Ukrainian victory over Russia is inevitable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s time to stop cornering him so that he doesn’t resort to desperate measures

Cornering? Strange. I don't think you understand, but not surprising. For many Americans, what goes on in Russia is a concept that's difficult to understand.

In the time-period of Putin's early career as a KGB spy, the KGB typically rewarded ruthlessness that achieved results. There were no bounds, no rules, nothing off limits. Assassination, blackmail, intimidation - not a concern for the KGB. It was the perfect environment for a black-belt judo scrapper who grew up on the streets of post-war Leningrad.

I believe he is inherently aggressive. For him, anyone who dares to contradict him is a threat. Appeasement of that type of personality also doesn't end well. Like a jackal circling prey, I believe he will relentlessly pick off the weak first and surprise attack the strong who could offer resistance.

As an example, if he steals something, rapes someone, murders someone - his expectation is you stand and watch; maybe even clap and cheer him on. But this also means that the more you appease, the worse it will be. This is why so many Russians are ambivalent to politics or even sending their children to die in Ukraine. Many are brainwashed sheep. If today milk is white, then it's white. If tomorrow milk is red, then it's red. If nuclear war is discussed as inevitable on television, then nuclear war is inevitable.

It is ironic that you believe that capitulation in Ukraine will solve the issue? You believe Putin will be happy? Will stop on his own? On the contrary, I believe it will accelerate his aggression. The portions of Ukraine being fought over include key natural resources and industry needed to sustain a wider global conflict, to include oil.



Ask yourself, would you be fine having your child raised under the Russian government? Where the only rule is abeyance absolute power? If so, you're nothing but a slave, my friend.

Hopefully you understand what the Ukrainians are fighting for and why it's important to the World.

Are you an expert on Russia?

Also, Ukraine and Russia are much less different than Ukraine wants the West to think
I happen to agree with “political realists” that Putin’s aggression was caused by the US and NATO flirting with Russia’s neighbors
To me it sounds logical. I think it was more than possible to coexist.

You're arguing Russian propaganda points put to rest about 200 pages ago. It shows just how badly you cling to tainted sources. Seriously, you need to read everything in this thread before commenting.

Reader's Digest Version - Ukraine used to be Russia's most trusted non-ethnic-Russian allies. They were even entrusted with nuclear weapons to fight as the front line of the USSR. Although a lot of things happened, key events in particular I think changed the minds of many Ukrainians. First was Chernobyl. https://time.com/4313139/post-chernobyl-parade/ That broke a fundamental trust amongst many of the common people with Russia. Second was the breakup of the USSR. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Georgia, etc. all "got out" and nothing bad happened to them (well, at least not from the West). They realized they had "missed their chance" to become NATO allies. Third was probably the 2014 invasion. Again, you can read about that in prior pages. But this is why Russians take such offense to Ukraine flipping them the bird. They're shocked that Ukrainians don't love them and welcome them with flowers when their elderly are killed, children are kidnapped and women raped. Go figure.

The point is that you're under the belief that anyone in the West expects anything but co-existence out of Russia? The War in Ukraine was strictly one-sided. Russia invaded Ukraine on a half-baked premise. You remember Putin's threat "lie-down my darling and take it" threat just before the invasion? You think that's a person who cares about co-existence?

All Russia needs to do is leave Ukraine and poof - the war is over. It's that simple.

Now, will Russian relations with the West ever be the same again? Would you trust a government who's good with burning down city apartment buildings using thermobaric weaponry? Regularly threatening to use nuclear weapons on National TV? But my guess is you've never been to a place like that. Be glad you're here. This could be your hometown:

Do you seriously think university professors like John Mearsheimer are Russian propagandists?

Ah, Mearsheimer - the Chicago prof? I think he's fallen from grace.

I like his Conventional Deterrence strategy and I do believe he is correct that attrition (and I would extrapolate logistical) warfare is the way to go nowadays. I also agree with him that Ukraine should've maintained a nuclear deterrrent (and we see the results now). But that was the work he did over 20 years ago?

But I think the point that you're trying to make was either is "Why is Ukraine the West's Fault" piece? But you conveniently left out the part where he said, "if you really want to wreck Russia, what you should do is to encourage it to try to conquer Ukraine. Putin is much too smart to try that."

This is where I diverge with Mearsheimer. He blames Ukraine and Georgia wanting to join NATO in 2008 as "starting the war." From a Russian propaganda sense, if you're a Russian Kremlin ultranationalists, I would agree. But remember that this was not the rationale Putin initially used to wage war against Ukraine. It was to eradicate Nazi's and liberate Russians in Crimea, remember? This is where you're falling for Russian propaganda. Where history has been reshaped and remolded to fit your own personal bias. Before that (2016'ish), the Russian propaganda line was that Poroshenko (aka "porky", as Russian propagandists called him) was corrupt, so that's why Russia needed to invade in 2014. But that propaganda line couldn't be used effectively on Zelenksy (but seems to be retested again, reading recent posts?). "The West" (references help, if you have specific examples and wish to discuss) also didn't encourage Putin to attack Ukraine. You can claim NATO was a trigger, but that's only if you buy into the concept that Ukraine is a subservient vassal to Russia, versus an independent nation capable of self-governing. Again, a Kremlin propaganda line. And I believe Mearsheimer did become a Putin apologist in 2022, imho; so yes, I think he's been influenced by Russian propaganda, consciously or not.

