View Poll Results: Whom do you support and to what extent?

Voters
150. You may not vote on this poll
  • I support Ukraine fully.

    104 69.33%
  • I support Russia fully.

    16 10.67%
  • I only support Russia's claim over Crimea.

    4 2.67%
  • I only support Russia's claim over Crimea and Donbass (Luhansk and Donetsk regions).

    11 7.33%
  • Not sure.

    7 4.67%
  • I don't care.

    8 5.33%

Thread: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

  1. #10981
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Nykyus View Post
    Zaluzhny did not throw a lot of infantry and equipment into Russian positions.He also limited himself mainly to artillery strikes and did the right thing.
    Could have fooled me. Is that why Zelensky keeps trying to conscript more civilians and literally drags them off the street? For a projected recruitment drive in the hundreds of thousands. Cause the Ukrainians didn't take losses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nykyus View Post

    Ukrainian fighter Artie Green said that in preparation for the onset of the summer of 2023, the Ukrainians underestimated the number of Russian soldiers. At first they thought that there were mobilized people there, that is, people not familiar with military affairs. Meanwhile, Putin said that they had recruited about 500 thousand mercenaries.
    I don't see how this helps your point. So the Ukrainians miscalculated and attacked anyway? The Russians weren't mostly conscripts? You don't say. Only the media would believe it. It isn't like the Russians had 500,000 troops manning the southern line. The Russians obviously had more reserves than what was being claimed but that in no way was the direct cause for Russian success in one area.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nykyus View Post

    Russia also began to use new types of weapons, aerial KAB bombs weighing 500 kg.
    Western strategists hoped that Russia would run out of shells. Meanwhile, North Korea began supplying Russia with shells. Russia has also increased production of its shells.
    So the Russians have better equipment than the Ukrainians? You don't say. I thought that USA and the EU depleted their entire arsenals so that they could give everything to Ukraine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nykyus View Post

    In terms of range and accuracy, the French Caesar, the German Panzerhaubitz 2000, and the Swedish Archer are far superior to Russian artillery. But there are clearly not enough shells.
    Artie Green also reported that without air superiority, an offensive is impossible.
    Yet the Ukrainians still tried to carry out a four pronged attack in the south and many other smaller scale attacks in the east. Either way the Russians are outproducing whatever the Ukrainians get. Regardless of whatever covert aid the Russians are getting from China, Iran, and North Korea. Yes the Ukrainians have run into a shortage of shells, they largely depleted their stocks with their poorly thought out offensive. But they didn't have enough equipment to make the difference. The Russians outgun them in artillery and aerial units. The Ukrainians took lots of losses during their offensive. Then took a lot of losses in these artillery duels, and every day when the Russians were lobbing missiles and drone striking their positions and tanks as well.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  2. #10982

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    No they haven't. The Russians hadn't been assaulting Robotyne. Where as actual assault on Avdiivka had been going on since November. But much of that battle was actually preceded by a large encirclement operation.
    Implying there isn't tons of footage of Ukrainian dead and destroyed Ukrainian vehicles. The losses which the Ukrainians took in 2023 were staggering. The Russians have taken so many casualties that even now they are assaulting multiple cities. Yeah that makes perfect sense.
    This coming from the guy who won't acknowledge that Ukraine is losing the war. What are you going to do when Ukraine actually loses? What is your next brilliant take going to be I wonder.
    You already fooled yourself guy. Not much else I could do in that department.
    On one side, I have weekly footage, some I have shared here, that I have been watching for months showing Russians sending infantry and armor wave after wave often with no gains whatsoever. On the other side I have you making claims even Russia itself is not making. Much of what you say, including in your other posts, is more true for Russia than it is for Ukraine. We even had male population in Russian bars reach zero at one point because Russian males were afraid of getting conscripted and die in Ukraine as many did. Your position is untenably hysterical.
    The Armenian Issue

  3. #10983
    Stario's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Not the CCCP
    Posts
    2,042

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thesaurian
    The US military - still far and away the most powerful and advanced in the world, so it’s silly to suggest otherwise.
    I completely disagree. The US military no longer has the edge when it comes to waging war and Putin knows it. Apart from all the NATO/US tech Russia has acquired for reverse engineering - some of those reverse engineered weapons/technologies are now starting to show up on the battlefield.
    The Russians are also learning how to counter NATO/US weapons. For example a T90M destroying American M1 Abrams few days ago. The Russian military is not the Russian military of the first weeks/months of the war when they were making huge mistakes. And as the war continues (over the past 2 years), the Russians have gained and continue to gain invaluable experience that the US army just aren't getting. The Russian military have also made significant gains since the fall of Avdiivka.
    Only fools thought back then, and still think today Ukraine can defeat Russia. As I said in previous posts, Ukraine has been defeated along time ago. It's just a matter of how many more bodies are the Ukranians willing to throw in the meat grinder before they run out of bodies (probably another year and most men of fighting age will have either died or left the country imo).

    Russian victory in Ukraine will make conflict with NATO and therefore nuclear war more likely.
    NATO is a paper tiger and won't do all after Ukraine is defeated.

