Putin Invades Ukraine II

[dualstow]

That's the point here. Just because they couldn't have a little foresight to see that flirting with NATO was going to bring huge problems their way, doesn't mean that we should be shipping weapons over there to try to bail them out at the last minute.
...

I'm not as cynical as some, but I certainly don't think we're bailing them out or helping them out of the goodness of our hearts. The people who hang the blue and yellow out their window are, but those responsible for getting those arms to Ukraine, they believe it's good for the west, whether you agree or not. So it really doesn't matter if 15 years ago was more suitable timing.

[dualstow]

Obviously at this point West and East are just calling each other names.

I'm not privy to what's going on in back channel discussion, the discussion that counts, and I would hazard a guess that you aren't either.

On those reports you read about Putin's supposed timeline for how long the operation would take, were any of those in Russian or translated from Russian?

Probably. Almost certainly. But it's your right to discount them. Didn't you also reject the news report that Saddam gassed his own people, or do I have you confused with someone else. It's your prerogative.

.... That whole narrative was highly suspect, at least to me.

Oh well.

[yankees60]

I do not believe that this has been discussed within this topic?

https://globalnews.ca/news/8580055/russ ... -tensions/

Russia denies it plans to invade Ukraine. Putin’s remaining options are still risky

If it was such a crisis / emergency / threat to Russia .... why less than a month before the invasion .... Russia was denying its plans to invade Ukraine?

What changed? Can anyone document where Russia / Putin stated that unless something happens or if something happens ... we are going to invade? Where was there ever a declaration of war by Russia?

What was the precipitating event that finally caused Russia to invade? I do not remember there ever being one.

Seems like the invasion could have occurred for the same unstated reasons for a number of years?

Why did not Russia FIRST try any of these other options described in this article short of invasion / war?

[Mountaineer]

I think a key question is: what information do those who make the decisions have that we Monday morning quarter backs ( or prophet want to bes ) not have? And that is difficult to answer. It’s mainly just entertainment for we spectators. YMMV

[stuper1]

That's the point here. Just because they couldn't have a little foresight to see that flirting with NATO was going to bring huge problems their way, doesn't mean that we should be shipping weapons over there to try to bail them out at the last minute.
...

I'm not as cynical as some, but I certainly don't think we're bailing them out or helping them out of the goodness of our hearts. The people who hang the blue and yellow out their window are, but those responsible for getting those arms to Ukraine, they believe it's good for the west, whether you agree or not. So it really doesn't matter if 15 years ago was more suitable timing.

It's called a proxy war. They think it's good for the west because they hope it will destabilize Russia and cause Putin to topple. They couldn't care less about how many people have to die in Ukraine along the way. I think that's pretty sad. Whether you agree or not is up to you. I would also observe that in fact Putin very well may topple. He's just a man not a superhero villain even though that's how he's portrayed in the west. And then the Russian leader who comes next may end up being much worse, because I'm sure the proud Russian people don't like to get kicked around.

[dualstow]

I think a key question is: what information do those who make the decisions have that we Monday morning quarter backs ( or prophet want to bes ) not have? And that is difficult to answer. It’s mainly just entertainment for we spectators. YMMV

Yup, that's what I'm saying. Impossible to answer. Only in retrospect will we have a chance to fully understand.

[dualstow]

If it was such a crisis / emergency / threat to Russia .... why less than a month before the invasion .... Russia was denying its plans to invade Ukraine?

Fake-out, element of surprise.

[yankees60]

I think a key question is: what information do those who make the decisions have that we Monday morning quarter backs ( or prophet want to bes ) not have? And that is difficult to answer. It’s mainly just entertainment for we spectators. YMMV

That is not the issue.

When one country invades another, particularly after within the prior month that it stated it was not going to invade that country, unless that country gives the world a serious reason for the invasion then, in general, the whole rest of the world is going to be against that invasion.

[yankees60]

That's the point here. Just because they couldn't have a little foresight to see that flirting with NATO was going to bring huge problems their way, doesn't mean that we should be shipping weapons over there to try to bail them out at the last minute.
...

I'm not as cynical as some, but I certainly don't think we're bailing them out or helping them out of the goodness of our hearts. The people who hang the blue and yellow out their window are, but those responsible for getting those arms to Ukraine, they believe it's good for the west, whether you agree or not. So it really doesn't matter if 15 years ago was more suitable timing.

