Putin Invades Ukraine II

[vnatale]

The way everyone is coming together to boycott Russia is a beautful thing.
I hate what it’s doing to the average Russian but if Putin goes down, maybe it’ll be better for them too in the long run.

John Bolton was interviewed on C-Span today. He quoted Woodrow Wilson:

A nation that is boycotted is a nation that is in sight of surrender. Apply this economic, peaceful, silent, deadly remedy and there will be no need for force. It does not cost a life outside the nation boycotted, but it brings a pressure upon the nation which, in my judgment, no modern nation could resist.

President Woodrow Wilson, 19191

[dualstow]

Silent but deadly, eh?

[D1984]

The way everyone is coming together to boycott Russia is a beautful thing.
I hate what it’s doing to the average Russian but if Putin goes down, maybe it’ll be better for them too in the long run.

John Bolton was interviewed on C-Span today. He quoted Woodrow Wilson:

A nation that is boycotted is a nation that is in sight of surrender. Apply this economic, peaceful, silent, deadly remedy and there will be no need for force. It does not cost a life outside the nation boycotted, but it brings a pressure upon the nation which, in my judgment, no modern nation could resist.

President Woodrow Wilson, 19191

I hope Mr. Bolton (and Mr. Wilson) are/were right but I fear they will not be.

It is absolutely true that anctions can be devastating over a medium to long term period...the issue is Ukraine may fall to Russian forces long before the sanctions can cause internal political changes in Russia (either via elections, mass revolution a la France in the 1790s--or for that matter Russia itself in the late 1910s, or a simple "palace coup" of sorts by the siloviki) and/or convince Putin to change course.

I know why we can't--and shouldn't--directly send US/NATO forces into Ukraine (i.e. that could very well led to WWIII) or even have NATO fighters take off from bases in NATO countries next to Ukraine in order to enforce a no-fly zone over parts of Ukraine, but there is still a lot between "directly starting WWIII" and "only doing what we are currently doing right now" that could be brought to bear on Russia if we were really serious about things.

[vnatale]

The way everyone is coming together to boycott Russia is a beautful thing.
I hate what it’s doing to the average Russian but if Putin goes down, maybe it’ll be better for them too in the long run.

John Bolton was interviewed on C-Span today. He quoted Woodrow Wilson:

A nation that is boycotted is a nation that is in sight of surrender. Apply this economic, peaceful, silent, deadly remedy and there will be no need for force. It does not cost a life outside the nation boycotted, but it brings a pressure upon the nation which, in my judgment, no modern nation could resist.

President Woodrow Wilson, 19191

I hope Mr. Bolton (and Mr. Wilson) are/were right but I fear they will not be.

It is absolutely true that anctions can be devastating over a medium to long term period...the issue is Ukraine may fall to Russian forces long before the sanctions can cause internal political changes in Russia (either via elections, mass revolution a la France in the 1790s--or for that matter Russia itself in the late 1910s, or a simple "palace coup" of sorts by the siloviki) and/or convince Putin to change course.

I know why we can't--and shouldn't--directly send US/NATO forces into Ukraine (i.e. that could very well led to WWIII) or even have NATO fighters take off from bases in NATO countries next to Ukraine in order to enforce a no-fly zone over parts of Ukraine, but there is still a lot between "directly starting WWIII" and "only doing what we are currently doing right now" that could be brought to bear on Russia if we were really serious about things.

The latest is that Ukraine will be being supplied with more planes from various countries.

Ukraine cannot be controlled by only 150,000 Russian troops.

The Russian troops are learning that the Russian propaganda that Ukrainians would be welcoming them is not true.

Russia expected to be controlling the skies within a few hours of the start of the war. Instead, ten days later, they still do not.

[boglerdude]

1646529414145.png (415.5 KiB) Viewed 57569 times

Thoughts & Prayers!.jpg (116.43 KiB) Viewed 57569 times

FNHd6WyVcAEs9M3.jpg (134.35 KiB) Viewed 57569 times

[I Shrugged]

Russians might not be able to pacify Ukraine but they can sure bomb the place into rubble while trying. And they probably will. They are first class assholes. I don’t think NATO will be able to stand by and watch.

[vnatale]

Russians might not be able to pacify Ukraine but they can sure bomb the place into rubble while trying. And they probably will. They are first class assholes. I don’t think NATO will be able to stand by and watch.