Although you cling to Mearsheimer, the convenient omissions of fact really reveal your motives. My guess is that the Russian deep undercovers are using Mearsheimer to undermine US policy with military and political officials; so keep that in mind when you hear "oh, Mearsheimer says.."

I don't understand this expectation. Every single country uses some form of propaganda before invading or doing similarly unsavory things. I mean for Iraq, it was first WMD, then bringing democracy to the Middle East, then...something! When the informed circles knew it was really about oil. When Israel behaves thuggishly in the West Bank, do you think they are announcing "we are doing this to annex more land"? No, it is always some line about security etc. In conclusion:

DP /

What other countries in modern history have invaded their neighbors that they were in good terms with? and what other countries do propoganda on the scale of Putin’s Russia.? As in make deals and break them and then lie that the other country were the ones committing the war crimes they carried out?

It doesn't have to tick every box but the fact remains that every country going to war comes up with a noble reason why they are doing it, for public consumption. No country says, Imma invade country X 'cause I freakin' hate their guts, or because I really want a piece of land they own, or whatever. It's always democracy security values safety people blah blah blah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s time to stop cornering him so that he doesn’t resort to desperate measures

Cornering? Strange. I don't think you understand, but not surprising. For many Americans, what goes on in Russia is a concept that's difficult to understand.

In the time-period of Putin's early career as a KGB spy, the KGB typically rewarded ruthlessness that achieved results. There were no bounds, no rules, nothing off limits. Assassination, blackmail, intimidation - not a concern for the KGB. It was the perfect environment for a black-belt judo scrapper who grew up on the streets of post-war Leningrad.

I believe he is inherently aggressive. For him, anyone who dares to contradict him is a threat. Appeasement of that type of personality also doesn't end well. Like a jackal circling prey, I believe he will relentlessly pick off the weak first and surprise attack the strong who could offer resistance.

As an example, if he steals something, rapes someone, murders someone - his expectation is you stand and watch; maybe even clap and cheer him on. But this also means that the more you appease, the worse it will be. This is why so many Russians are ambivalent to politics or even sending their children to die in Ukraine. Many are brainwashed sheep. If today milk is white, then it's white. If tomorrow milk is red, then it's red. If nuclear war is discussed as inevitable on television, then nuclear war is inevitable.

It is ironic that you believe that capitulation in Ukraine will solve the issue? You believe Putin will be happy? Will stop on his own? On the contrary, I believe it will accelerate his aggression. The portions of Ukraine being fought over include key natural resources and industry needed to sustain a wider global conflict, to include oil.



Ask yourself, would you be fine having your child raised under the Russian government? Where the only rule is abeyance absolute power? If so, you're nothing but a slave, my friend.

Hopefully you understand what the Ukrainians are fighting for and why it's important to the World.

Are you an expert on Russia?

Also, Ukraine and Russia are much less different than Ukraine wants the West to think
I happen to agree with “political realists” that Putin’s aggression was caused by the US and NATO flirting with Russia’s neighbors
To me it sounds logical. I think it was more than possible to coexist.

You're arguing Russian propaganda points put to rest about 200 pages ago. It shows just how badly you cling to tainted sources. Seriously, you need to read everything in this thread before commenting.

Reader's Digest Version - Ukraine used to be Russia's most trusted non-ethnic-Russian allies. They were even entrusted with nuclear weapons to fight as the front line of the USSR. Although a lot of things happened, key events in particular I think changed the minds of many Ukrainians. First was Chernobyl. https://time.com/4313139/post-chernobyl-parade/ That broke a fundamental trust amongst many of the common people with Russia. Second was the breakup of the USSR. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Georgia, etc. all "got out" and nothing bad happened to them (well, at least not from the West). They realized they had "missed their chance" to become NATO allies. Third was probably the 2014 invasion. Again, you can read about that in prior pages. But this is why Russians take such offense to Ukraine flipping them the bird. They're shocked that Ukrainians don't love them and welcome them with flowers when their elderly are killed, children are kidnapped and women raped. Go figure.

The point is that you're under the belief that anyone in the West expects anything but co-existence out of Russia? The War in Ukraine was strictly one-sided. Russia invaded Ukraine on a half-baked premise. You remember Putin's threat "lie-down my darling and take it" threat just before the invasion? You think that's a person who cares about co-existence?

All Russia needs to do is leave Ukraine and poof - the war is over. It's that simple.

Now, will Russian relations with the West ever be the same again? Would you trust a government who's good with burning down city apartment buildings using thermobaric weaponry? Regularly threatening to use nuclear weapons on National TV? But my guess is you've never been to a place like that. Be glad you're here. This could be your hometown:

Do you seriously think university professors like John Mearsheimer are Russian propagandists?