  4. #10984

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Then what is Russia waiting for? Why are they not already in Kyiv? Why are they not sweeping into Europe?

    (These are rhetorical questions. The whole world knows why Russia is in year two of a war they thought would last three days, and does nothing against NATO.)

    What comes through very clearly in the Russian/apologists' rhetoric is that they are angry, humiliated, and projecting their desire for revenge. They have built a dream castle out of fantasy and wishful thinking, and moved into it. That's not a healthy place to live.

  5. #10985
    Stario's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Not the CCCP
    Posts
    2,042

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict View Post
    Then what is Russia waiting for? Why are they not already in Kyiv?
    Ukraine has a population of approximately 37 million - thats a lot of bodies at Zelensky's disposal if every fighting age man, woman, child and old man is thrown into the "meat-grinder", frankly that's a lot of bodies in Russia's way before they can get to "Kyiv".

  6. #10986

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    I completely disagree. The US military no longer has the edge when it comes to waging war and Putin knows it. Apart from all the NATO/US tech Russia has acquired for reverse engineering - some of those reverse engineered weapons/technologies are now starting to show up on the battlefield.
    Lol. The Russian military has struggled to prove itself marginally superior to the Ukrainian, when it was supposed to be a peer to the US capable of doing regime change in Kiev in a matter of weeks.
    The Russians are also learning how to counter NATO/US weapons. For example a T90M destroying American M1 Abrams few days ago.
    Do you have a source/confirmation? Not that I think the newest Russian tank destroying one 40 year old outmoded American tank pulled from storage and stripped of any sensitive hardware/tech is anything to brag about, nor an indication of technological parity.
    The Russian military is not the Russian military of the first weeks/months of the war when they were making huge mistakes. And as the war continues (over the past 2 years), the Russians have gained and continue to gain invaluable experience that the US army just aren't getting. The Russian military have also made significant gains since the fall of Avdiivka.
    An initial face plant and horrific casualties followed by slow, grinding gains that eventually earn pyrrhic victory is an abridged history of the Russian military. I wouldn’t say it’s a particular indication of Russian military prowess today. Also, the US military is an expeditionary force reliant on air and naval superiority underwritten by technological edge.

    The Russian counterpart is a primarily land based, low tech defensive force that uses air and naval assets as auxiliaries. It doesn’t make sense to say they are gaining battle experience that will give them an edge over the USM, because the latter is a global force that would never put itself in the situation Russia has to begin with.
    NATO is a paper tiger and won't do — all after Ukraine is defeated.
    If NATO is in fact a paper tiger, it’s all the more humiliating that some Cold War surplus NATO hardware drip fed to underprepared Ukrainians has inflicted catastrophic damage on the Russian military and put the latter’s objective of a quick regime change war forever out of reach.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  7. #10987
    Ludicus's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    13,071

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Except we have a party that is not open to genuine peace negotiations. Russia have shown itself to be interested in nothing more than total surrender of Ukraine.
    You are probably right, but let's hope its not the case. Victory for Ukraine by now is an impossibility. The war will end in some form of compromise, and the longer Ukraine /the US waits ( Europe doesn't count), the worse the terms of the compromise will be for Ukraine.
    --
    Ukraine war: the west is at a crossroads – double down on aid to Kyiv, accept a compromise deal, or face humiliation by Russia

    ...The alternative, short of the west seriously doubling down on military support for Kyiv, is a slow and agonising defeat on the battlefield, with far-reaching consequences beyond Ukraine.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  8. #10988

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    You are probably right, but let's hope its not the case. Victory for Ukraine by now is an impossibility. The war will end in some form of compromise, and the longer Ukraine /the US waits ( Europe doesn't count), the worse the terms of the compromise will be for Ukraine.
    --
    Ukraine war: the west is at a crossroads – double down on aid to Kyiv, accept a compromise deal, or face humiliation by Russia
    If you think I'm probably right then there is little sense in continuing to double down on the idea that Ukraine is the one that postpones the negotiations. It's Russia, since they're not showing any genuine interest in negotiating a compromise.
    The Armenian Issue

  9. #10989
    Ludicus's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    13,071

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    If you think I'm probably right then there is little sense in continuing to double down on the idea that Ukraine is the one that postpones the negotiations. It's Russia, since they're not showing any genuine interest in negotiating a compromise.
    Probably, yes.But as I said,I'm not entirely convinced that Russia will demand unconditional capitulation. Last November, Sulivan admitted: "our job is to put Ukraine in the best possible position on the battlefield so it’s in the best possible position at the negotiating table...Each week that passes, our ability to fully fund what we feel is necessary to give Ukraine the tools and capacities it needs to both defend its territory and continue to make advances, that gets harder and harder. So, for us, the window is closing."

    Opinion's article, NYTimes, February 6 2024 Peace in Ukraine

    In today’s newsletter, I’ll explain what a negotiated settlement might look like — whenever it comes — and what a better and worse version might look like. It’s still possible that either Ukraine or Russia will mount a more successful military drive this year than experts expect. But the most likely outcome of this year’s fighting is a continued stalemate. That impasse will shape how the war ends.