I somehow don't think that is Putin's aim. What would he want with a rubbled country? What good is it to him?

[Xan]

Russians might not be able to pacify Ukraine but they can sure bomb the place into rubble while trying. And they probably will. They are first class assholes. I don’t think NATO will be able to stand by and watch.

I somehow don't think that is Putin's aim. What would he want with a rubbled country? What good is it to him?

Certainly that isn't his first choice, but it might be ahead of pulling out and looking like a loser.

[vnatale]

Russians might not be able to pacify Ukraine but they can sure bomb the place into rubble while trying. And they probably will. They are first class assholes. I don’t think NATO will be able to stand by and watch.

I somehow don't think that is Putin's aim. What would he want with a rubbled country? What good is it to him?

Certainly that isn't his first choice, but it might be ahead of pulling out and looking like a loser.

Looking like a loser would be worse than how he'd eternally be judged in history for rubbling a country?

[Xan]

Russians might not be able to pacify Ukraine but they can sure bomb the place into rubble while trying. And they probably will. They are first class assholes. I don’t think NATO will be able to stand by and watch.

I somehow don't think that is Putin's aim. What would he want with a rubbled country? What good is it to him?

Certainly that isn't his first choice, but it might be ahead of pulling out and looking like a loser.

Looking like a loser would be worse than how he'd eternally be judged in history for rubbling a country?

I'd say it isn't a slam dunk that he'd pick one or the other.

[dualstow]

{ Babylon Bee }

Americans Who Cowered Under
Government Oppression For 2 Years
Urge Ukrainians To Die For Freedom

I often love satire from the Bee, but that headline is really effin stupid. What a reach.

[vnatale]

1646529414145.pngThoughts & Prayers!.jpgFNHd6WyVcAEs9M3.jpg

On the other hand ....

Capture.JPG (55.4 KiB) Viewed 57540 times

[glennds]

I know why we can't--and shouldn't--directly send US/NATO forces into Ukraine (i.e. that could very well led to WWIII) or even have NATO fighters take off from bases in NATO countries next to Ukraine in order to enforce a no-fly zone over parts of Ukraine, but there is still a lot between "directly starting WWIII" and "only doing what we are currently doing right now" that could be brought to bear on Russia if we were really serious about things.

It's hard to know whether WWIII has already started and if the Ukraine invasion is a 1939 moment.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the initial US response was resignation. It was Margaret Thatcher that pressured Bush 41 to remember that appeasement in 1939 led to war. Her famous admonishment to him was "Don't go wobbly". Gold standard Secretary of State Baker then did a masterful job building a large international coalition and the rest was history, at least until 2001.

Then there's the example of the Balkan wars of the 1990s. The US initially vowed not to get involved until the atrocities became impossible to ignore and ultimately US led NATO deployment twice brought the conflict to an end, but only after 140,000 lives were lost and unspeakable genocidal atrocities had occurred.

Are either of these examples relevant? Maybe, maybe not. Without a crystal ball, it's a judgment call.

IMO if it inevitably becomes a pay now or pay later proposition, paying now would be cheaper by every measure. How often in history have authoritarian dictators been satisfied with one conquest? It's like convincing yourself that a drug addict will quit after just one more hit.

I agree with you D1984, there are lots of ways to resource and support Ukraine, either publicly or covertly. It's not like Afghanistan. The Ukrainian people appear to be more than committed and motivated to fight for their country and their self-governance. In a fair fight the Ukrainians could very well hand the Russians their asses.

[I Shrugged]

What if Russia Loses?
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... ket-newtab

Russian President Vladimir Putin has made a strategic blunder by invading Ukraine. He has misjudged the political tenor of the country, which was not waiting to be liberated by Russian soldiers. He has misjudged the United States, the European Union, and a number of countries—including Australia, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea—all of which were capable of collective action before the war and all of which are now bent on Russia’s defeat in Ukraine. The United States and its allies and partners are imposing harsh costs on Moscow. Every war is a battle for public opinion, and Putin’s war in Ukraine has—in an age of mass-media imagery—associated Russia with an unprovoked attack on a peaceful neighbor, with mass humanitarian suffering, and with manifold war crimes. At every turn, the ensuing outrage will be an obstacle to Russian foreign policy in the future.

Vinny, to your question, if things aren't going right, what will Putin do if the Ukes don't comply with his demands? Based on his actions in Chechnya and Syria, he will flatten them. Which I would say will lead to the outcome predicted in the story above.