Ah, Mearsheimer - the Chicago prof? I think he's fallen from grace.

I like his Conventional Deterrence strategy and I do believe he is correct that attrition (and I would extrapolate logistical) warfare is the way to go nowadays. I also agree with him that Ukraine should've maintained a nuclear deterrrent (and we see the results now). But that was the work he did over 20 years ago?

But I think the point that you're trying to make was either is "Why is Ukraine the West's Fault" piece? But you conveniently left out the part where he said, "if you really want to wreck Russia, what you should do is to encourage it to try to conquer Ukraine. Putin is much too smart to try that."

This is where I diverge with Mearsheimer. He blames Ukraine and Georgia wanting to join NATO in 2008 as "starting the war." From a Russian propaganda sense, if you're a Russian Kremlin ultranationalists, I would agree. But remember that this was not the rationale Putin initially used to wage war against Ukraine. It was to eradicate Nazi's and liberate Russians in Crimea, remember? This is where you're falling for Russian propaganda. Where history has been reshaped and remolded to fit your own personal bias. Before that (2016'ish), the Russian propaganda line was that Poroshenko (aka "porky", as Russian propagandists called him) was corrupt, so that's why Russia needed to invade in 2014. But that propaganda line couldn't be used effectively on Zelenksy (but seems to be retested again, reading recent posts?). "The West" (references help, if you have specific examples and wish to discuss) also didn't encourage Putin to attack Ukraine. You can claim NATO was a trigger, but that's only if you buy into the concept that Ukraine is a subservient vassal to Russia, versus an independent nation capable of self-governing. Again, a Kremlin propaganda line. And I believe Mearsheimer did become a Putin apologist in 2022, imho; so yes, I think he's been influenced by Russian propaganda, consciously or not.

Although you cling to Mearsheimer, the convenient omissions of fact really reveal your motives. My guess is that the Russian deep undercovers are using Mearsheimer to undermine US policy with military and political officials; so keep that in mind when you hear "oh, Mearsheimer says.."

I don't understand this expectation. Every single country uses some form of propaganda before invading or doing similarly unsavory things. I mean for Iraq, it was first WMD, then bringing democracy to the Middle East, then...something! When the informed circles knew it was really about oil. When Israel behaves thuggishly in the West Bank, do you think they are announcing "we are doing this to annex more land"? No, it is always some line about security etc. In conclusion:

DP /

What other countries in modern history have invaded their neighbors that they were in good terms with? and what other countries do propoganda on the scale of Putin’s Russia.? As in make deals and break them and then lie that the other country were the ones committing the war crimes they carried out?

It doesn't have to tick every box but the fact remains that every country going to war comes up with a noble reason why they are doing it, for public consumption. No country says, Imma invade country X 'cause I freakin' hate their guts, or because I really want a piece of land they own, or whatever. It's always democracy security values safety people blah blah blah.

I don’t see much moral ambivalence here … Russia makes a mockery of basic human decency as well as international laws.
I can’t think of any other country that has invaded its neighbor using barbaric methods to intimidate civilians while pretending it was doing them a great favor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s time to stop cornering him so that he doesn’t resort to desperate measures

Cornering? Strange. I don't think you understand, but not surprising. For many Americans, what goes on in Russia is a concept that's difficult to understand.

In the time-period of Putin's early career as a KGB spy, the KGB typically rewarded ruthlessness that achieved results. There were no bounds, no rules, nothing off limits. Assassination, blackmail, intimidation - not a concern for the KGB. It was the perfect environment for a black-belt judo scrapper who grew up on the streets of post-war Leningrad.

I believe he is inherently aggressive. For him, anyone who dares to contradict him is a threat. Appeasement of that type of personality also doesn't end well. Like a jackal circling prey, I believe he will relentlessly pick off the weak first and surprise attack the strong who could offer resistance.

As an example, if he steals something, rapes someone, murders someone - his expectation is you stand and watch; maybe even clap and cheer him on. But this also means that the more you appease, the worse it will be. This is why so many Russians are ambivalent to politics or even sending their children to die in Ukraine. Many are brainwashed sheep. If today milk is white, then it's white. If tomorrow milk is red, then it's red. If nuclear war is discussed as inevitable on television, then nuclear war is inevitable.

It is ironic that you believe that capitulation in Ukraine will solve the issue? You believe Putin will be happy? Will stop on his own? On the contrary, I believe it will accelerate his aggression. The portions of Ukraine being fought over include key natural resources and industry needed to sustain a wider global conflict, to include oil.



Ask yourself, would you be fine having your child raised under the Russian government? Where the only rule is abeyance absolute power? If so, you're nothing but a slave, my friend.

Hopefully you understand what the Ukrainians are fighting for and why it's important to the World.

Are you an expert on Russia?

Also, Ukraine and Russia are much less different than Ukraine wants the West to think
I happen to agree with “political realists” that Putin’s aggression was caused by the US and NATO flirting with Russia’s neighbors
To me it sounds logical. I think it was more than possible to coexist.