    A bleak picture
    Ukraine wants all its territory back. That is not likely to happen...the situation is grim.If Ukraine can’t get what it needs to beat Russia, what kind of deal could it make? Vladimir Putin may accept a peace deal that gives him the territory he occupies now and that forces Ukraine to stay neutral, halting its integration with Europe. Ukrainians call this bargain a capitulation. But without additional American aid, they may be forced to take it.
    A better deal for Ukraine would give it back at least some of its land, plus a promise that the United States and Europe would help defend it against Russia...in this scenario, Ukraine might not join NATO or the European Union immediately, the prospect of which helped drive Russia’s invasion in the first place.
    The money from Congress, in short, could be the difference between a bad deal and a better one. Having it would strengthen Ukraine’s hand at the negotiating table
    None of these scenarios (the bad deal and the not so bad deal) means unconditional capitulation.
    --
    Edit.
    To conclude. I know what you think, and you know what I think.

    1-What Americans think?
    New Survey: Order and Disorder - Views of US Foreign Policy in a Fragmented World- IGA

    A majority thinks it is time for the United States to push for a diplomatic settlement in the Russia-Ukraine war.
    Across the political spectrum, the most frequent reason given is the high human cost of war. This is followed by the belief that neither Russia nor Ukraine will be able to win an all-out victory.
    New Poll: More than Two-Thirds of Americans Support Urgent U.S. Diplomacy to End Ukraine War.


    2-What Europeans think?

    Poll: Europeans increasingly pessimistic about Ukraine war

    Europeans have become increasingly pessimistic about the chances that Ukraine can recover territories that it has lost since the Russian invasion two years ago, according to a new poll of 12 EU member states.
    And an aggregate average of 41 percent of respondents in the 12 countries said they would prefer that Europe “push Ukraine towards negotiating a peace with Russia” compared to 31 percent who said Europe “should support Ukraine in taking back the territories occupied by Russia.”
    The poll, which was released by the European Council on Foreign Relations Wednesday, was conducted during the first half of January, before the latest advances by Russian forces in the Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine, notably in their takeover of the town of Avdiivka, which is likely to add to the impression that Kyiv is increasingly on the defensive.
    The survey interviewed a total of more than 17,000 adults in the 12 countries.

    Indeed, an aggregate average of only ten percent of respondents in the new poll now believe that Ukraine will defeat Russia, while twice as many, or 20 percent, believe that Moscow will prevail. Across all countries, a plurality of respondents (37 percent on average) believes that a compromise settlement between the two countries will be the most likely outcome.
    ---
    On a side note. European sanctions on Russia are a failure.
    EU exports to Russia's neighbours have risen sharply
    EU exports of goods to Russia fell by €34 billion between 2021 and 2022 (-38%) due to the sanctions.
    At the same time, however, trade has risen sharply with countries that continue to trade freely with the Russian state: +345% of exports of goods to Kyrgyzstan (€909 million increase), +165% to Armenia (€1.1 billion), +130% to Uzbekistan (€1.5 billion), +94% to Kazakhstan (€4.9 billion), +58% to Georgia (€1.2 billion) and +23% to Turkey (€20.5 billion). This trend even intensified at the beginning of 2023.
    “There are therefore strong presumptions that goods purchased by these countries from the European Union are then re-exported by them to Russia.

    EU Goods Continue to Flow Into Russia Despite Sanctions Packages- Bloomberg. February 2024.

    After more than a dozen sanctions packages hitting Russian firms and officials over Moscow’s war on Ukraine, tens of millions of euros of banned sensitive goods from the EU continue to be sold to Russia.
    Last edited by Ludicus; February 28, 2024 at 08:06 PM.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  10. #10990

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    Probably, yes.But as I said,I'm not entirely convinced that Russia will demand unconditional capitulation. Last November, Sulivan admitted: "our job is to put Ukraine in the best possible position on the battlefield so it’s in the best possible position at the negotiating table...Each week that passes, our ability to fully fund what we feel is necessary to give Ukraine the tools and capacities it needs to both defend its territory and continue to make advances, that gets harder and harder. So, for us, the window is closing."
    Opinion's article, NYTimes, February 6 2024 Peace in Ukraine
    None of these scenarios (the bad deal and the not so bad deal) means unconditional capitulation.
    --
    Edit.
    To conclude. I know what you think, and you know what I think.
    1-What Americans think?
    New Survey: Order and Disorder - Views of US Foreign Policy in a Fragmented World- IGA
    New Poll: More than Two-Thirds of Americans Support Urgent U.S. Diplomacy to End Ukraine War.
    2-What Europeans think?
    Poll: Europeans increasingly pessimistic about Ukraine war
    I don't know what you think. I don't know why you keep on arguing as if its Ukraine and not Russia that wants peace. I don't know why you have continuously parroted Russian state talking points. The best case Russia proposed was for Ukraine to recognize 4 provinces of Ukraine along with Crimea as Russian land and completely neuter its military and alliance capabilities. That's code phrase for Russia will invade the rest later on. If you honestly wanted peace you'd be focusing on Russia not Ukraine.
    The Armenian Issue

  11. #10991
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    I don't want to waste my time on this crap so I'll make it brief.

