US has no good options in Ukraine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know the difference between Putin and the American Presidents. Putin has a lock on being the leader of his country for as long as he wants it (Navalny anyone?)
That allows him a long time line to carry out his actions with very little (no) pushback. Ukraine and the other countries he's take are his master plan.

As of now (knock on wood), no one in the U.S. (President or otherwise) can remain in power indefinitely. Who came after Bush? Obama. You thing Bush and Obama collaborated about Afghanistan and Iraq? So far it is not possible. Your comparison of a U.S. President to Putin as of now is not an apt comparison.

Ask yourself why is Navalny being even allowed to cultivate the “opposition” image when others were murdered for much less. I also find it interesting that the channel 1 protester specially referenced navalny in his speech. Is navalny a “plan b” now for getting out of sanctions?

No surprises there, I guess.

Actually it’s hugely surprising and shows the Kremlin is in a weak position.

This contradicts with the narrative so far that the russians who are “mostly against the war” are not able to protest because of the harsh repressions - jail terms, etc. So, which is it?

Not sure about her case, maybe she has powerful families. However for ordinary Russians it is the mad queen: off their heads, all of them! This is the Chinese level

https://twitter.com/JamOladyi/status/1503133159264862216?s=20&t=D39qewrXCAO_wEjE4Pc6Tg

I protest! --- you are arrested!
I support... you are arrested!

[Anonymous]

As long as China does not get involved the war should be over one way or another in 10 days. Most analysts are saying that is all the ammo and fuel Russia has.
It would be great to see that tipping point, the Russians as POWs or dead. Actually Russia normally boots their own returning prisoners so they are dead no matter what.

Question is if Ukraine can last up to two more weeks.

[Anonymous]

You can only speak for yourself, or someone specific whose actions were demonstrable. You can't speak for me or "we", you don't know how I felt about Iraq then or now. Putin has murdered pregnant women and children who presented no threat to him. Maybe you don't think that's evil, but I sure as hell do. Also, Putin didn't seem to think absorbing Crimea was a headache, so your theory is really flimsy.

So I take it that you think no children and pregnant women were killed by US airstrikes in Iraq?

The 30,000 bombs we dropped during the air campaign didn't hit any civilians whatsoever?
------------------
There is a lot of speculation as to why Putin invaded Ukraine. We cannot be sure of his motivation. It is either (1) he wants to expand Russian territory or (2) he is worried about potential NATO expansion into Ukraine and is unwilling to share a 1500 mile border with a NATO country.

We don't know his primary motive (and no, his believe that Ukrainians and Russians are one people isn't proof that he wants an empire), but my sense is that his motivate is (2) rather than (1) given that, for the last 15 years, he has stated that the Russian government views expanding NATO to include Ukraine as an unacceptable security risk.

In regard to Crimea -- I believe the US would have done precisely the same thing were we in danger of losing a critical military base and port. The motive was not an expansion of the Russian "empire", but rather making sure Russia has a warm-water port.

I can't read Putin's mind, nor can any of us. But it is possible that he views the invasion of Ukraine as a form of proactive defense against potential NATO expansion. Yes, an invasion is a sick, twisted form of "defense", but Putin certainly wouldn't be the first leader to apply this sort of logic.

[Anonymous]

Hahahahaha Russia sanctioned Biden's dead father instead of Biden!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You can only speak for yourself, or someone specific whose actions were demonstrable. You can't speak for me or "we", you don't know how I felt about Iraq then or now. Putin has murdered pregnant women and children who presented no threat to him. Maybe you don't think that's evil, but I sure as hell do. Also, Putin didn't seem to think absorbing Crimea was a headache, so your theory is really flimsy.

So I take it that you think no children and pregnant women were killed by US airstrikes in Iraq?