I think this invasion is a blunderous (is that a word?) miscalculation by Putin.

[dualstow]

That’s a great article.
blunderous is a word but it means ‘prone to making blunders.’

[vnatale]

I know why we can't--and shouldn't--directly send US/NATO forces into Ukraine (i.e. that could very well led to WWIII) or even have NATO fighters take off from bases in NATO countries next to Ukraine in order to enforce a no-fly zone over parts of Ukraine, but there is still a lot between "directly starting WWIII" and "only doing what we are currently doing right now" that could be brought to bear on Russia if we were really serious about things.

It's hard to know whether WWIII has already started and if the Ukraine invasion is a 1939 moment.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the initial US response was resignation. It was Margaret Thatcher that pressured Bush 41 to remember that appeasement in 1939 led to war. Her famous admonishment to him was "Don't go wobbly". Gold standard Secretary of State Baker then did a masterful job building a large international coalition and the rest was history, at least until 2001.

Then there's the example of the Balkan wars of the 1990s. The US initially vowed not to get involved until the atrocities became impossible to ignore and ultimately US led NATO deployment twice brought the conflict to an end, but only after 140,000 lives were lost and unspeakable genocidal atrocities had occurred.

Are either of these examples relevant? Maybe, maybe not. Without a crystal ball, it's a judgment call.

IMO if it inevitably becomes a pay now or pay later proposition, paying now would be cheaper by every measure. How often in history have authoritarian dictators been satisfied with one conquest? It's like convincing yourself that a drug addict will quit after just one more hit.

I agree with you D1984, there are lots of ways to resource and support Ukraine, either publicly or covertly. It's not like Afghanistan. The Ukrainian people appear to be more than committed and motivated to fight for their country and their self-governance. In a fair fight the Ukrainians could very well hand the Russians their asses.

I do not see 1939 as being relevant for a minor and major reason.

The minor was that that war started on September 1, 1939 with the following results:

"On 17 September, the Soviet Red Army invaded Eastern Poland, the territory beyond the Curzon Line that fell into the Soviet "sphere of influence" according to the secret protocol of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact; this rendered the Polish plan of defence obsolete.[15] Facing a second front, the Polish government concluded the defence of the Romanian Bridgehead was no longer feasible and ordered an emergency evacuation of all troops to neutral Romania.[16] On 6 October, following the Polish defeat at the Battle of Kock, German and Soviet forces gained full control over Poland. The success of the invasion marked the end of the Second Polish Republic, though Poland never formally surrendered."

This war certainly does not seem to be following that speed of success nor does Putin seem to have invested as much military as did Hitler. Finally, though Russia has a vastly better military than Ukraine it does not seem to be as much a mismatch as it was in 1939.

The major is that prior to invading Poland Hitler had grand plans for taking a lot of other countries as witnessed by what he'd done prior to invading Poland and then what he subsequently did. There do not seem to be any signs that Putin has designs on anything aside from Ukraine. And, even then it has not been clear what his intentions are with Ukraine. Take it all or only portions of it.

The Balkan wars also seem to fail as a comparative. My recollection is that while we bombed profusely, we as a country had no deaths and only one casualty? That would not be the case if we directly engaged in military actions with Russia.

[vnatale]

What if Russia Loses?
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... ket-newtab

Russian President Vladimir Putin has made a strategic blunder by invading Ukraine. He has misjudged the political tenor of the country, which was not waiting to be liberated by Russian soldiers. He has misjudged the United States, the European Union, and a number of countries—including Australia, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea—all of which were capable of collective action before the war and all of which are now bent on Russia’s defeat in Ukraine. The United States and its allies and partners are imposing harsh costs on Moscow. Every war is a battle for public opinion, and Putin’s war in Ukraine has—in an age of mass-media imagery—associated Russia with an unprovoked attack on a peaceful neighbor, with mass humanitarian suffering, and with manifold war crimes. At every turn, the ensuing outrage will be an obstacle to Russian foreign policy in the future.

Vinny, to your question, if things aren't going right, what will Putin do if the Ukes don't comply with his demands? Based on his actions in Chechnya and Syria, he will flatten them. Which I would say will lead to the outcome predicted in the story above.

I think this invasion is a blunderous (is that a word?) miscalculation by Putin.