    The Ukrainians are running out of equipment and simultaneously have sustained near irreplaceable casualties. The Russians haven't taken that much ground but given the situation on the ground and their own superior build up of material then it is only a matter of time before the Russians decidedly turn the tide against the Ukrainians. In other words the Russians started out slow, they were grinding at the Ukrainians, now the Ukrainians lost sufficient men and material that Russian victories will start to have a snowball effect. So early on the Russians took a couple positions but going forward the Russians will increase the number of areas that they can attack and capture as part of larger offensives. Another critical issue here is whether Zelensky will have to step down this year. Ukraine is no longer united behind Zelensky and this will become more evident as the Ukrainians continue to lose but take even bigger losses down the line. The only option now is for the Ukrainians to sue for peace at a disadvantage or for NATO to move in force into Ukraine.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  12. #10992
    Ludicus's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    13,071

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    .The best case Russia proposed was for Ukraine to recognize 4 provinces of Ukraine along with Crimea as Russian land and completely neuter its military and alliance capabilities.
    Exactly.
    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    a code phrase for Russia will invade the rest later on
    I don't believe in that scenario (with or without Trump as the US president) because in that case they'd sink into a new Afghanistan.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    The only option now is for the Ukrainians to sue for peace
    That´s what it seems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    or for NATO to move in force into Ukraine
    Macron gathered 20 countries in Paris to make this proposal, which was rejected by all, including NATO.Instead of pretending to be a world leader, which he isn't, what he should do is increase financial aid to Ukraine.
    France insists it's pulling its weight on arms to Ukraine

    Don’t trust the data: France insists it’s pulling its weight on arms to Ukraine. But the numbers show Paris is doing even less than Lithuania.
    According to the Kiel Institute, which tabulates military aid to Ukraine up to July 31, France lags behind many EU countries with a commitment of €533 million — barely 0.02 percent of GDP. In comparison, Germany sent €17 billion worth of military aid or 0.4 percent of GDP, and the U.K. has sent €6.6 billion or 0.23 percent of GDP.

    It even puts France behind Lithuania, population 2.8 million, which has sent €715 million in military kit to Ukraine, or 1.4 percent of its GDP.
    ---
    For those who still don't know.

    “The details of this intelligence partnership, many of which are being disclosed by The New York Times for the first time, have been a closely guarded secret for a decade...”
    The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine -New York Times

    A C.I.A.-supported network of spy bases has been constructed in the past eight years that includes 12 secret locations along the Russian border…the partnership is no wartime creation It took root a decade ago, coming together in fits and starts under three very different U.S. presidents
    The author of this article wonders: is the publication of such sensitive and secret material a prelude to a divorce? CIA, Ukraine Exchange Pre-Divorce Propaganda
    Over the weekend the New York Times published an epic exposé. “The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin,” by Adam Entous and Mitchell Schwirtz, described a decade of CIA-Ukrainian cooperation, featuring details that would never reach public ears under normal circumstances. The opening is worth quoting at length:
    “Nestled in a dense forest, the Ukrainian military base appears abandoned and destroyed… But that is above ground. Not far away, a discreet passageway descends to a subterranean bunker where teams of Ukrainian soldiers track Russian spy satellites and eavesdrop on conversations between Russian commanders…
    “The listening post in the Ukrainian forest is part of a C.I.A.-supported network of spy bases constructed in the past eight years that includes 12 secret locations along the Russian border.”
    Officials have long scolded the public that even minor disclosures of “sources and methods” could “risk lives” and must be prevented at all costs. Yet here comes the Times, helping “current and former officials in Ukraine, the United States and Europe” blab a long list of extraordinary details, down to the number of CIA-supported secret bases along the Russian border. An abridged list of revelations:
    • CIA director William Burns made a “secret” visit to Ukraine last Thursday, his tenth since Russia’s invasion;
    • On the night of February 14, 2014, in the middle of the Maidan coup, Ukrainian spy chief Valentyn Nalyvaichenko called the heads of the CIA and Britain’s MI6 and asked for help in rebuilding his agency “from the ground up”;
    • Ukrainian intelligence officials, seeking to prove their value to American counterparts, handed the CIA proof that Russian separatists downed Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 “within hours of the crash” in July of 2014;
    • Then-head of Ukrainian military intelligence Valeriy Kondratiuk handed the CIA “detailed information about the latest Russian nuclear submarine designs” in 2015;
    • “Around” 2016, the CIA “began training an elite Ukrainian commando force” called “Unit 2245” which “captured Russian drones and communications gear so that CIA technicians could reverse-engineer them and crack Moscow’s encryption systems”;
    • The CIA’s chief of station in Kyiv was nicknamed “Santa Claus”;
    • A Ukrainian agent “duped an officer from Russia’s military intelligence service” into providing intelligence that “allowed the C.I.A. to connect Russia’s government to the so-called Fancy Bear hacking group, which had been linked to election interference.”
    Former CIA head John Brennan sitting for a month of interviews with Kitty Kelley wouldn’t produce this many juicy reveals. They even recounted the CIA hauling Kondratiuk to a Washington Capitals game to boo Alex Ovechkin, for God’s sake.
    Are these spy agencies or people pitching a Netflix series?
    In the following article, the author addresses the question :“An explosive new NYT report shows how Washington needlessly fed into Russia’s worst fears and precipitated the invasion, justified or not”
    CIA in Ukraine: Why is this not seen as provocation?
    Excerpts,
    …There is little question that Russia’s invasion has wrought a horrific human toll on Ukraine and upended European security in ways that few anticipated prior to February 2022. But it is also not without its context, which includes a litany of grievances that — however unjustified from the perspective of the West — constitute what the Kremlin saw as sufficient provocation to initiate the most destructive war in Europe since 1945.
    An explosive New York Times exposé by Adam Entous and Michael Schwirtz sheds light on major developments preceding the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. According to the report, the Ukrainian government entered into a wide-ranging partnership with the CIA against Russia. This cooperation, which involved the establishment of as many as 12 secret CIA “forward operating bases” along Ukraine’s border with Russia, began not with Russia’s 2022 invasion, but just over 10 years ago.