The 30,000 bombs we dropped during the air campaign didn't hit any civilians whatsoever?
------------------
There is a lot of speculation as to why Putin invaded Ukraine. We cannot be sure of his motivation. It is either (1) he wants to expand Russian territory or (2) he is worried about potential NATO expansion into Ukraine and is unwilling to share a 1500 mile border with a NATO country.

We don't know his primary motive (and no, his believe that Ukrainians and Russians are one people isn't proof that he wants an empire), but my sense is that his motivate is (2) rather than (1) given that, for the last 15 years, he has stated that the Russian government views expanding NATO to include Ukraine as an unacceptable security risk.

In regard to Crimea -- I believe the US would have done precisely the same thing were we in danger of losing a critical military base and port. The motive was not an expansion of the Russian "empire", but rather making sure Russia has a warm-water port.

I can't read Putin's mind, nor can any of us. But it is possible that he views the invasion of Ukraine as a form of proactive defense against potential NATO expansion. Yes, an invasion is a sick, twisted form of "defense", but Putin certainly wouldn't be the first leader to apply this sort of logic.

Why would you take it that way? I've said nothing even remotely resembling that, and this isn't a thread about Iraq.

---‐-------

How is Russia making sure it has a warm water port not an expansion of its empire? You're really doing to logical pretzel twisting to accomodate Putin. If Putin really wants NATO to back off, there are other things he can do beaides targeting innocent civilians, like disarming his nukes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You can only speak for yourself, or someone specific whose actions were demonstrable. You can't speak for me or "we", you don't know how I felt about Iraq then or now. Putin has murdered pregnant women and children who presented no threat to him. Maybe you don't think that's evil, but I sure as hell do. Also, Putin didn't seem to think absorbing Crimea was a headache, so your theory is really flimsy.

So I take it that you think no children and pregnant women were killed by US airstrikes in Iraq?

The 30,000 bombs we dropped during the air campaign didn't hit any civilians whatsoever?
------------------
There is a lot of speculation as to why Putin invaded Ukraine. We cannot be sure of his motivation. It is either (1) he wants to expand Russian territory or (2) he is worried about potential NATO expansion into Ukraine and is unwilling to share a 1500 mile border with a NATO country.

We don't know his primary motive (and no, his believe that Ukrainians and Russians are one people isn't proof that he wants an empire), but my sense is that his motivate is (2) rather than (1) given that, for the last 15 years, he has stated that the Russian government views expanding NATO to include Ukraine as an unacceptable security risk.

In regard to Crimea -- I believe the US would have done precisely the same thing were we in danger of losing a critical military base and port. The motive was not an expansion of the Russian "empire", but rather making sure Russia has a warm-water port.

I can't read Putin's mind, nor can any of us. But it is possible that he views the invasion of Ukraine as a form of proactive defense against potential NATO expansion. Yes, an invasion is a sick, twisted form of "defense", but Putin certainly wouldn't be the first leader to apply this sort of logic.

Are you Liza Peskova or another progeny of the Kremlin creatures? The jig is up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hahahahaha Russia sanctioned Biden's dead father instead of Biden!!!!

We didn’t need this to know they are utterly incompetent. Clowns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You can only speak for yourself, or someone specific whose actions were demonstrable. You can't speak for me or "we", you don't know how I felt about Iraq then or now. Putin has murdered pregnant women and children who presented no threat to him. Maybe you don't think that's evil, but I sure as hell do. Also, Putin didn't seem to think absorbing Crimea was a headache, so your theory is really flimsy.

So I take it that you think no children and pregnant women were killed by US airstrikes in Iraq?

The 30,000 bombs we dropped during the air campaign didn't hit any civilians whatsoever?
------------------
There is a lot of speculation as to why Putin invaded Ukraine. We cannot be sure of his motivation. It is either (1) he wants to expand Russian territory or (2) he is worried about potential NATO expansion into Ukraine and is unwilling to share a 1500 mile border with a NATO country.