It's called a proxy war. They think it's good for the west because they hope it will destabilize Russia and cause Putin to topple. They couldn't care less about how many people have to die in Ukraine along the way. I think that's pretty sad. Whether you agree or not is up to you. I would also observe that in fact Putin very well may topple. He's just a man not a superhero villain even though that's how he's portrayed in the west. And then the Russian leader who comes next may end up being much worse, because I'm sure the proud Russian people don't like to get kicked around.

1. You have stated this numerous times. Isn't it equally probable that the next one who comes around would be much better?

2. The Russian people actually chose their leaders? They have chosen to have Putin in power for the past 25 years?

[yankees60]

If it was such a crisis / emergency / threat to Russia .... why less than a month before the invasion .... Russia was denying its plans to invade Ukraine?

Fake-out, element of surprise.

Yes, of course. But without giving any plain reason why they had to invade on February 24, 2022 then the world, as it has, is going to be against them.

[dualstow]

Well, not Slovakia

[seajay]

That's the point here. Just because they couldn't have a little foresight to see that flirting with NATO was going to bring huge problems their way, doesn't mean that we should be shipping weapons over there to try to bail them out at the last minute.
...

I'm not as cynical as some, but I certainly don't think we're bailing them out or helping them out of the goodness of our hearts. The people who hang the blue and yellow out their window are, but those responsible for getting those arms to Ukraine, they believe it's good for the west, whether you agree or not. So it really doesn't matter if 15 years ago was more suitable timing.

It's called a proxy war. They think it's good for the west because they hope it will destabilize Russia and cause Putin to topple. They couldn't care less about how many people have to die in Ukraine along the way. I think that's pretty sad. Whether you agree or not is up to you. I would also observe that in fact Putin very well may topple. He's just a man not a superhero villain even though that's how he's portrayed in the west. And then the Russian leader who comes next may end up being much worse, because I'm sure the proud Russian people don't like to get kicked around.

1. You have stated this numerous times. Isn't it equally probable that the next one who comes around would be much better?

2. The Russian people actually chose their leaders? They have chosen to have Putin in power for the past 25 years?

Speaks volumes to the civilized world when a Russian population is "proud" to have indiscriminately bombed civilians, along with numerous war crimes of brutality against women/children, amounting to over 10,000+ deaths of such civilians. Pride in themselves, lowlife scum to most others.

From Fred Pleitgen in Bucha
I have seen a lot of awful things in my career, but some of the things we were confronted with on the outskirts of Kyiv after Russian troops were beaten back by Ukrainian forces have been among the most harrowing. In the suburb of Bucha we were among the first to reach a mass grave that residents dug while the place was under Russian occupation, because so many residents had been killed

... with may civilian bodies clearly having their hands tied i.e. executions (and god knows what horrors before being executed).

From Ben Wedeman in Kramatorsk
as many as 4,000 people in and around the train station in Kramatorsk were waiting to be evacuated when a missile exploded overhead, raining down chunks of metal. Shrapnel ripped through the crowd, which was largely composed of women, children and the elderly.

Russia has denied allegations of war crimes and claims its forces do not target civilians. But CNN journalists on the ground in Ukraine have seen firsthand evidence of atrocities at multiple locations across the country.

[seajay]

Some possibilities yet to come

1. The possible ejection of Russia from the UN. A terrorist organization with a UN veto is laughable. Is The Federation of Russia a Member of the United Nations? Ukraine says they are not.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991 left unresolved the issue of international rights and obligations of the USSR.

The Russian Federation took over the seat of a permanent member of the UN Security Council bypassing the procedures defined by the UN Charter. This happened on the basis of an ordinary letter from the President of the RSFSR Boris Yeltsin, addressed to the UN Secretary General, which was sent on December 24, 31 years ago.

The current UN Charter does not contain the words "Russian Federation". These words are also missing from Article 23 of the UN Charter in particular, which lists the permanent members of the UN Security Council.

2. Unless Ukraine obtains long-range weapons, they seem to have no answer to Russia's tactic of total destruction. Even when Ukraine retakes territory, Russia can still wreak destruction with long-range strikes. It would seem that support might be expanded in order for Ukraine to reciprocate strikes into Russia/Moscow. Ukraine I believe is close to the final design/testing of such 400 mile range weaponry (enough to reach Moscow).