    …The New York Times’ exposé offers no shortage of disturbing implications. Ukraine is, needless to say, a sovereign state in charge of determining its own security arrangements. The underlying issue is not whether Ukraine is within its rights to enter into this kind of relationship with the CIA, as it obviously is, nor is it whether the Maidan Revolution put Ukraine on a certain path toward political cooperation with Western entities.
    The problem, rather, is one of basic security perceptions. Moscow repeatedly warned — for many years before 2014 — that it was and remains prepared to take drastic action to prevent Ukraine from being used by the West as a forward operating base against Russia. Yet that, as recounted in lurid detail by The New York Times, is precisely what has happened over the past 10 years.

    ...The fact that Ukraine has not just willingly but enthusiastically submitted to this arrangement is immaterial to Russia’s core concerns. Nor can this issue be entirely reduced to NATO membership: Ukraine can play the role of an anti-Russian outpost on NATO’s eastern flank without ever formally joining the alliance, and this, too, is unacceptable to the Kremlin.

    Justification is by nature a subjective exercise, but there can be little question that the activities described in this exposé constitute, from the Kremlin’s perspective, a dire provocation and would be seen as such by the United States if the situation were reversed and a rival superpower established such bases in Mexico. This perception is an inseparable part of the military and political context that shaped this war’s outbreak. It can be dismissed as paranoid, but if so it is a paranoia common to all security establishments.

    It is unclear what concrete U.S. interests these joint intelligence activities served. They certainly did not facilitate de-escalation between Moscow and Kyiv or promote regional stability, goals ostensibly shared by the Obama and Trump administrations. On the other hand, it is quite easy to see how Kyiv’s deepening relationship with the CIA needlessly fed into Moscow’s worst security fears and precipitated its conclusion — whether justified or not — that it must act decisively in the face of an implacable conflict with the West over Ukraine.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  13. #10993

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    Exactly.
    I don't believe in that scenario (with or without Trump as the US president) because in that case they'd sink into a new Afghanistan.
    It being the best case Russia proposed doesn't make it an acceptable or good case. We're already at 3rd phase in this conflict. First was Crimea, second was Donbas and third is an attempted wholescale invasion that evolved into 4 province invasion. It's quite shortsighted to think that Russia will stop if Ukraine agrees to giving Crimea and 4 provinces to Russia. What you believe has no basis. They likely don't mind a new Afghanistan and they don't think Ukraine will be like Afghanistan as the two has completely different dynamics.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    For those who still don't know.
    “The details of this intelligence partnership, many of which are being disclosed by The New York Times for the first time, have been a closely guarded secret for a decade...”
    The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine -New York Times
    The author of this article wonders: is the publication of such sensitive and secret material a prelude to a divorce? CIA, Ukraine Exchange Pre-Divorce Propaganda
    In the following article, the author addresses the question :“An explosive new NYT report shows how Washington needlessly fed into Russia’s worst fears and precipitated the invasion, justified or not”
    CIA in Ukraine: Why is this not seen as provocation?
    Excerpts,
    We'd have to be surprised if no spying was going on. To connect it to Russia's invasion of Ukraine is an extremely idiotic argument to make which shows desperation to shift responsibility of the invasion away from Russia. It's an insult to people's intelligence.
    The Armenian Issue

  14. #10994
    Ludicus's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    13,071