We don't know his primary motive (and no, his believe that Ukrainians and Russians are one people isn't proof that he wants an empire), but my sense is that his motivate is (2) rather than (1) given that, for the last 15 years, he has stated that the Russian government views expanding NATO to include Ukraine as an unacceptable security risk.

In regard to Crimea -- I believe the US would have done precisely the same thing were we in danger of losing a critical military base and port. The motive was not an expansion of the Russian "empire", but rather making sure Russia has a warm-water port.

I can't read Putin's mind, nor can any of us. But it is possible that he views the invasion of Ukraine as a form of proactive defense against potential NATO expansion. Yes, an invasion is a sick, twisted form of "defense", but Putin certainly wouldn't be the first leader to apply this sort of logic.

Why would you take it that way? I've said nothing even remotely resembling that, and this isn't a thread about Iraq.

---‐-------

How is Russia making sure it has a warm water port not an expansion of its empire? You're really doing to logical pretzel twisting to accomodate Putin. If Putin really wants NATO to back off, there are other things he can do beaides targeting innocent civilians, like disarming his nukes.

I would take it that way because it is what our current head of the CIA, Wiliam Burns, told our government after his years in Moscow as a diplomat -- he stated that it isn't just Putin that views Ukraine's potential NATO accession as a security risk, but rather the entire Russian government. Burns repeatedly cautioned us that the closer Ukraine gets to NATO, the more likely Russian retaliation would become.

In addition, Putin has repeatedly told us, over the last 15 years, that Ukraine entering NATO would constitute crossing a red line, and Russia would be forced to make a strong countermove.

Disarming his nukes? That would require a huge amount of trust -- we don't trust Russia, and they don't trust us, so Russia disarming their nukes isn't a plausible way forward. How about we first disarm our nukes, so that the Russians feel comfortable? Would you be OK with that? Who should lower the barrel of their gun first?


He has tried other things. He has certainly tried to influence Ukrainian po

[Anonymous]

Belarus staying out

If China stays out,. then the Russian military is toast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Belarus staying out

If China stays out,. then the Russian military is toast.

It's already stale and moldy bread. And I'm not just talking about their rations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You can only speak for yourself, or someone specific whose actions were demonstrable. You can't speak for me or "we", you don't know how I felt about Iraq then or now. Putin has murdered pregnant women and children who presented no threat to him. Maybe you don't think that's evil, but I sure as hell do. Also, Putin didn't seem to think absorbing Crimea was a headache, so your theory is really flimsy.

So I take it that you think no children and pregnant women were killed by US airstrikes in Iraq?

The 30,000 bombs we dropped during the air campaign didn't hit any civilians whatsoever?
------------------
There is a lot of speculation as to why Putin invaded Ukraine. We cannot be sure of his motivation. It is either (1) he wants to expand Russian territory or (2) he is worried about potential NATO expansion into Ukraine and is unwilling to share a 1500 mile border with a NATO country.

We don't know his primary motive (and no, his believe that Ukrainians and Russians are one people isn't proof that he wants an empire), but my sense is that his motivate is (2) rather than (1) given that, for the last 15 years, he has stated that the Russian government views expanding NATO to include Ukraine as an unacceptable security risk.

In regard to Crimea -- I believe the US would have done precisely the same thing were we in danger of losing a critical military base and port. The motive was not an expansion of the Russian "empire", but rather making sure Russia has a warm-water port.

I can't read Putin's mind, nor can any of us. But it is possible that he views the invasion of Ukraine as a form of proactive defense against potential NATO expansion. Yes, an invasion is a sick, twisted form of "defense", but Putin certainly wouldn't be the first leader to apply this sort of logic.

Why would you take it that way? I've said nothing even remotely resembling that, and this isn't a thread about Iraq.

---‐-------

How is Russia making sure it has a warm water port not an expansion of its empire? You're really doing to logical pretzel twisting to accomodate Putin. If Putin really wants NATO to back off, there are other things he can do beaides targeting innocent civilians, like disarming his nukes.