I concur with all you have in the above quote. However, I do not agree with your conclusion regarding what Putin would do with Ukraine. Both his country's and the world's dynamics are quite different now than they were with Chechnya and Syria.

[I Shrugged]

What if Russia Loses?
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... ket-newtab

Russian President Vladimir Putin has made a strategic blunder by invading Ukraine. He has misjudged the political tenor of the country, which was not waiting to be liberated by Russian soldiers. He has misjudged the United States, the European Union, and a number of countries—including Australia, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea—all of which were capable of collective action before the war and all of which are now bent on Russia’s defeat in Ukraine. The United States and its allies and partners are imposing harsh costs on Moscow. Every war is a battle for public opinion, and Putin’s war in Ukraine has—in an age of mass-media imagery—associated Russia with an unprovoked attack on a peaceful neighbor, with mass humanitarian suffering, and with manifold war crimes. At every turn, the ensuing outrage will be an obstacle to Russian foreign policy in the future.

Vinny, to your question, if things aren't going right, what will Putin do if the Ukes don't comply with his demands? Based on his actions in Chechnya and Syria, he will flatten them. Which I would say will lead to the outcome predicted in the story above.

I think this invasion is a blunderous (is that a word?) miscalculation by Putin.

I concur with all you have in the above quote. However, I do not agree with your conclusion regarding what Putin would do with Ukraine. Both his country's and the world's dynamics are quite different now than they were with Chechnya and Syria.

I hope you're right. Flatten them was hyperbole. What I mean is flatten some places as examples. Which will still be horrific.

[dualstow]

Vinny, you gotta protect this place! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinnytsia

[ppnewbie]

IMHO

This is a US proxy war with Russia. NATO is a group of mutual defense, IE Ukraine becomes a US military base. Hypersonic weapons can already easily reach Russia. The west (the US) does not need the Ukraine as a military base. It's not going to take much to shock the world by Russia shutting off natural gas and oil exports. Any media messaging product or platform that makes this seem simply like a crazy person behaving badly and all of us good hearted people are just so sad at what is happening should be thrown in the trash. "We" are likely the provocateurs.

Also any message that makes it seem like we are the parent and they are the child should also be discarded. If they are mistreated, threatened and disrespected enough, Russia can kill all of us, guaranteed.

This is a perfect time to show them the respect they are deserve. We tell them that Ukraine will not house any western (US) military bases and that Ukraine can exist as a buffer. At this moment it seems like the US is in a position of strength because much of the world is aligning with us, which is a perfect time for peace talks. But none of that matters if we keep disrespectfully poke a powerful bear.

[D1984]

IMHO

This is a US proxy war with Russia. NATO is a group of mutual defense, IE Ukraine becomes a US military base. Hypersonic weapons can already easily reach Russia. The west (the US) does not need the Ukraine as a military base. It's not going to take much to shock the world by Russia shutting off natural gas and oil exports. Any media messaging product or platform that makes this seem simply like a crazy person behaving badly and all of us good hearted people are just so sad at what is happening should be thrown in the trash. "We" are likely the provocateurs.

Also any message that makes it seem like we are the parent and they are the child should also be discarded. If they are mistreated, threatened and disrespected enough, Russia can kill all of us, guaranteed.

This is a perfect time to show them the respect they are deserve. We tell them that Ukraine will not house any western (US) military bases and that Ukraine can exist as a buffer. At this moment it seems like the US is in a position of strength because much of the world is aligning with us, which is a perfect time for peace talks. But none of that matters if we keep disrespectfully poke a powerful bear.

If Russia shuts off natural gas and oil it would hurt them worse than it would hurt the rest of the world. Russian gas typically only makes up around 22, 23 or a bit under 24% of the world's gas production (it varies by year) and around 10% of the world's oil production....BUT....energy makes up around 63 or 64% of Russia's total exports by monetary value. If Vladimir Putin wants to shoot his country's economy in the foot and put them in an even more screwed economic situation than they already are in now, let him.

And how exactly are "we" (the West) the provocateurs? Ukraine/the US/Europe didn't invade Russia; Vladimir Putin sent the Russian military to invade Ukraine. They started it, not us. While I generally don't support the US having so many military bases around the world or in Europe (Europe is perfectly capable of paying for a lot more of its own defense....and the incidents of the past two weeks seem to have finally motivated them to spend more on doing exactly that) the fact of the matter is, Putin doesn't get to dictate to the US, Ukraine, or any other sovereign nation where own their own damn soil they can have military bases if they want them. Saying he does is just saying "give the abusive bully what he wants and he won't hurt you". That doesn't work with abusers and it doesn't work with bullies. Giving in to them only emboldens them to act even worse.