You're arguing Russian propaganda points put to rest about 200 pages ago. It shows just how badly you cling to tainted sources. Seriously, you need to read everything in this thread before commenting.

Reader's Digest Version - Ukraine used to be Russia's most trusted non-ethnic-Russian allies. They were even entrusted with nuclear weapons to fight as the front line of the USSR. Although a lot of things happened, key events in particular I think changed the minds of many Ukrainians. First was Chernobyl. https://time.com/4313139/post-chernobyl-parade/ That broke a fundamental trust amongst many of the common people with Russia. Second was the breakup of the USSR. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Georgia, etc. all "got out" and nothing bad happened to them (well, at least not from the West). They realized they had "missed their chance" to become NATO allies. Third was probably the 2014 invasion. Again, you can read about that in prior pages. But this is why Russians take such offense to Ukraine flipping them the bird. They're shocked that Ukrainians don't love them and welcome them with flowers when their elderly are killed, children are kidnapped and women raped. Go figure.

The point is that you're under the belief that anyone in the West expects anything but co-existence out of Russia? The War in Ukraine was strictly one-sided. Russia invaded Ukraine on a half-baked premise. You remember Putin's threat "lie-down my darling and take it" threat just before the invasion? You think that's a person who cares about co-existence?

All Russia needs to do is leave Ukraine and poof - the war is over. It's that simple.

Now, will Russian relations with the West ever be the same again? Would you trust a government who's good with burning down city apartment buildings using thermobaric weaponry? Regularly threatening to use nuclear weapons on National TV? But my guess is you've never been to a place like that. Be glad you're here. This could be your hometown:

Do you seriously think university professors like John Mearsheimer are Russian propagandists?

Ah, Mearsheimer - the Chicago prof? I think he's fallen from grace.

I like his Conventional Deterrence strategy and I do believe he is correct that attrition (and I would extrapolate logistical) warfare is the way to go nowadays. I also agree with him that Ukraine should've maintained a nuclear deterrrent (and we see the results now). But that was the work he did over 20 years ago?

But I think the point that you're trying to make was either is "Why is Ukraine the West's Fault" piece? But you conveniently left out the part where he said, "if you really want to wreck Russia, what you should do is to encourage it to try to conquer Ukraine. Putin is much too smart to try that."

This is where I diverge with Mearsheimer. He blames Ukraine and Georgia wanting to join NATO in 2008 as "starting the war." From a Russian propaganda sense, if you're a Russian Kremlin ultranationalists, I would agree. But remember that this was not the rationale Putin initially used to wage war against Ukraine. It was to eradicate Nazi's and liberate Russians in Crimea, remember? This is where you're falling for Russian propaganda. Where history has been reshaped and remolded to fit your own personal bias. Before that (2016'ish), the Russian propaganda line was that Poroshenko (aka "porky", as Russian propagandists called him) was corrupt, so that's why Russia needed to invade in 2014. But that propaganda line couldn't be used effectively on Zelenksy (but seems to be retested again, reading recent posts?). "The West" (references help, if you have specific examples and wish to discuss) also didn't encourage Putin to attack Ukraine. You can claim NATO was a trigger, but that's only if you buy into the concept that Ukraine is a subservient vassal to Russia, versus an independent nation capable of self-governing. Again, a Kremlin propaganda line. And I believe Mearsheimer did become a Putin apologist in 2022, imho; so yes, I think he's been influenced by Russian propaganda, consciously or not.

Although you cling to Mearsheimer, the convenient omissions of fact really reveal your motives. My guess is that the Russian deep undercovers are using Mearsheimer to undermine US policy with military and political officials; so keep that in mind when you hear "oh, Mearsheimer says.."

I don't understand this expectation. Every single country uses some form of propaganda before invading or doing similarly unsavory things. I mean for Iraq, it was first WMD, then bringing democracy to the Middle East, then...something! When the informed circles knew it was really about oil. When Israel behaves thuggishly in the West Bank, do you think they are announcing "we are doing this to annex more land"? No, it is always some line about security etc. In conclusion:

DP /

What other countries in modern history have invaded their neighbors that they were in good terms with? and what other countries do propoganda on the scale of Putin’s Russia.? As in make deals and break them and then lie that the other country were the ones committing the war crimes they carried out?

It doesn't have to tick every box but the fact remains that every country going to war comes up with a noble reason why they are doing it, for public consumption. No country says, Imma invade country X 'cause I freakin' hate their guts, or because I really want a piece of land they own, or whatever. It's always democracy security values safety people blah blah blah.

I don’t see much moral ambivalence here … Russia makes a mockery of basic human decency as well as international laws.
I can’t think of any other country that has invaded its neighbor using barbaric methods to intimidate civilians while pretending it was doing them a great favor.

The doing a great favor dodge seems irrelevant to me; they’re invading a neighbor using barbaric methods and that’s bad enough on its own. And, let’s be honest, they’re probably not going to stop if they get Ukraine. Russia wants to be an empire again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s time to stop cornering him so that he doesn’t resort to desperate measures

Cornering? Strange. I don't think you understand, but not surprising. For many Americans, what goes on in Russia is a concept that's difficult to understand.