I would take it that way because it is what our current head of the CIA, Wiliam Burns, told our government after his years in Moscow as a diplomat -- he stated that it isn't just Putin that views Ukraine's potential NATO accession as a security risk, but rather the entire Russian government. Burns repeatedly cautioned us that the closer Ukraine gets to NATO, the more likely Russian retaliation would become.

In addition, Putin has repeatedly told us, over the last 15 years, that Ukraine entering NATO would constitute crossing a red line, and Russia would be forced to make a strong countermove.

Disarming his nukes? That would require a huge amount of trust -- we don't trust Russia, and they don't trust us, so Russia disarming their nukes isn't a plausible way forward. How about we first disarm our nukes, so that the Russians feel comfortable? Would you be OK with that? Who should lower the barrel of their gun first?


He has tried other things. He has certainly tried to influence Ukrainian po

That's not what I was asking about, but it's nice to not have Iraq whataboutism for a change, so I'll just leave it at that. What do you get out of carrying so much water for Putin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Belarus staying out

If China stays out,. then the Russian military is toast.

Belarus generals refused to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Belarus staying out

If China stays out,. then the Russian military is toast.

Belarus generals refused to go.

Good. Some one has some sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You can only speak for yourself, or someone specific whose actions were demonstrable. You can't speak for me or "we", you don't know how I felt about Iraq then or now. Putin has murdered pregnant women and children who presented no threat to him. Maybe you don't think that's evil, but I sure as hell do. Also, Putin didn't seem to think absorbing Crimea was a headache, so your theory is really flimsy.

So I take it that you think no children and pregnant women were killed by US airstrikes in Iraq?

The 30,000 bombs we dropped during the air campaign didn't hit any civilians whatsoever?
------------------
There is a lot of speculation as to why Putin invaded Ukraine. We cannot be sure of his motivation. It is either (1) he wants to expand Russian territory or (2) he is worried about potential NATO expansion into Ukraine and is unwilling to share a 1500 mile border with a NATO country.

We don't know his primary motive (and no, his believe that Ukrainians and Russians are one people isn't proof that he wants an empire), but my sense is that his motivate is (2) rather than (1) given that, for the last 15 years, he has stated that the Russian government views expanding NATO to include Ukraine as an unacceptable security risk.

In regard to Crimea -- I believe the US would have done precisely the same thing were we in danger of losing a critical military base and port. The motive was not an expansion of the Russian "empire", but rather making sure Russia has a warm-water port.

I can't read Putin's mind, nor can any of us. But it is possible that he views the invasion of Ukraine as a form of proactive defense against potential NATO expansion. Yes, an invasion is a sick, twisted form of "defense", but Putin certainly wouldn't be the first leader to apply this sort of logic.

Why would you take it that way? I've said nothing even remotely resembling that, and this isn't a thread about Iraq.

---‐-------

How is Russia making sure it has a warm water port not an expansion of its empire? You're really doing to logical pretzel twisting to accomodate Putin. If Putin really wants NATO to back off, there are other things he can do beaides targeting innocent civilians, like disarming his nukes.

I would take it that way because it is what our current head of the CIA, Wiliam Burns, told our government after his years in Moscow as a diplomat -- he stated that it isn't just Putin that views Ukraine's potential NATO accession as a security risk, but rather the entire Russian government. Burns repeatedly cautioned us that the closer Ukraine gets to NATO, the more likely Russian retaliation would become.

In addition, Putin has repeatedly told us, over the last 15 years, that Ukraine entering NATO would constitute crossing a red line, and Russia would be forced to make a strong countermove.

Disarming his nukes? That would require a huge amount of trust -- we don't trust Russia, and they don't trust us, so Russia disarming their nukes isn't a plausible way forward. How about we first disarm our nukes, so that the Russians feel comfortable? Would you be OK with that? Who should lower the barrel of their gun first?