[dualstow]

... with ma(n)y civilian bodies clearly having their hands tied i.e. executions

I can’t prove that the contrarian streak in pp’ers is partly responsible for their tendency to blame the West more than Putin. However, it is clear that they ignore facts like the above. They have to, in order to perpetuate the narrative that Putin is just trying to liberate the Donbas and get NATO off his back.

[glennds]

... with ma(n)y civilian bodies clearly having their hands tied i.e. executions

I can’t prove that the contrarian streak in pp’ers is partly responsible for their tendency to blame the West more than Putin. However, it is clear that they ignore facts like the above. They have to, in order to perpetuate the narrative that Putin is just trying to liberate the Donbas and get NATO off his back.

They're always there, nothing new. During WWII there was a vocal contingent of Nazi sympathizers who felt Germany was being wronged. Charles Lindbergh became the spokesman for isolationism and "not meddling in other countries' affairs, which ultimately turned into outright Nazi sympathy when he proposed a neutrality pact with Germany.
Before Nixon resigned and even after, there was a club (cult?) that couldn't stop talking about how the man was railroaded by the Left. Whatever.

[yankees60]

... with ma(n)y civilian bodies clearly having their hands tied i.e. executions

I can’t prove that the contrarian streak in pp’ers is partly responsible for their tendency to blame the West more than Putin. However, it is clear that they ignore facts like the above. They have to, in order to perpetuate the narrative that Putin is just trying to liberate the Donbas and get NATO off his back.

Did Putin / Russia ever announce this as a reason when they invaded on February 24th? Why it had to be done on that date? Why there were no other options left? Listing all the steps they'd prior tried but had not been successful at doing?

[dualstow]

Good points, Glenn.

[stuper1]

Well-known traitor to America, Tulsi Gabbard, speaks on the Ukraine conflict:

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status ... 48?lang=en

https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/fo ... 86aa924733

Unless she's getting paid off by Putin directly, which of course is possible but seems unlikely given her honorable military service to the USA, what possible ulterior motive does she have to make statements like the ones in the links above? It's certainly not going to help her politically, because the media is going to do the service of its benefactor, the military-industrial complex, and tear her to pieces over these remarks. You'll note that the second link is from an Australian source, because I could barely find an American or European source, indicating that she has pretty much been memory holed because her views are outside the lane considered allowable these days.

[glennds]

Well-known traitor to America, Tulsi Gabbard, speaks on the Ukraine conflict:

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status ... 48?lang=en

https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/fo ... 86aa924733

Unless she's getting paid off by Putin directly, which of course is possible but seems unlikely given her honorable military service to the USA, what possible ulterior motive does she have to make statements like the ones in the links above? It's certainly not going to help her politically, because the media is going to do the service of its benefactor, the military-industrial complex, and tear her to pieces over these remarks. You'll note that the second link is from an Australian source, because I could barely find an American or European source, indicating that she has pretty much been memory holed because her views are outside the lane considered allowable these days.

So her argument is that Ukraine joining NATO would create a legitimate security concern for Russia because it would bring NATO to it's border?

Does she not realize that both Estonia and Latvia are NATO members? Which means NATO is already on Russia's border. Soon Finland too.

[SilentMajority]

Well-known traitor to America, Tulsi Gabbard, speaks on the Ukraine conflict:

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status ... 48?lang=en

https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/fo ... 86aa924733

Unless she's getting paid off by Putin directly, which of course is possible but seems unlikely given her honorable military service to the USA, what possible ulterior motive does she have to make statements like the ones in the links above? It's certainly not going to help her politically, because the media is going to do the service of its benefactor, the military-industrial complex, and tear her to pieces over these remarks. You'll note that the second link is from an Australian source, because I could barely find an American or European source, indicating that she has pretty much been memory holed because her views are outside the lane considered allowable these days.

So her argument is that Ukraine joining NATO would create a legitimate security concern for Russia because it would bring NATO to it's border?

Does she not realize that both Estonia and Latvia are NATO members? Which means NATO is already on Russia's border. Soon Finland too.

There is a massive, massive strategic difference between the Ukrainian border with Russia and those two tiny Baltic states.