In the time-period of Putin's early career as a KGB spy, the KGB typically rewarded ruthlessness that achieved results. There were no bounds, no rules, nothing off limits. Assassination, blackmail, intimidation - not a concern for the KGB. It was the perfect environment for a black-belt judo scrapper who grew up on the streets of post-war Leningrad.

I believe he is inherently aggressive. For him, anyone who dares to contradict him is a threat. Appeasement of that type of personality also doesn't end well. Like a jackal circling prey, I believe he will relentlessly pick off the weak first and surprise attack the strong who could offer resistance.

As an example, if he steals something, rapes someone, murders someone - his expectation is you stand and watch; maybe even clap and cheer him on. But this also means that the more you appease, the worse it will be. This is why so many Russians are ambivalent to politics or even sending their children to die in Ukraine. Many are brainwashed sheep. If today milk is white, then it's white. If tomorrow milk is red, then it's red. If nuclear war is discussed as inevitable on television, then nuclear war is inevitable.

It is ironic that you believe that capitulation in Ukraine will solve the issue? You believe Putin will be happy? Will stop on his own? On the contrary, I believe it will accelerate his aggression. The portions of Ukraine being fought over include key natural resources and industry needed to sustain a wider global conflict, to include oil.



Ask yourself, would you be fine having your child raised under the Russian government? Where the only rule is abeyance absolute power? If so, you're nothing but a slave, my friend.

Hopefully you understand what the Ukrainians are fighting for and why it's important to the World.

Are you an expert on Russia?

Also, Ukraine and Russia are much less different than Ukraine wants the West to think
I happen to agree with “political realists” that Putin’s aggression was caused by the US and NATO flirting with Russia’s neighbors
To me it sounds logical. I think it was more than possible to coexist.

You're arguing Russian propaganda points put to rest about 200 pages ago. It shows just how badly you cling to tainted sources. Seriously, you need to read everything in this thread before commenting.

Reader's Digest Version - Ukraine used to be Russia's most trusted non-ethnic-Russian allies. They were even entrusted with nuclear weapons to fight as the front line of the USSR. Although a lot of things happened, key events in particular I think changed the minds of many Ukrainians. First was Chernobyl. https://time.com/4313139/post-chernobyl-parade/ That broke a fundamental trust amongst many of the common people with Russia. Second was the breakup of the USSR. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Georgia, etc. all "got out" and nothing bad happened to them (well, at least not from the West). They realized they had "missed their chance" to become NATO allies. Third was probably the 2014 invasion. Again, you can read about that in prior pages. But this is why Russians take such offense to Ukraine flipping them the bird. They're shocked that Ukrainians don't love them and welcome them with flowers when their elderly are killed, children are kidnapped and women raped. Go figure.

The point is that you're under the belief that anyone in the West expects anything but co-existence out of Russia? The War in Ukraine was strictly one-sided. Russia invaded Ukraine on a half-baked premise. You remember Putin's threat "lie-down my darling and take it" threat just before the invasion? You think that's a person who cares about co-existence?

All Russia needs to do is leave Ukraine and poof - the war is over. It's that simple.

Now, will Russian relations with the West ever be the same again? Would you trust a government who's good with burning down city apartment buildings using thermobaric weaponry? Regularly threatening to use nuclear weapons on National TV? But my guess is you've never been to a place like that. Be glad you're here. This could be your hometown:

Do you seriously think university professors like John Mearsheimer are Russian propagandists?

Ah, Mearsheimer - the Chicago prof? I think he's fallen from grace.

I like his Conventional Deterrence strategy and I do believe he is correct that attrition (and I would extrapolate logistical) warfare is the way to go nowadays. I also agree with him that Ukraine should've maintained a nuclear deterrrent (and we see the results now). But that was the work he did over 20 years ago?

But I think the point that you're trying to make was either is "Why is Ukraine the West's Fault" piece? But you conveniently left out the part where he said, "if you really want to wreck Russia, what you should do is to encourage it to try to conquer Ukraine. Putin is much too smart to try that."

This is where I diverge with Mearsheimer. He blames Ukraine and Georgia wanting to join NATO in 2008 as "starting the war." From a Russian propaganda sense, if you're a Russian Kremlin ultranationalists, I would agree. But remember that this was not the rationale Putin initially used to wage war against Ukraine. It was to eradicate Nazi's and liberate Russians in Crimea, remember? This is where you're falling for Russian propaganda. Where history has been reshaped and remolded to fit your own personal bias. Before that (2016'ish), the Russian propaganda line was that Poroshenko (aka "porky", as Russian propagandists called him) was corrupt, so that's why Russia needed to invade in 2014. But that propaganda line couldn't be used effectively on Zelenksy (but seems to be retested again, reading recent posts?). "The West" (references help, if you have specific examples and wish to discuss) also didn't encourage Putin to attack Ukraine. You can claim NATO was a trigger, but that's only if you buy into the concept that Ukraine is a subservient vassal to Russia, versus an independent nation capable of self-governing. Again, a Kremlin propaganda line. And I believe Mearsheimer did become a Putin apologist in 2022, imho; so yes, I think he's been influenced by Russian propaganda, consciously or not.