Oh, and BTW - Think of how far along we would be to "not giving a flying f**k what happens with oil and gas prices" if we had actually gotten serious about a Green New Deal type of plan four/five/six years ago (and by "gotten serious" I mean a full WWII style mobilization of resources). Renewable energy means energy independence (no one can embargo the sun or wind); choosing to keep depending on oil and natural gas means continuing to some extent to subsidize people like Putin.

[ppnewbie]

IMHO

This is a US proxy war with Russia. NATO is a group of mutual defense, IE Ukraine becomes a US military base. Hypersonic weapons can already easily reach Russia. The west (the US) does not need the Ukraine as a military base. It's not going to take much to shock the world by Russia shutting off natural gas and oil exports. Any media messaging product or platform that makes this seem simply like a crazy person behaving badly and all of us good hearted people are just so sad at what is happening should be thrown in the trash. "We" are likely the provocateurs.

Also any message that makes it seem like we are the parent and they are the child should also be discarded. If they are mistreated, threatened and disrespected enough, Russia can kill all of us, guaranteed.

This is a perfect time to show them the respect they are deserve. We tell them that Ukraine will not house any western (US) military bases and that Ukraine can exist as a buffer. At this moment it seems like the US is in a position of strength because much of the world is aligning with us, which is a perfect time for peace talks. But none of that matters if we keep disrespectfully poke a powerful bear.

If Russia shuts off natural gas and oil it would hurt them worse than it would hurt the rest of the world. Russian gas typically only makes up around 22, 23 or a bit under 24% of the world's gas production (it varies by year) and around 10% of the world's oil production....BUT....energy makes up around 63 or 64% of Russia's total exports by monetary value. If Vladimir Putin wants to shoot his country's economy in the foot and put them in an even more screwed economic situation than they already are in now, let him.

And how exactly are "we" (the West) the provocateurs? Ukraine/the US/Europe didn't invade Russia; Vladimir Putin sent the Russian military to invade Ukraine. They started it, not us. While I generally don't support the US having so many military bases around the world or in Europe (Europe is perfectly capable of paying for a lot more of its own defense....and the incidents of the past two weeks seem to have finally motivated them to spend more on doing exactly that) the fact of the matter is, Putin doesn't get to dictate to the US, Ukraine, or any other sovereign nation where own their own damn soil they can have military bases if they want them. Saying he does is just saying "give the abusive bully what he wants and he won't hurt you". That doesn't work with abusers and it doesn't work with bullies. Giving in to them only emboldens them to act even worse.

The exact way that we are the provocateurs is that he has been saying for at least eight years that he will not allow the US to its front door with missiles. See "the Cuban Missile Crisis" Bases around the world are how we control the world. Putin does get to dictate this and he is dictating this. Once again refer to the Cuban Missile Crisis. I think it's naive to call him a bully. It's funny I was talking to friend about what happens when emerging market countries do not allow us to exploit their countries through extractive projects and loans. We kill the leader. He pushed back until I let him know his own father (a very powerful man and friend of presidents) caused a coup resulting a terrible long dictatorship, because the democratically elected leader was not good for his corporations interest.

Also, Europe cannot defend itself. They are completely and utterly broke unless they seize everyones assets (negative 100% interest rates).

[ppnewbie]

If like clowns we continue to clutch our pearls and insist that our hypersonic missiles reach Moscow three minutes faster than if they were launched from Poland, we are going to do stupid things like seizing a sovereign's dollar reserves. That action likely gives other countries pause in holding dollar reserves. Its a great deal to be able to print digits and get real stuff in return. If we screw that up, we are going to have to work for.a living.

https://doomberg.substack.com/p/on-the- ... larity?s=r

[D1984]

IMHO

This is a US proxy war with Russia. NATO is a group of mutual defense, IE Ukraine becomes a US military base. Hypersonic weapons can already easily reach Russia. The west (the US) does not need the Ukraine as a military base. It's not going to take much to shock the world by Russia shutting off natural gas and oil exports. Any media messaging product or platform that makes this seem simply like a crazy person behaving badly and all of us good hearted people are just so sad at what is happening should be thrown in the trash. "We" are likely the provocateurs.