He has tried other things. He has certainly tried to influence Ukrainian po

That's not what I was asking about, but it's nice to not have Iraq whataboutism for a change, so I'll just leave it at that. What do you get out of carrying so much water for Putin?

Not carrying water for him -- not defending him -- just trying to understand him, in the hope that understanding will help us to optimize our counter-moves against him.

I think it is unlikely that his goal is to massively enlarge Russia. It is more likely that he is trying to establish a bulwark against NATO expansion. Of course, all we can do is guess. We can't read his mind. But I think he has been quite clear, over the last decade, in his views on potential NATO expansion into Ukraine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You can only speak for yourself, or someone specific whose actions were demonstrable. You can't speak for me or "we", you don't know how I felt about Iraq then or now. Putin has murdered pregnant women and children who presented no threat to him. Maybe you don't think that's evil, but I sure as hell do. Also, Putin didn't seem to think absorbing Crimea was a headache, so your theory is really flimsy.

So I take it that you think no children and pregnant women were killed by US airstrikes in Iraq?

The 30,000 bombs we dropped during the air campaign didn't hit any civilians whatsoever?
------------------
There is a lot of speculation as to why Putin invaded Ukraine. We cannot be sure of his motivation. It is either (1) he wants to expand Russian territory or (2) he is worried about potential NATO expansion into Ukraine and is unwilling to share a 1500 mile border with a NATO country.

We don't know his primary motive (and no, his believe that Ukrainians and Russians are one people isn't proof that he wants an empire), but my sense is that his motivate is (2) rather than (1) given that, for the last 15 years, he has stated that the Russian government views expanding NATO to include Ukraine as an unacceptable security risk.

In regard to Crimea -- I believe the US would have done precisely the same thing were we in danger of losing a critical military base and port. The motive was not an expansion of the Russian "empire", but rather making sure Russia has a warm-water port.

I can't read Putin's mind, nor can any of us. But it is possible that he views the invasion of Ukraine as a form of proactive defense against potential NATO expansion. Yes, an invasion is a sick, twisted form of "defense", but Putin certainly wouldn't be the first leader to apply this sort of logic.

Why would you take it that way? I've said nothing even remotely resembling that, and this isn't a thread about Iraq.

---‐-------

How is Russia making sure it has a warm water port not an expansion of its empire? You're really doing to logical pretzel twisting to accomodate Putin. If Putin really wants NATO to back off, there are other things he can do beaides targeting innocent civilians, like disarming his nukes.

I would take it that way because it is what our current head of the CIA, Wiliam Burns, told our government after his years in Moscow as a diplomat -- he stated that it isn't just Putin that views Ukraine's potential NATO accession as a security risk, but rather the entire Russian government. Burns repeatedly cautioned us that the closer Ukraine gets to NATO, the more likely Russian retaliation would become.

In addition, Putin has repeatedly told us, over the last 15 years, that Ukraine entering NATO would constitute crossing a red line, and Russia would be forced to make a strong countermove.

Disarming his nukes? That would require a huge amount of trust -- we don't trust Russia, and they don't trust us, so Russia disarming their nukes isn't a plausible way forward. How about we first disarm our nukes, so that the Russians feel comfortable? Would you be OK with that? Who should lower the barrel of their gun first?


He has tried other things. He has certainly tried to influence Ukrainian po

That's not what I was asking about, but it's nice to not have Iraq whataboutism for a change, so I'll just leave it at that. What do you get out of carrying so much water for Putin?

And it's truly astounding that anyone would even try something as lame as "yabut the US is worse than Russia" given Stalin murdered at least 6 million of his own people plus hundreds of thousands more in Russia's expansionism and proxy wars around the globe. FOH!

Not to mention, that when the US did go into Iraq, I don't recall the US threatening to kill millions by saying "STAY OUT OF IT OR THERE WILL BE REPRISALS LIKE THE WORLD HAS NEVER SEEN" while raising nuclear readiness levels. But Russia certainly DID do that.

Russia is FAR worse than the US, by any measure.