or two? Their equipment is demonstrably crap. The worldwide perception of their military has gone from fearsome to clownish. They're pretty much going to be considered war criminal terrorists for the next decade. And their economy is going to be severely stunted for just as long. And it seems rather unlikely that they're going to get any more of Ukraine unless their battlefield performance dramatically improves. And even then, they'll be subjected to insurgency attacks from here until forever. What part of this "special military operation" resulted in something positive for them?

+1 Russia has more casualties in two weeks than we had in twenty years in Afghanistan. They have had multiple very high commanders killed in action. They don’t have secure comms because they themselves bombed the 3G towers. The convoy is an immobile sitting duck visible from space. It shocks me that you’re on this thread and don’t know these things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's our old friend whataboutism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cool deflection. Brookings and CFR disagree.

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

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

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

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.

It's a military disaster. It's been two weeks and they haven't taken the capital yet? Something they thought they'd accomplish in a day or two? Their equipment is demonstrably crap. The worldwide perception of their military has gone from fearsome to clownish. They're pretty much going to be considered war criminal terrorists for the next decade. And their economy is going to be severely stunted for just as long. And it seems rather unlikely that they're going to get any more of Ukraine unless their battlefield performance dramatically improves. And even then, they'll be subjected to insurgency attacks from here until forever. What part of this "special military operation" resulted in something positive for them?

+1 Russia has more casualties in two weeks than we had in twenty years in Afghanistan. They have had multiple very high commanders killed in action. They don’t have secure comms because they themselves bombed the 3G towers. The convoy is an immobile sitting duck visible from space. It shocks me that you’re on this thread and don’t know these things.

Complete disaster so far, although there are signs that their logistics are improving. The biggest problem they face is the fact that there are no separatists or insurgents that they can back, they will need to keep this going all on their own. This is nothing like any of the other conflicts they have been involved in, they have no support whatsoever in the country. This is why they have started to fight incredibly dirty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's our old friend whataboutism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cool deflection. Brookings and CFR disagree.

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

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

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

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.

It's a military disaster. It's been two weeks and they haven't taken the capital yet? Something they thought they'd accomplish in a day or two? Their equipment is demonstrably crap. The worldwide perception of their military has gone from fearsome to clownish. They're pretty much going to be considered war criminal terrorists for the next decade. And their economy is going to be severely stunted for just as long. And it seems rather unlikely that they're going to get any more of Ukraine unless their battlefield performance dramatically improves. And even then, they'll be subjected to insurgency attacks from here until forever. What part of this "special military operation" resulted in something positive for them?

+1 Russia has more casualties in two weeks than we had in twenty years in Afghanistan. They have had multiple very high commanders killed in action. They don’t have secure comms because they themselves bombed the 3G towers. The convoy is an immobile sitting duck visible from space. It shocks me that you’re on this thread and don’t know these things.

The Ukrainians killed 3 of Putin’s generals. That’s highly indicative of a military disaster.

Russia’s admission of casualties is laughably low; count on it being 5X what they claim (at a minimum).

This conflict is still a conventional military one. Even if the Russians prevail, a massive insurgency is already emerging, and it will not go away.

Tens of thousands of experienced foreign fighters are pouring in to help the Ukrainians. In contrast, Russia has had to go begging in Syria, just to pay huge fees to some of Assad’s thugs to come to Ukraine.

And the Chechen token force? Rumor is they stayed bunched up (bad tactical decision) and the Ukrainians wiped out nearly all of them.

Now we just need to get the tired Mig 29s from the Polish moth-ball fleet into the hands of Ukrainian piltots, and Putin’s invasion will be soon over.

[Anonymous]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/ukrainian-forces-destroy-convoy-of-56-chechen-tanks-kill-general-near-kyiv-report/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's our old friend whataboutism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cool deflection. Brookings and CFR disagree.

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

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

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

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.

It's a military disaster. It's been two weeks and they haven't taken the capital yet? Something they thought they'd accomplish in a day or two? Their equipment is demonstrably crap. The worldwide perception of their military has gone from fearsome to clownish. They're pretty much going to be considered war criminal terrorists for the next decade. And their economy is going to be severely stunted for just as long. And it seems rather unlikely that they're going to get any more of Ukraine unless their battlefield performance dramatically improves. And even then, they'll be subjected to insurgency attacks from here until forever. What part of this "special military operation" resulted in something positive for them?

+1 Russia has more casualties in two weeks than we had in twenty years in Afghanistan. They have had multiple very high commanders killed in action. They don’t have secure comms because they themselves bombed the 3G towers. The convoy is an immobile sitting duck visible from space. It shocks me that you’re on this thread and don’t know these things.

Complete disaster so far, although there are signs that their logistics are improving. The biggest problem they face is the fact that there are no separatists or insurgents that they can back, they will need to keep this going all on their own. This is nothing like any of the other conflicts they have been involved in, they have no support whatsoever in the country. This is why they have started to fight incredibly dirty.

The war of attrition isn't working in their favor. They quite literally grow weaker every single day.

[Anonymous]

The sad reality on the ground is that despite (or because of) an incompetent invasion, Russians are currently committing mass murder of Ukrainians.



So we can note with academic satisfaction Russia's humiliation, but that humiliation is being taken out on innocent and vulnerable people.



All the while, NATO countries are dithering about fighter jets. SEND THEM ALREADY!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

cite please, I would like to look at this

It's in Serbian though.

That’s fine, I can understand Serbian. Please provide a link to source you reference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

cite please, I would like to look at this

It's in Serbian though.

That’s fine, I can understand Serbian. Please provide a link to source you reference.

Of course you can

[Anonymous]

A few days ago someone said i was lying when i said that an explosion caught on video was a thermobaric bomb.

Russian Ministry of Defense has confirmed that yes indeed they have used these bombs in Ukraine. I assume they have made this announcement to intimidate the Ukrainians and agitate US/EU. Would not be surprised if they start talking about chemical or biological weapons too.