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Don’t say that. It might be an insult to your intelligence, but it's not an insult to the intelligence of many others.
    -----
    It's quite shortsighted to think that Russia will stop if Ukraine agrees to giving Crimea and 4 provinces to Russia
    How do you know? why are you so sure of that?how can you be sure without negotiating before total defeat? to find out, do we need to wait for Ukraine to surrender? the discourse on our western side remains unchanged: Russia doesn't want peace and we must continue to finance and arm Ukraine, at any cost and without time limit, because if Ukraine falls, others will follow - even though Putin has also said that Russia has no territorial ambitions over any other countries.And then there are those who live thousands of kilometers from Europe and find it interesting to sit in an armchair and watch a "purely defensive" NATO war in Europe against Russia, thinking that they won't be hit. (I'm not talking about you).
    The Ukrainians, whom no one bothers to listen to, are running out of men and ammunition, and are forced into new military mobilizations that are dividing the Ukrainian society. And if this is the current and near future, what do the "right-thinking people" say? That there is no alternative but to continue the war and to continue helping Ukraine with everything we can, so that they continue "fighting for us" down to the last Ukrainian alive. Everything else - like the decisive fight against climate change or the populisms that disintegrate democracies - is put on hold for later.

    --
    On a different matter.
    Navalny was buried today. It should be clear that not all of Navalny's supporters in Russia are pro-Western, nor that he was a liberal democrat. It's curious to see Zelensky praising Navalny, when Ukrainians have never fallen out of love with him, as we can read in the Ukraїner article I quoted in a previous post. Whilst he condemned Russia's military intervention in Ukraine, he supported the occupation of Crimea (2014) and the Kremlin's military actions in Abkhazia and South Ossetia (2008). Like Putin, Navalny considered Ukraine to be an artificial construct.

    The Case of Alexei Navalny's Viewpoints on Foreign Affairs
    Central European Journal of International and Security Studies, 2018.
    the author speculates on the likely foundations of Russia’s foreign policy under Navalny’s possible presidency and their implications for the West.

    …As for Crimea, he holds a “realist” standpoint, arguing that “despite the fact that Crimea was seized with egregious violations of all international regulations, the reality is that Crimea is now part of Russia.”
    …Common in his treatment of all those secessionist territories is that he mostly considers them not from identity-related or geopolitical, but from a purely economic perspective, as territories on the maintenance of which Russian taxpayers’ money are being spent.

    In this vein, he supported the statement that Crimea is de-facto Russian on the grounds that pensions and salaries on the peninsula are paid from the Russian budget.

    All in all, Navalny would probably bring Russia closer to Europe and the West, but he would hardly turn the country’s foreign policy by 180 degrees, as far as seeking integration into NATO and the EU.
    In fact, the conclusion made by Katz as early as in 2012 in his article entitled “What Would a Democratic Russian Foreign Policy Look Like?” seemingly holds for Russia’s possible foreign policy under Navalny’s presidency: A democratic Russia will more or less work together with America and other Western governments more than the Putin/Medvedev leadership does now, but differences among them on various issues will continue [...]

    Many of the current differences
    between the Western democracies, on the one hand, and the Putin/Medvedev administration, on the other, are likely to remain after a democratic transformation in Russia [...]
    Any Western expectations that a democratic Russia is likely to lead to a more pliable Russian foreign policy that will follow the US and/or European Union lead are likely to be disappointed.

    The complex legacy of Alexei Navalny


    Navalny has apologised in the past. But this has not been good enough for some groups outside Russia, particularly Georgians. "The Georgian public felt betrayed by Navalny after the 2008 Russo-Georgian war," says Kornely Kakachia, Political Science Professor at Tbilisi State University. "Everyone expected Navalny to be anti-Putin and anti-imperialist, but he supported the invasion."

    He used to attend the Russian march, a very far-right nationalist group generally behind the slogan of 'Russia for ethnic Russians'. Anybody who expects Navalny to be an ideal Western liberal Democrat has been mistaken,"
    Navalny's lack of criticism of Russia's imperialistic policy has further bolstered the sentiment and "nobody in Georgia cares what he thinks"
    His incendiary comments on immigrants and Georgians re-surfaced when Navalny's daughter, Dasha Navalnaya, was invited to speak at Georgetown University in May 2023.
    Students filed a petition against the speaker selection, calling for a meritocratic appointment and that "being anti-Putin doesn’t imply being a pro-democratic, anti-war, and liberal leader."
    "O povo ucraniano não é propriamente fã de Navalny"
    16 feb.2024
    (SIC's correspondent in Ukraine, Iryna Shev, reveals that Ukrainians recognized that Navalny was Putin's main opponent, but they didn't believe that if he came to power, "he would have very different decisions" regarding the annexation of territories)
    Last edited by Ludicus; March 01, 2024 at 12:58 PM.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  15. #10995

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    I don't know what you think. I don't know why you keep on arguing as if its Ukraine and not Russia that wants peace. I don't know why you have continuously parroted Russian state talking points. The best case Russia proposed was for Ukraine to recognize 4 provinces of Ukraine along with Crimea as Russian land and completely neuter its military and alliance capabilities. That's code phrase for Russia will invade the rest later on. If you honestly wanted peace you'd be focusing on Russia not Ukraine.
    The best case scenario was presented in 2022, that Ukraine rejected because they emboldened by battlefield success and their NATO allies.

  16. #10996
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Two years into the three day operation. Russia victory is still inevitable, as Ukraine teeters on the brink of defeat. Apparently they are the teetering world champs.