Ukraine cuts straight into the heart of Russia into open territory a few hundred kilometers from the Volga and is literally East of Moscow.

Russia probably should have vigorously opposed Estonia and Latvia joining NATO back in 2002-2004 but maybe Putin wasn't in a strong position back then, I don't know.

Regardless, there's a universe of difference with regards to risk to Russia in having the Ukraine in NATO. It's a nonstarter and as everyone can see they won't permit it.

[yankees60]

Russia-Ukraine war: A conflict of huge miscalculations

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/r ... 1b765i6tj4

[glennds]

There is a massive, massive strategic difference between the Ukrainian border with Russia and those two tiny Baltic states.

Ukraine cuts straight into the heart of Russia into open territory a few hundred kilometers from the Volga and is literally East of Moscow.

Russia probably should have vigorously opposed Estonia and Latvia joining NATO back in 2002-2004 but maybe Putin wasn't in a strong position back then, I don't know.

Regardless, there's a universe of difference with regards to risk to Russia in having the Ukraine in NATO. It's a nonstarter and as everyone can see they won't permit it.

Why is Russia's security any more important than Ukraine's (or vice versa)?
And Ukraine is not east of Moscow. It's border is not much closer to Moscow than Latvia's.

From an economic standpoint though, Ukraine would be much more attractive to seize than Latvia. But that's right - attempting to annex Latvia would trigger a confrontation with all of NATO.
Maybe the thinking here was to invade and seize Ukraine pre-emptively before the same thing happens i.e. a NATO confrontation. It would be like hurrying up to rob a jewelery store before the new security system is installed.

[SilentMajority]

Glennds.....find a map of Europe with longitudinal lines and run due south of Moscow and see what countries you hit. I'm pretty sure Ukraine runs east of it.

You don't need to be Eisenhower to see how vastly different and more threatening NATO armies in Ukraine are to Russia vs in Latvia or Estonia. This should be obvious at a glance even for people with little military or historical understanding.

Regarding Russian security being more important than the Ukraine's....I don't think anyone here said that yet but i think it's an important concept.

The Ukraine is a small and poor country. Unless the big boys use it as a proxy battleground (as NATO is now), it's security doesn't threaten stability and safety of the entire planet. Russia is much larger, more powerful, with powerful close allies who are also constant targets of NATO and the Western governments. Russia's insecurity does threaten the world. If Russia is secure, the threat of global or nuclear war drops massively and trade, especially in energy and strategic metals can flourish.

[glennds]

The Ukraine is a small and poor country. Unless the big boys use it as a proxy battleground (as NATO is now), it's security doesn't threaten stability and safety of the entire planet. Russia is much larger, more powerful, with powerful close allies who are also constant targets of NATO and the Western governments. Russia's insecurity does threaten the world. If Russia is secure, the threat of global or nuclear war drops massively and trade, especially in energy and strategic metals can flourish.

Let's take your comment and switch the following:
2022 = 1939
Ukraine = Poland
Russia = Germany

We've been here before.

[yankees60]

Glennds.....find a map of Europe with longitudinal lines and run due south of Moscow and see what countries you hit. I'm pretty sure Ukraine runs east of it.

You don't need to be Eisenhower to see how vastly different and more threatening NATO armies in Ukraine are to Russia vs in Latvia or Estonia. This should be obvious at a glance even for people with little military or historical understanding.

Regarding Russian security being more important than the Ukraine's....I don't think anyone here said that yet but i think it's an important concept.

The Ukraine is a small and poor country. Unless the big boys use it as a proxy battleground (as NATO is now), it's security doesn't threaten stability and safety of the entire planet. Russia is much larger, more powerful, with powerful close allies who are also constant targets of NATO and the Western governments. Russia's insecurity does threaten the world. If Russia is secure, the threat of global or nuclear war drops massively and trade, especially in energy and strategic metals can flourish.

No one has yet answered this question I've asked several times here. I will see if you will answer it.

Even Hitler before he invaded Poland on September 1, 1939 believed he needed a precipitating event to invade another country. The night before he set up a fake attack by Poland on Germany so Germany would have grounds to respond in kind.

What was Russia's precipitating event on February 24, 2022 so that its last recourse was to invade another country? What had happened the day before to cause this drastic measure?