Also any message that makes it seem like we are the parent and they are the child should also be discarded. If they are mistreated, threatened and disrespected enough, Russia can kill all of us, guaranteed.

This is a perfect time to show them the respect they are deserve. We tell them that Ukraine will not house any western (US) military bases and that Ukraine can exist as a buffer. At this moment it seems like the US is in a position of strength because much of the world is aligning with us, which is a perfect time for peace talks. But none of that matters if we keep disrespectfully poke a powerful bear.

If Russia shuts off natural gas and oil it would hurt them worse than it would hurt the rest of the world. Russian gas typically only makes up around 22, 23 or a bit under 24% of the world's gas production (it varies by year) and around 10% of the world's oil production....BUT....energy makes up around 63 or 64% of Russia's total exports by monetary value. If Vladimir Putin wants to shoot his country's economy in the foot and put them in an even more screwed economic situation than they already are in now, let him.

And how exactly are "we" (the West) the provocateurs? Ukraine/the US/Europe didn't invade Russia; Vladimir Putin sent the Russian military to invade Ukraine. They started it, not us. While I generally don't support the US having so many military bases around the world or in Europe (Europe is perfectly capable of paying for a lot more of its own defense....and the incidents of the past two weeks seem to have finally motivated them to spend more on doing exactly that) the fact of the matter is, Putin doesn't get to dictate to the US, Ukraine, or any other sovereign nation where own their own damn soil they can have military bases if they want them. Saying he does is just saying "give the abusive bully what he wants and he won't hurt you". That doesn't work with abusers and it doesn't work with bullies. Giving in to them only emboldens them to act even worse.

The exact way that we are the provocateurs is that he has been saying for at least eight years that he will not allow the US to its front door with missiles. See "the Cuban Missile Crisis" Bases around the world are how we control the world. Putin does get to dictate this and he is dictating this. Once again refer to the Cuban Missile Crisis. I think it's naive to call him a bully. It's funny I was talking to friend about what happens when emerging market countries do not allow us to exploit their countries through extractive projects and loans. We kill the leader. He pushed back until I let him know his own father (a very powerful man and friend of presidents) caused a coup resulting a terrible long dictatorship, because the democratically elected leader was not good for his corporations interest.

Also, Europe cannot defend itself. They are completely and utterly broke unless they seize everyones assets (negative 100% interest rates).

Biden clearly stated we had no plans to deploy US offensive missiles in Ukraine. See https://tass.com/world/1404025 . Even if we did deploy, say, Aegis or THAAD ABMs to Ukraine those are defensive missiles, not offensive.

With that said, if Putin doesn't want US missiles in Ukraine (or the rest of Eastern Europe) he can and should've come to the table with a good-faith offer to negotiate a revision of the INF treaty (I am aware that the US withdrew from it but it wasn't like Russia was complying with it nor had it been entirely compliant for several years before that). Had Putin approached us with such an offer we should've welcomed the overture and been willing to consider an agreement. All that kind of went out the window when he invaded a peaceful sovereign nation that hadn't attacked Russia first (and while we are at it, if Putin so seriously wanted peace and wanted to avoid war, why didn't he withdraw HIS forces from the Crimea and the two eastern provinces of Ukraine they were--and are--occupying).

If Putin wished to successfully persuade surrounding nations that Russia was no threat (and that therefore they should feel no pressure to consider joining NATO) then invading Ukraine was about the worst way to do it. The invasion sent two crystal clear messages: One, that Russia--at least as it is under Vladimir Putin--invades peaceful countries that haven't attacked it, and two, look at what happens to your country if you AREN'T in NATO (notice he hasn't attacked the Baltics or Poland or any other country under the NATO Article 5 security guarantee).

Vladimir Putin deserves to be called a bully because that's EXACTLY how he's acting (well, like that...or like a criminal ,or a thug, or a domestic abuser). People like that gaslight their victims by saying "see, look what you made me do...if you hadn't taken action X (where whatever action X is is something the bully disapproves of and thinks he has the right to force you not to do) then I wouldn't have had to hit you/beat you up/break your nose/rape you/rob you/etc"....classic "blame the victim" nonsense, in other words.

It seems pretty clear to me that the reason Putin is attacking Ukraine is because he thinks the collapse of the USSR deprived Russia of some of its rightful territories, because he sees Ukraine sees it as part of Russia, as not a legitimate independent country to begin with, and as something that rightfully "belongs" to Russia with all its people being compatriots and citizens of Russia.....whether Ukrainians want to be part of Russia or not; see https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ebruary-22 . This, not "NATO missiles potentially being in Ukraine" is what makes him willing to attack a nation that didn't attack Russia. Maybe if his own nation wasn't such an oligarch-dominated barely 2nd world economic power he might have had something to offer to the Ukranians if he had proffered a peaceful union between the two countries....especially if sweetened with several hundreds of billions or several trillions (of dollars or Euros, not Rubles) in cold hard cash if Ukraine accepted. As it stands, though, Russia is an "illiberal democracy" with out some of the liberties and many of the features of free and fair elections we take for granted in most of the West, it has an economy heavily dependent on commodity exports and not a whole lot else, it has a PPP GDP per capita of around 58% percent of that of the Eurozone (the non-PPP adjusted numbers, BTW, look even worse for Russia), and its (Putin's government's) own economic long-term planning documents have a goal of real personal per capita incomes being no worse in inflation adjusted terms in 2030 than they are now (see https://carnegiemoscow.org/2021/11/24/c ... -pub-85852 )....in other words, what Putin's Russia is offering is, to paraphrase Ronald Regan: "Ask yourself this question....do you want to be no better off eight years hence than you are now"! If Putin wants Ukraine to be a part of Russia and no longer a sovereign nation, maybe he should actually offer them something in political and economic terms that's worth being a part of....because right now, Ukrainians appear to have taken one look at it and said "thanks, but no thanks".

Oh, and BTW, as of Jan 2022 the Eurozone's government-debt to GDP ratio was around 97.9 or 98 percent. That's actually better than the US's. If they are "completely broke" then I guess that makes us (the US) "even broker than completely broke".

EDITED TO CHANGE: "Balkans" to "Baltics" as that was what I meant to type....although what I had originally mistyped is technically correct too; he (Putin) hasn't seen fit to try and invade any NATO members in the Balkans (or the Baltics)

[ppnewbie]

IMHO

This is a US proxy war with Russia. NATO is a group of mutual defense, IE Ukraine becomes a US military base. Hypersonic weapons can already easily reach Russia. The west (the US) does not need the Ukraine as a military base. It's not going to take much to shock the world by Russia shutting off natural gas and oil exports. Any media messaging product or platform that makes this seem simply like a crazy person behaving badly and all of us good hearted people are just so sad at what is happening should be thrown in the trash. "We" are likely the provocateurs.

Also any message that makes it seem like we are the parent and they are the child should also be discarded. If they are mistreated, threatened and disrespected enough, Russia can kill all of us, guaranteed.

This is a perfect time to show them the respect they are deserve. We tell them that Ukraine will not house any western (US) military bases and that Ukraine can exist as a buffer. At this moment it seems like the US is in a position of strength because much of the world is aligning with us, which is a perfect time for peace talks. But none of that matters if we keep disrespectfully poke a powerful bear.

If Russia shuts off natural gas and oil it would hurt them worse than it would hurt the rest of the world. Russian gas typically only makes up around 22, 23 or a bit under 24% of the world's gas production (it varies by year) and around 10% of the world's oil production....BUT....energy makes up around 63 or 64% of Russia's total exports by monetary value. If Vladimir Putin wants to shoot his country's economy in the foot and put them in an even more screwed economic situation than they already are in now, let him.

And how exactly are "we" (the West) the provocateurs? Ukraine/the US/Europe didn't invade Russia; Vladimir Putin sent the Russian military to invade Ukraine. They started it, not us. While I generally don't support the US having so many military bases around the world or in Europe (Europe is perfectly capable of paying for a lot more of its own defense....and the incidents of the past two weeks seem to have finally motivated them to spend more on doing exactly that) the fact of the matter is, Putin doesn't get to dictate to the US, Ukraine, or any other sovereign nation where own their own damn soil they can have military bases if they want them. Saying he does is just saying "give the abusive bully what he wants and he won't hurt you". That doesn't work with abusers and it doesn't work with bullies. Giving in to them only emboldens them to act even worse.

The exact way that we are the provocateurs is that he has been saying for at least eight years that he will not allow the US to its front door with missiles. See "the Cuban Missile Crisis" Bases around the world are how we control the world. Putin does get to dictate this and he is dictating this. Once again refer to the Cuban Missile Crisis. I think it's naive to call him a bully. It's funny I was talking to friend about what happens when emerging market countries do not allow us to exploit their countries through extractive projects and loans. We kill the leader. He pushed back until I let him know his own father (a very powerful man and friend of presidents) caused a coup resulting a terrible long dictatorship, because the democratically elected leader was not good for his corporations interest.

Also, Europe cannot defend itself. They are completely and utterly broke unless they seize everyones assets (negative 100% interest rates).

Biden clearly stated we had no plans to deploy US offensive missiles in Ukraine. See https://tass.com/world/1404025 . Even if we did deploy, say, Aegis or THAAD ABMs to Ukraine those are defensive missiles, not offensive.

With that said, if Putin doesn't want US missiles in Ukraine (or the rest of Eastern Europe) he can and should've come to the table with a good-faith offer to negotiate a revision of the INF treaty (I am aware that the US withdrew from it but it wasn't like Russia was complying with it nor had it been entirely compliant for several years before that). Had Putin approached us with such an offer we should've welcomed the overture and been willing to consider an agreement. All that kind of went out the window when he invaded a peaceful sovereign nation that hadn't attacked Russia first (and while we are at it, if Putin so seriously wanted peace and wanted to avoid war, why didn't he withdraw HIS forces from the Crimea and the two eastern provinces of Ukraine they were--and are--occupying).

If Putin wished to successfully persuade surrounding nations that Russia was no threat (and that therefore they should feel no pressure to consider joining NATO) then invading Ukraine was about the worst way to do it. The invasion sent two crystal clear messages: One, that Russia--at least as it is under Vladimir Putin--invades peaceful countries that haven't attacked it, and two, look at what happens to your country if you AREN'T in NATO (notice he hasn't attacked the Balkans or Poland or any other country under the NATO Article 5 security guarantee).

Vladimir Putin deserves to be called a bully because that's EXACTLY how he's acting (well, like that...or like a criminal ,or a thug, or a domestic abuser). People like that gaslight their victims by saying "see, look what you made me do...if you hadn't taken action X (where whatever action X is is something the bully disapproves of and thinks he has the right to force you not to do) then I wouldn't have had to hit you/beat you up/break your nose/rape you/rob you/etc"....classic "blame the victim" nonsense, in other words.

It seems pretty clear to me that the reason Putin is attacking Ukraine is because he thinks the collapse of the USSR deprived Russia of some of its rightful territories, because he sees Ukraine sees it as part of Russia, as not a legitimate independent country to begin with, and as something that rightfully "belongs" to Russia with all its people being compatriots and citizens of Russia.....whether Ukrainians want to be part of Russia or not; see https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ebruary-22 . This, not "NATO missiles potentially being in Ukraine" is what makes him willing to attack a nation that didn't attack Russia. Maybe if his own nation wasn't such an oligarch-dominated barely 2nd economic power he might have had something to offer to the Ukranians if he had offered a peaceful union between the two countries....especially if sweetened with several hundreds of billions or several trillions (of dollars or Euros, not Rubles) in cold hard cash if Ukraine accepted. As it stands, though, Russia is an "illiberal democracy" with out some of the liberties and many of the features of free and fair elections we take for granted in most of the West, it has an economy heavily dependent on commodity exports and not a whole lot else, it has a PPP GDP per capita of around 58% percent of that of the Eurozone (the non-PPP adjusted numbers, BTW, look even worse for Russia), and its (Putin's government's) own economic long-term planning documents have a goal of real personal per capita incomes being no worse in inflation adjusted terms in 2030 than they are now (see https://carnegiemoscow.org/2021/11/24/c ... -pub-85852 )....in other words, what Putin's Russia is offering is, to paraphrase Ronald Regan: "Ask yourself this question....do you want to be no better off eight years hence than you are now"! If Putin wants Ukraine to be a part of Russia and no longer a sovereign nation, maybe he should actually offer them something in political and economic terms that's worth being a part of....because right now, Ukrainians appear to have taken one look at it and said "thanks, but no thanks".

Oh, and BTW, as of Jan 2022 the Eurozone's government-debt to GDP ratio was around 97.9 or 98 percent. That's actually better than the US's. If they are "completely broke" then I guess that makes us (the US) "even broker than completely broke".

Lots of points there. Need to think about them.