Although you cling to Mearsheimer, the convenient omissions of fact really reveal your motives. My guess is that the Russian deep undercovers are using Mearsheimer to undermine US policy with military and political officials; so keep that in mind when you hear "oh, Mearsheimer says.."

I don't understand this expectation. Every single country uses some form of propaganda before invading or doing similarly unsavory things. I mean for Iraq, it was first WMD, then bringing democracy to the Middle East, then...something! When the informed circles knew it was really about oil. When Israel behaves thuggishly in the West Bank, do you think they are announcing "we are doing this to annex more land"? No, it is always some line about security etc. In conclusion:

DP /

What other countries in modern history have invaded their neighbors that they were in good terms with? and what other countries do propoganda on the scale of Putin’s Russia.? As in make deals and break them and then lie that the other country were the ones committing the war crimes they carried out?

It doesn't have to tick every box but the fact remains that every country going to war comes up with a noble reason why they are doing it, for public consumption. No country says, Imma invade country X 'cause I freakin' hate their guts, or because I really want a piece of land they own, or whatever. It's always democracy security values safety people blah blah blah.

I don’t see much moral ambivalence here … Russia makes a mockery of basic human decency as well as international laws.
I can’t think of any other country that has invaded its neighbor using barbaric methods to intimidate civilians while pretending it was doing them a great favor.

The doing a great favor dodge seems irrelevant to me; they’re invading a neighbor using barbaric methods and that’s bad enough on its own. And, let’s be honest, they’re probably not going to stop if they get Ukraine. Russia wants to be an empire again.

Exactly this. It's a post-Soviet revanchist mentality. Anyone keeping tabs on Russian media will tell you that night after night they have commentators talking about how Russia is somehow "entitled" to take and occupy Ukraine, the Baltics, even Poland and other countries formerly in the Soviet orbit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s time to stop cornering him so that he doesn’t resort to desperate measures

Cornering? Strange. I don't think you understand, but not surprising. For many Americans, what goes on in Russia is a concept that's difficult to understand.

In the time-period of Putin's early career as a KGB spy, the KGB typically rewarded ruthlessness that achieved results. There were no bounds, no rules, nothing off limits. Assassination, blackmail, intimidation - not a concern for the KGB. It was the perfect environment for a black-belt judo scrapper who grew up on the streets of post-war Leningrad.

I believe he is inherently aggressive. For him, anyone who dares to contradict him is a threat. Appeasement of that type of personality also doesn't end well. Like a jackal circling prey, I believe he will relentlessly pick off the weak first and surprise attack the strong who could offer resistance.

As an example, if he steals something, rapes someone, murders someone - his expectation is you stand and watch; maybe even clap and cheer him on. But this also means that the more you appease, the worse it will be. This is why so many Russians are ambivalent to politics or even sending their children to die in Ukraine. Many are brainwashed sheep. If today milk is white, then it's white. If tomorrow milk is red, then it's red. If nuclear war is discussed as inevitable on television, then nuclear war is inevitable.

It is ironic that you believe that capitulation in Ukraine will solve the issue? You believe Putin will be happy? Will stop on his own? On the contrary, I believe it will accelerate his aggression. The portions of Ukraine being fought over include key natural resources and industry needed to sustain a wider global conflict, to include oil.



Ask yourself, would you be fine having your child raised under the Russian government? Where the only rule is abeyance absolute power? If so, you're nothing but a slave, my friend.

Hopefully you understand what the Ukrainians are fighting for and why it's important to the World.

Are you an expert on Russia?

Also, Ukraine and Russia are much less different than Ukraine wants the West to think
I happen to agree with “political realists” that Putin’s aggression was caused by the US and NATO flirting with Russia’s neighbors
To me it sounds logical. I think it was more than possible to coexist.

You're arguing Russian propaganda points put to rest about 200 pages ago. It shows just how badly you cling to tainted sources. Seriously, you need to read everything in this thread before commenting.

Reader's Digest Version - Ukraine used to be Russia's most trusted non-ethnic-Russian allies. They were even entrusted with nuclear weapons to fight as the front line of the USSR. Although a lot of things happened, key events in particular I think changed the minds of many Ukrainians. First was Chernobyl. https://time.com/4313139/post-chernobyl-parade/ That broke a fundamental trust amongst many of the common people with Russia. Second was the breakup of the USSR. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Georgia, etc. all "got out" and nothing bad happened to them (well, at least not from the West). They realized they had "missed their chance" to become NATO allies. Third was probably the 2014 invasion. Again, you can read about that in prior pages. But this is why Russians take such offense to Ukraine flipping them the bird. They're shocked that Ukrainians don't love them and welcome them with flowers when their elderly are killed, children are kidnapped and women raped. Go figure.