    Putin threatens anyone who even looks at him with nuclear attack. This is both sane and effective, but because he's a good guy he never actually launches his massive high tech deterrent. It works, don't worry, abd if it dies uts America's fault.

    Putins rule is "rock solid" if we don't count him executing opponents, even the one locked up in a gulag. It's what confident rulers do, murdering the helpless.

    Its definitely Zelenskyy who is moments away from a coup unlike Putin (it's been over six months since his best commander marched on Moscow).

    Ukraine should surrender everything because then Putin will cease stealing raping and murdering at once: he only did that to Ukraine because rhe weak and ineffective West made him. He really didn't want to, but Washington elected a Nazi Jew (true story btw) so here we are.

  17. #10997
    Papay's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Planet Nirn
    Posts
    4,458

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Russians have been assaulting these positions on a weekly basis for the past months. The sheer amount of footage showing extensive Russian armor and infantry losses paints us a clear picture. Every bit of land Russians are gaining is being paid in steel and blood. Your response merely constitutes an irrational refusal to acknowledge basic facts. Hence, the question; who are you trying to fool?
    The Russians obviously had losses but the Ukrainian army was completely wiped out. Proof is that Russian keep advancing in the area and they havent only captured Avdiivka but many areas outside of it. Your arguments go like this "look how many American ships were shunk by the Japanese, look how many thousands marines were killed in IwoJima, obviously the American army sucks and Japanese are winning". Stupid argument

  18. #10998

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    Don’t say that. It might be an insult to your intelligence, but it's not an insult to the intelligence of many others.
    -----
    How do you know? why are you so sure of that?how can you be sure without negotiating before total defeat? to find out, do we need to wait for Ukraine to surrender? the discourse on our western side remains unchanged: Russia doesn't want peace and we must continue to finance and arm Ukraine, at any cost and without time limit, because if Ukraine falls, others will follow - even though Putin has also said that Russia has no territorial ambitions over any other countries.And then there are those who live thousands of kilometers from Europe and find it interesting to sit in an armchair and watch a "purely defensive" NATO war in Europe against Russia, thinking that they won't be hit. (I'm not talking about you).
    The Ukrainians, whom no one bothers to listen to, are running out of men and ammunition, and are forced into new military mobilizations that are dividing the Ukrainian society. And if this is the current and near future, what do the "right-thinking people" say? That there is no alternative but to continue the war and to continue helping Ukraine with everything we can, so that they continue "fighting for us" down to the last Ukrainian alive. Everything else - like the decisive fight against climate change or the populisms that disintegrate democracies - is put on hold for later.
    Oh, its an insult to everyone's intelligence. More to yours than to others. It's a desperate attempt to shift the focus of responsibility away from Russia. To what end is what we wonder... I don't understand why you choose to lie about basics of this conflict. Putin repeatedly made irredentist claims. He didn't just claimed but he made moves towards occupation of sovereign states in a number of places. Why are you trying to sell a false narrative? You're just a few arguments away from claiming that Russia has no troops in Ukraine.


    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    The best case scenario was presented in 2022, that Ukraine rejected because they emboldened by battlefield success and their NATO allies.
    Can you quote the sections of the article that lay out the conditions of this deal since the article is behind a pay wall?



    Quote Originally Posted by Papay View Post
    The Russians obviously had losses but the Ukrainian army was completely wiped out. Proof is that Russian keep advancing in the area and they havent only captured Avdiivka but many areas outside of it. Your arguments go like this "look how many American ships were shunk by the Japanese, look how many thousands marines were killed in IwoJima, obviously the American army sucks and Japanese are winning". Stupid argument
    Do you serıously think that that's an intelligent thing to say?
    The Armenian Issue

  19. #10999
    Ludicus's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    13,071