The point is that you're under the belief that anyone in the West expects anything but co-existence out of Russia? The War in Ukraine was strictly one-sided. Russia invaded Ukraine on a half-baked premise. You remember Putin's threat "lie-down my darling and take it" threat just before the invasion? You think that's a person who cares about co-existence?

All Russia needs to do is leave Ukraine and poof - the war is over. It's that simple.

Now, will Russian relations with the West ever be the same again? Would you trust a government who's good with burning down city apartment buildings using thermobaric weaponry? Regularly threatening to use nuclear weapons on National TV? But my guess is you've never been to a place like that. Be glad you're here. This could be your hometown:

Do you seriously think university professors like John Mearsheimer are Russian propagandists?

Ah, Mearsheimer - the Chicago prof? I think he's fallen from grace.

I like his Conventional Deterrence strategy and I do believe he is correct that attrition (and I would extrapolate logistical) warfare is the way to go nowadays. I also agree with him that Ukraine should've maintained a nuclear deterrrent (and we see the results now). But that was the work he did over 20 years ago?

But I think the point that you're trying to make was either is "Why is Ukraine the West's Fault" piece? But you conveniently left out the part where he said, "if you really want to wreck Russia, what you should do is to encourage it to try to conquer Ukraine. Putin is much too smart to try that."

This is where I diverge with Mearsheimer. He blames Ukraine and Georgia wanting to join NATO in 2008 as "starting the war." From a Russian propaganda sense, if you're a Russian Kremlin ultranationalists, I would agree. But remember that this was not the rationale Putin initially used to wage war against Ukraine. It was to eradicate Nazi's and liberate Russians in Crimea, remember? This is where you're falling for Russian propaganda. Where history has been reshaped and remolded to fit your own personal bias. Before that (2016'ish), the Russian propaganda line was that Poroshenko (aka "porky", as Russian propagandists called him) was corrupt, so that's why Russia needed to invade in 2014. But that propaganda line couldn't be used effectively on Zelenksy (but seems to be retested again, reading recent posts?). "The West" (references help, if you have specific examples and wish to discuss) also didn't encourage Putin to attack Ukraine. You can claim NATO was a trigger, but that's only if you buy into the concept that Ukraine is a subservient vassal to Russia, versus an independent nation capable of self-governing. Again, a Kremlin propaganda line. And I believe Mearsheimer did become a Putin apologist in 2022, imho; so yes, I think he's been influenced by Russian propaganda, consciously or not.

Although you cling to Mearsheimer, the convenient omissions of fact really reveal your motives. My guess is that the Russian deep undercovers are using Mearsheimer to undermine US policy with military and political officials; so keep that in mind when you hear "oh, Mearsheimer says.."

I don't understand this expectation. Every single country uses some form of propaganda before invading or doing similarly unsavory things. I mean for Iraq, it was first WMD, then bringing democracy to the Middle East, then...something! When the informed circles knew it was really about oil. When Israel behaves thuggishly in the West Bank, do you think they are announcing "we are doing this to annex more land"? No, it is always some line about security etc. In conclusion:

DP /

What other countries in modern history have invaded their neighbors that they were in good terms with? and what other countries do propoganda on the scale of Putin’s Russia.? As in make deals and break them and then lie that the other country were the ones committing the war crimes they carried out?

It doesn't have to tick every box but the fact remains that every country going to war comes up with a noble reason why they are doing it, for public consumption. No country says, Imma invade country X 'cause I freakin' hate their guts, or because I really want a piece of land they own, or whatever. It's always democracy security values safety people blah blah blah.

I don’t see much moral ambivalence here … Russia makes a mockery of basic human decency as well as international laws.
I can’t think of any other country that has invaded its neighbor using barbaric methods to intimidate civilians while pretending it was doing them a great favor.

The doing a great favor dodge seems irrelevant to me; they’re invading a neighbor using barbaric methods and that’s bad enough on its own. And, let’s be honest, they’re probably not going to stop if they get Ukraine. Russia wants to be an empire again.

Yes exactly - and that is the real reason why Putin falsely claims NATO (a military defense alliance only) represents an existential threat to Russia. It only represents a threat if Russia plans on invading NATO countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
From a western and NATO strategic perspective, it's been great.

From a moral and humanitarian perspective, it's been awful. Ukrainians have suffered a lot.

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly this. It's a post-Soviet revanchist mentality. Anyone keeping tabs on Russian media will tell you that night after night they have commentators talking about how Russia is somehow "entitled" to take and occupy Ukraine, the Baltics, even Poland and other countries formerly in the Soviet orbit.

I love how in the span of a few posts, we get both that Russia has made a huge mistake and that Russia will now conquer former Soviet territories. Maybe you guys should compare notes and focus on one narrative.

[Anonymous]

they’re clinging to the slowly disappearing gravy train

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
From a western and NATO strategic perspective, it's been great.

From a moral and humanitarian perspective, it's been awful. Ukrainians have suffered a lot.

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly this. It's a post-Soviet revanchist mentality. Anyone keeping tabs on Russian media will tell you that night after night they have commentators talking about how Russia is somehow "entitled" to take and occupy Ukraine, the Baltics, even Poland and other countries formerly in the Soviet orbit.

I love how in the span of a few posts, we get both that Russia has made a huge mistake and that Russia will now conquer former Soviet territories. Maybe you guys should compare notes and focus on one narrative.

The whole point of NATO is to prevent Russia from doing that. That is why Putin carried on with absurd allegations about a defense alliance threatening his existence. He would have nothing to fear from NATO if not planning on any aggression towards NATO countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WSJ throws in the towel in Ukraine. Spineless neocons lied for 24 months.

https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/its-time-to-end-magical-thinking-about-russias-defeat-f6d0b8de?mod=djemalertNEWS


Joe loses his second war. We need Trump. The only winner with correct instincts.

Thanks for your insights Vlad

The last thing we need is an insurrectionist fraud cult leader serving as lap dog for the world’s number one war criminal …

Calling Putin the number one war criminal is so October 6th.

Yeah he wants us to think that.

Who do you think armed and trained Hamas to employ their trade mark barbarism towards innocent civilians (with help from Iran)? The weapons used October 7 were licensed by Russia and various credible videos of Russian soldiers training Hamas terrorists.

The Number one war criminal wanted to divert the world’s gaze from his illegal and immoral war in Ukraine in order to buy himself more time to continue his reign of terror in Ukraine.

In the most despicable and cynical way possible he incited the latest Israel Gaza conflict while feigning concern for Palestinians. This is also at the expense of his own people as he doubles his military spending while drastically reducing funds for education, health and other domestic needs. .
He is positively gloating about the middle East crisis and not flossing over his illegal
Violent invasion of Ukraine as he thinks the world is not watching any more.

We are watching and won’t forget the evil he has unleashed on so many innocent people .

This is all true, but what actually led him to it and what is fueling it?
The arrogance of the US thinking we can tell him what to do wrt what he sees as his sphere of influence, much like the US looks at the Western hemisphere under the Monroe doctrine

No one in national security has told Putin what to do in Ukraine. But everyone is cheering it on.

This war has been a gift to the US. Russia is gone. Done. Finished. They made a profoundly stupid decision invading Ukraine. It's cost them roughly 300,000 casualties. Almost all of their armor. Literally, thousands of tanks. Plus all the artillery, the armored personnel carriers, etc. Even naval forces, including the flag ship of the Black Sea fleet. Plus air power given all the planes and helicopters that were shot down, not to mention attacks on Russian airbases. Their conventional military is wrecked. It is no threat to the West anymore. And it never will be again. Russia - or rather Ukraine - destroyed its ability to project military force anywhere.

That is no small thing. Countering Russia - and its predecessor, the Soviet Union - has been the defining strategic focus of the West for more than 80 years.

And Ukraine took care of it. It cost the US no lives. All we did was give Ukraine some 90s era equipment that was due to be mothballed regardless. It is the best return on investment in the history of humanity. From an American and NATO perspective, the longer that Russia continues to fight an unwinnable war, the better. They are losing 15,000-20,000 soldiers per month. Almost no other country on this planet would endure that without the government being overthrown. But Russians persist. They've completely destroyed their future, and yet they continue with these losses in places like Avdiivka, which has been absolutely devastating for the Russian military.

The Western strategic perspective is long may it continue.

The losses experienced by Ukrainians is a different discussion. And they have been heavy.

But from a western strategic perspective, Russia's invasion of Ukraine was a gift from the gods.

I thought the argument was that the war was a horrible thing and it was all Putin’s fault? And that it should have never happened?
And now it is suddenly a godsend. For the US.
So which is it.

From a western and NATO strategic perspective, it's been great.

From a moral and humanitarian perspective, it's been awful. Ukrainians have suffered a lot.

So maybe NATO and the West should thank Putin, eh? Maybe he even works for the CIA

[Anonymous]

Sadlly, Ukraine is committing slow suicide.

[Anonymous]

US government seems to have lost interest in Ukraine in general; like a psychotic toddler who gets bored with a video game he’s losing and flings it away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
US government seems to have lost interest in Ukraine in general; like a psychotic toddler who gets bored with a video game he’s losing and flings it away.

The US government has not lost interest. The republicans like psychotics children follow what ever trump says. He wants to protect his main sponsor Putin.

[Anonymous]

Ukraine will get more arms and money.
No amount of s___t posting here is gonna change that. If the US decided this need to wrap up sooner, the toys will get bigger and meaner. Go ahead post some memes on X. Add a few more stupid posts about farm boys and Zelensky. It doesn’t matter. You can’t spin your way out of the inevitable. Russia has cratered their economy and demographics for nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sadlly, Ukraine is committing slow suicide.

Whereas had they been quickly conquered or quickly lost to Russia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sadlly, Ukraine is committing slow suicide.

Right Vlad - what a ridiculous take away - they were invaded by the insane empire-mongering war criminal next door: … they are valiantly fighting for their freedom, survival and independence …

You must be a Russian operative if you dismiss that as suicide .