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    "I don't understand why you choose to lie about basics of this conflict"
    Don't say that, it's not nice. There's no need to be insulting when you're upset. The basics of the conflict? Let´s talk about that. Let me tell you what I think about the genesis of the conflict. The US and NATO are not innocent bystanders. My perception, and that of many others, is that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was a reaction to NATO's aggressive expansion. But that doesn't mean I'm going to make disparaging remarks about your interpretation of the facts.
    Between April 17 and 29, 1998, the American Senate debated the controversial expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe. The doyen of diplomats, George Kennan, with the unique authority of his experience, called it A Fateful Error (New York Times Feb. 5, 1997). Between 1955 and 1997, over seventy diplomats wrote to Clinton to dissuade him from taking this step. Academics such as Charles Kupchan and Michael Mandelbaum highlighted risks, especially in Ukraine: expanding NATO without a parallel agreement with Russia was considered a potential source of conflict in Ukraine.
    Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan—whom some call the last renowned intellectual in the American Congress—stated, "We are headed into historic ethnic enmities. We have no idea what we are getting into."
    In 1994, he published a prescient essay Pandaemonium: Ethnicity in International Politics
    identifying potential conflicts rooted in ethnicity and culture, capable of inflaming international conflicts. He was one of the 19 votes against a majority of 80 in favor of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic's entry into NATO in 1999.The war in Ukraine is another chapter in this immense tragedy that began with the assisted suicide of Yugoslavia and has continued, since 2014, in the exodus of millions of refugees, first from Donbass to Russia, and then from 2022 to the West.
    --
    Both the right (Le Pen) and the French left (Olivier Faure and Melanchon) have rightly drawn attention to Macron's enormous irresponsibility in insisting on sending French troops to fight Russia and encouraging other countries to do the same. It's ironic, considering he is one of the European leaders who provides the least financial aid to Ukraine. At the beginning of this war, he was the European leader most inclined towards dialogue with Putin. From "pacifist" to "warlord," how Macron has changed!
    Why is Macron acting like a 'warlord'?
    Macron’s comments were criticised by his domestic opponents. Marine Le Pen of the National Rally accused the president of acting like a ‘warlord’. She continued: ‘But it’s our children’s lives he’s talking about so carelessly. It is peace or war in our country that is at stake.’
    Accusations of warmongering were also levelled at Macron by the left. ‘Support the Ukrainian resistance, yes. To go to war with Russia and drag the continent along with it. Madness’, declared Olivier Faure, head of the Socialist party. Jean-Luc Melenchon, founder of La France Insoumise, called Macron’s remarks ‘irresponsible’ because it could lead to a nuclear war. Macron’s stance on the war in Ukraine has undergone a radical transformation in the two years since Russia’s invasion…
    Last edited by Ludicus; March 02, 2024 at 12:58 PM.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  20. #11000

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    Don't say that, it's not nice. There's no need to be insulting when you're upset. The basics of the conflict? Let´s talk about that. Let me tell you what I think about the genesis of the conflict. The US and NATO are not innocent bystanders. My perception, and that of many others, is that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was a reaction to NATO's aggressive expansion. But that doesn't mean I'm going to make disparaging remarks about your interpretation of the facts.
    Between April 17 and 29, 1998, the American Senate debated the controversial expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe. The doyen of diplomats, George Kennan, with the unique authority of his experience, called it A Fateful Error (New York Times Feb. 5, 1997). Between 1955 and 1997, over seventy diplomats wrote to Clinton to dissuade him from taking this step. Academics such as Charles Kupchan and Michael Mandelbaum highlighted risks, especially in Ukraine: expanding NATO without a parallel agreement with Russia was considered a potential source of conflict in Ukraine.
    Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan—whom some call the last renowned intellectual in the American Congress—stated, "We are headed into historic ethnic enmities. We have no idea what we are getting into."
    In 1994, he published a prescient essay Pandaemonium: Ethnicity in International Politics
    identifying potential conflicts rooted in ethnicity and culture, capable of inflaming international conflicts. He was one of the 19 votes against a majority of 80 in favor of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic's entry into NATO in 1999.The war in Ukraine is another chapter in this immense tragedy that began with the assisted suicide of Yugoslavia and has continued, since 2014, in the exodus of millions of refugees, first from Donbass to Russia, and then from 2022 to the West.
    Lying isn't nice either, but that does not stop you from repeating it.


    It has been said here many times. This "aggressive NATO expansion" was anything but aggressive, and not a threat to Russia's sovereignty, but to its imperialism. NATO can't invade Russia any more that Russia can invade NATO countries without risking a nuclear war. The expansion happened not due to your imagined western imperialistic tendencies, but because former Eastern bloc countries sought protection from what they knew was coming-Russia trying to reestablish its "sphere of influence" after the fall of Soviet Union. And they were justified in that. Russia had boots on the ground trying to tear away Transnistria since 1992. When Chechnya successfully broke away, it didn't take Russia long to regroup and sacrifice its own citizens on false flag attack to make a casus belli for themselves (and I should remind you that this is proven, one of the FSB teams was even caught red-handed planting explosives). And so on.
    What happened in Ukraine is pretty much the same thing. When Soviet Union broke up, Kremlin managed to bring Ukraine and Belarus into its sphere of influence as de facto vassals, through corruption embedded from Soviet times and inertia of government structures. But Ukrainians saw how better off were countries that managed to break away, and sought to establish better relationship with EU that could give them some freedom and prosperity. The trade agreement was supposed to be that door, but Yanukovich, on orders from Kremlin, overstepped his authority and refused to sign the agreement. No wonder Ukrainians had enough, resulting in Maidan. What followed-annexation of Crimea, sending troops to instigate an insurrection in Donbas (again...it's worth listening to what Russian field commander of these operations, one Igor Girkin said in his interviews) and eventually full invasion was Russian attempt to restore control over what Putin, and most Russians supporting him, see as "rightful" Russian property, contrary to the international treaties and will of the people living there.

    All the NATO talk is a smokescreen. Putin knows NATO won't attack Russia. That would spell doom to whole world. Even much of the force defending Kaliningrad, the most exposed Russian land in case of conflict with NATO, was sent to participate in the invasion. The real reason is Russian irredentism and imperialism, as laid out by Putin and those supporting him many times.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •