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

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

    63 64.95%
  • I support Russia fully.

    12 12.37%
  • I only support Russia's claim over Crimea.

    3 3.09%
  • I only support Russia's claim over Crimea and Donbass (Luhansk and Donetsk regions).

    6 6.19%
  • Not sure.

    6 6.19%
  • I don't care.

    7 7.22%

Thread: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

  1. #4141
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,433

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict View Post
    Helping Ukraine and harming Russia are the same thing at this point. Russia must be utterly defeated in Ukraine. If they are allowed any victory at all, however slight, they will be back in 4 or 8 years
    By that reasoning the Versailles treaty was a great success.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  2. #4142

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    By that reasoning the Versailles treaty was a great success.
    -If Putin ends up with an extra inch of ground he didn't have at the start of the war he will see it as a success and go for more as soon as he can. Russian lives and money lost are meaningless to him.

    -Putin began the war under the assumption the west had no spine and would bend over backwards to appease him like we always had. So far he has been proven wrong, but should we give in to his demands and threats, whatever those may eventually be, he will know he can bully the west into giving him what he wants. Give him anything he wants today, and you only guarantee he will demand more tomorrow.

  3. #4143
    nhytgbvfeco2's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    5,505

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    confronted with the Italian public opinion
    Since we're on the topic of public opinion, does that of Ukranians matter? Because 82% of Ukranians are against giving up territory to Fascist Russia.

  4. #4144

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

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Since we're on the topic of public opinion, does that of Ukranians matter? Because 82% of Ukranians are against giving up territory to Fascist Russia.
    Obviously that's only because they've been brainwashed by the evil United States in it's evil plans to evilly force them to have a negative opinion of Russia for the sake of being evil. Why else would they resist Russia's denazification soldiers, known so famously for their kindness and empathy for their fellow human beings? Why else would they not jump at the chance of joining safe, prosperous superpower Russia and prostrating themselves before God-Emperor Putin?

  5. #4145
    AqD's Avatar 。◕‿◕。
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    🏡🐰🐿️🐴🌳
    Posts
    10,821

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    By that reasoning the Versailles treaty was a great success.
    Very true, Putin is at the stage of WW2 Hitler and his supporters are Nazis. Not only his army must be destroyed, his government must fall and his supporters de-nazified one way or another.

    Anything else would only invite attacks in future and next time Ukraine won't be the only victim.

  6. #4146
    StarDreamer's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Finland, Espoo
    Posts
    2,260

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    By that reasoning the Versailles treaty was a great success.
    I don't see the logic. For a Versailles style treaty Russia would have to loose territory, have significant restrictions on its military and have to pay huge reparations, have parts of its territory demilitarized and so on. Nothing of this was suggested.
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein
    https://www.politicalcompass.org/ana...2.38&soc=-3.44 <-- "Dangerous far right bigot!" -SJWs

  7. #4147
    AqD's Avatar 。◕‿◕。
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    🏡🐰🐿️🐴🌳
    Posts
    10,821

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

    Quote Originally Posted by StarDreamer View Post
    I don't see the logic. For a Versailles style treaty Russia would have to loose territory, have significant restrictions on its military and have to pay huge reparations, have parts of its territory demilitarized and so on. Nothing of this was suggested.
    It is actually the same to them.

    The war will cost Ukraine which in their mind is their territory, their entire military, and the economy will sink and the damage will be far more than any reparations Germans had to pay.

  8. #4148
    z3n's Avatar State of Mind
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,598

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

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Since we're on the topic of public opinion, does that of Ukranians matter? Because 82% of Ukranians are against giving up territory to Fascist Russia.
    I'm assuming you read the "Kyiv Institute" study you're referring to (I've seen it in the news a few times). So did the Kyiv Institute study give regional breakdowns for those numbers (e.g. were Crimeans asked and how did they respond?); genuinely curious since I know the relationship between Kyiv and Crimeans is not the best.
    The AI Workshop Creator
    Europa Barbaroum II AI/Game Mechanics Developer
    The Northern Crusades Lead Developer
    Classical Age Total War Retired Lead Developer
    Rome: Total Realism Animation Developer
    RTW Workshop Assistance MTW2 AI Tutorial & Assistance
    Broken Crescent Submod (M2TW)/IB VGR Submod (BI)/Animation (RTW/BI/ALX)/TATW PCP Submod (M2TW)/TATW DaC Submod (M2TW)/DeI Submod (TWR2)/SS6.4 Northern European UI Mod (M2TW)

  9. #4149
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,752

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    By that reasoning the Versailles treaty was a great success.
    bUt YoU pReFeR mUnIcH?

    Completely irrelevant word games mate. "We better let the brigand win another undeclared war and reward him with land because ...ummm...do you want another Hitler?" is a rubbish argument.

    Putin started the war. He has some weirdly vague stated aims that have mutated rapidly, but its clear at a bare minimum he's after land. His modus operandi seems to be burn civilians until someone gives him what he wants.

    No deal made in the past has stopped him from burning civilians until he gets more.

    Whoever is running the Biden bot is trying something new. Maybe this time it will be different? We know how appeasement goes.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  10. #4150

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict View Post
    Putin has made it a point to steal every successful Russian business for himself. Owners are "persuaded" to sell for pennies on the dollar, or else they are jailed on trumped-up charges. Or simply killed outright. The result has been to crush ambition among the Russian people. Why bother starting your own business when the only two possible outcomes are failure or succeeding and having it stolen from you? Why work hard when it just makes you more likely to catch his greedy gaze? Much better to just plod along, doing the bare minimum.

    In addition Putin's stranglehold on Russia's economy has led to tens of thousands of it's most talented young people leaving the country for better prospects elsewhere. This has resulted in a huge brain drain that the already shaky Russian economy simply couldn't absorb.
    That was a good analysis. Big question remains if it's just Putin in itself or if it's an elite influential circle in Russia who also thinks in the same way. (meaning the problem would go beyond Putin)
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

  11. #4151
    nhytgbvfeco2's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    5,505

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

    Quote Originally Posted by z3n View Post
    I'm assuming you read the "Kyiv Institute" study you're referring to (I've seen it in the news a few times). So did the Kyiv Institute study give regional breakdowns for those numbers (e.g. were Crimeans asked and how did they respond?); genuinely curious since I know the relationship between Kyiv and Crimeans is not the best.
    Crimea is currently under foreign military occupation, I'm sure if Russia was to retreat and return it to Ukraine the Kiev Institute will be able to ask them in the next survey.

  12. #4152
    Ludicus's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    12,484

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    To be fair to him, he's come a long way. At first it was "Ukraine must surrender unconditionally to prevent escalation". Now it's "Ukraine should not demand all of its territory back to prevent escalation". A seismic shift.
    Please quote me.
    --

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    Really Ludicus you have hit rock bottom if you are going to latch onto Kissinger a man who should be rotting in hell rather getting a reception at Davos.
    Kissinger is right, in my opinion.In the past, realism and triangular diplomacy helped produce "détente" (the period of the easing of Cold War tensions), SALT negotiations, and an opening to China.
    White House Years -Kissinger

    Kissinger, quoting Bismarck, wrote that "a sentimental policy knows no reciprocity. Predictability is more crucial than…idiosyncratic moralistic rhetoric"
    Where is Kissinger when the US needs him?

    -----
    Kissinger and Edward Luce, Financial Times US national editor. Video

    https://next-media-api.ft.com/rendit...0/1280x720.mp4

    I think it is unwise to take an adversarial position to two adversaries in a way that drives them together
    Indeed.Russia and China Held Military Exercise in East Asia as Biden
    China and Russia on Tuesday held their first joint military exercise since Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.
    -----

    Collateral victim': On Africa Day, shadow of Ukraine war
    In his message, UN chief Antonio Guterres warned that the “war in Ukraine is creating a perfect storm for developing countries, especially in Africa”
    The eternal pariahs. ”Like dogs”, Roma refugees from Ukraine face Czech xenophobia,'They won't accept us': Roma refugees

    People stopped talking about refugees and started referring to ‘economic migrants’ and ‘welfare tourists’. On the platform one weekday morning, two German sightseers gaze curiously at the statue of Sir Nicholas Winton, the British stockbroker who helped 669 mostly Jewish children escape from Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia on the eve of the second world war. Yet just yards away, hundreds of Roma people are sheltering in the only place available to them…these families have found they have nowhere to go and no one who wants them.
    “We came here looking for a place to stay but instead we are just lying on the floor like dogs”.
    --
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thesaurian View Post
    ..suggest a think tank published a paper detailing how the US intends to “trick” him into invading Ukraine, and his conclusion is to do exactly that in accordance with US “strategy.”
    It's no a mere coincidence.



    Chas Freeman, former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

    And the West was basically saying, ‘We will fight to the last Ukrainian for Ukrainian independence,’ which essentially remains our stand. It’s pretty cynical, despite all the patriotic fervor. And I’d add, I have heard, I know people who have been attempting to be objective about this, and they’re immediately accused of being Russian agents. Or let us just say, the price of speaking on this subject is to join the pom-pom girls in a frenzy of support for our position, and if you’re not part of the chorus, you’re not allowed to say anything, and you can’t sing.
    So, I think that this has very injurious effects on Western liberties, and it has enforced an almost—I won’t say it’s totalitarian, but it’s certainly a similar kind of control on freedom of expression and inquiry in the West. It’s very depressing, really. We should rise to this occasion. We should be concerned about achieving a balance in Europe that sustains peace. That requires incorporating Russia into a governing council for Europe, of some sort.

    Europe historically has been at peace only when all the great powers who could overthrow the peace have been co-opted into it. A perfect example is the Congress of Vienna, which followed the Napoleonic Wars, where Kissinger’s great hero met in it, and others had the good sense to reincorporate France into the governing councils of Europe. And that gave Europe a hundred years of peace. Of course, there were a few minor conflicts, but nothing major. And after World War I, when the victors—the United States and Britain and France—insisted on excluding Germany from a role in the affairs of Europe, as well as this newly formed Soviet Union, the result was World War II and the Cold War.

    So, it’s really depressing that instead of trying to figure out how to give Russia reasons not to invade countries and to violate international laws as it has—that does not make Russia unique, of course—but instead of trying to give Russia reasons for being well-behaved, we have, in its view, left it with no alternative but the use of force.
    I actually had a good deal to do with the formulation of what became known as the Partnership for Peace [PfP]. And this was two things: it was a pathway to responsible application for NATO membership, and it was also a cooperative security system, rather than a collective security system, for Europe. It left the members to decide whether they defined themselves as European or not (…)

    What happened in 1994, which was a midterm election year, and 1996, which was a presidential election year, was interesting. In 1994, Mr. Clinton was talking out of both sides of his mouth. He was telling the Russians that we were in no rush to add members to NATO, and that our preferred path was the Partnership for Peace.
    The same time he was hinting to the ethnic diasporas of Russophobic countries in Eastern Europe—and, by the way, it’s easy to understand their Russophobia given their history—that, no, no, we were going to get these countries into NATO as fast as possible. And in 1996 he made that pledge explicit.

    In 1994 he got an outburst from Boris Yeltsin, who was then the president of the Russian Federation. In 1996 he got another one, and as time went on, when Mr. Putin came in, he regularly protested the enlargement of NATO in ways that disregarded Russia’s self-defense interests. So, there should have been no surprise about this. For 28 years Russia has been warning that at some point it would snap, and it has, and it has done it in a very destructive way, both in terms of its own interests and in terms of the broader prospects for peace in Europe.

    There really is no excuse for what Mr. Putin has done. To understand it is not to condone it. So, I think what happened here was a combination of forces. There were those people in the United States who were triumphalist about the end of the Cold War. There were those who felt that what they perceived as victory—I think it was a default by the Russians—but anyway, the game was over.
    This allowed the United States to incorporate all the countries right up to Russia’s borders and beyond them, beyond those borders in the Baltics, into an American sphere of influence. And, essentially, they posited a global sphere of influence for the United States modeled on the Monroe Doctrine. And that’s pretty much what we have.
    Ukraine entered that sphere of influence; it was not neutral after 2014.

    That was the purpose of the coup, to prevent neutrality or a pro-Russian government in Kiev, and to replace it with a pro-American government that would bring Ukraine into our sphere. Since about 2015, this is…of course, Russia reacted by annexing Crimea.

    Let me say about Crimea: of course, Russia reacted because its major naval base on the Black Sea is in Crimea; and the prospect that Ukraine was going to be incorporated into NATO and an American sphere of influence would have negated the value of that base. So, I don’t think it had anything to do with the wishes of the people of Crimea who, however, were quite happy to be part of Russia rather than Ukraine.
    So, since about 2015 the United States has been arming, training Ukrainians against Russia. A major step-up in 2017 in that, ironically because of Mr. Trump, who was actually impeached for trying to leverage arms sales to Ukraine for political dirt on the Bidens.

    But, at any rate, it isn’t as though Ukraine was not treated as an extension of NATO. It was. And this had a good deal to do with the Russian decision to invade, I’m sure.
    (…) We are engaged, as Professor Cohen said, in a proxy war, and we’re selling a lot of weapons. That makes arms manufacturers happy. We’re supporting a valiant resistance, which gives politicians something to crow about. We’re going against an officially designated enemy, Russia, which makes us feel vindicated. So, from the point of view of those with these self-interested views of the issue, this is a freebie.

    (...) Not only do we have the ‘Putin is a war criminal and must be brought to trial’ statements coming out of leaders in the West, including President Biden, but we also have people like UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson saying the sanctions have to stay on, whatever Russia does, because Russia has to be punished. Well, this means Russia has absolutely no incentive to accommodate, and it also means that Mr. Zelenskyy has no freedom to accommodate.
    So, this is the opposite of an effort to resolve the issue. It’s an effort, in effect, whatever its intent, to perpetuate the fighting, and that is going to be disastrous for the Ukrainians, for the Russians, and for Europe, and ultimately for the United States.

    India and Brazil (…) They’re in the same straddle. They see no benefit in alienating a partner, namely Russia, and while they both may care about the independence of Ukraine, I think taking sides with the United States against Russia, which is what they’re being asked to do, is a step too far.
    Let’s face it. This is in large measure, as I said at the outset, a struggle between the United States and Russia for a sphere of influence that will include Ukraine. It’s US-Russia. It’s not Russia versus Europe. So, in this context, why would a great power that values its cooperation with Russia want to alienate Russia?

    I think the reliance on our sovereignty over the dollar, to our abuse of that sovereignty, if you will, to impose sanctions that are illegal under the UN Charter, which are unilateral, ultimately risks the status of the dollar. And we may, in fact, be in a moment when the dollar is taken down a notch or two. It isn’t the case…well, I should just say that the dollar serves two purposes. One is as a store of value. If you have dollars, you’re fairly confident that they’re going to have a significant value 10 years from now as well as today. So, that is why countries keep reserves in dollars, and it’s why people stash dollars in mattresses all over the world. The other use of the dollar is to settle trade transactions. It’s the most convenient currency in which to do that, and, in many cases, when other currencies are used, they are used with reference to the dollar and dollar exchange rates. Both these things are now in jeopardy.
    The oil trade commodities being priced in dollars is the basis for the dollar’s international value.

    If you look at the United States’ trade and development balance of payments, you will see that we are in chronic deficit. That says the dollar is overvalued, and that means it’s vulnerable to devaluation. So, if you start saying SWIFT, the communications system in Belgium that handles most of the world’s transactions was established to ensure that trade could be conducted unencumbered by politics and now it’s being encumbered by US-imposed unilateral sanctions on a huge array of countries—Iran, Russia, China, you name it, even threatened against India—so, if the use of the dollar is now encumbered, it’s less desirable, and people will want to make workarounds around it.

    (…) Will the dollar hold its value? Now we have a congress that repeatedly goes to the brink of defaulting on our national debt. This is not something that inspires confidence. And I’ll add a final factor, which I think is very injurious, potentially, and that is: bankers get deposits because they are fiduciaries; they are meant to hold the deposits for the benefit of those who deposit the money and not to rip it off themselves. But we’ve just confiscated the entire national treasury of Afghanistan and we’ve confiscated half of Russian reserves. We’ve confiscated the Venezuelan reserves. We have our allies the British having confiscated Venezuela’s gold reserves. The Anglo-American reputation—its bankers, its fiduciaries—is in trouble. And so, the question is, if you’re a country that thinks, well, maybe you might have some serious policy difference with the United States someday, why would you put your money in dollars? The answer has been, there’s no alternative. But there are now major efforts being made to create alternatives. So, we’re not there yet, but this is—and I don’t want to make a prediction, but I think this is a major question that we need to monitor carefully—because if the dollar loses its value, the American influence on the global level decreases enormously.

    --

    Matt Taibbi: America's Intellectual No-Fly Zone

    From left to right, from Chomsky to Carlson, war-skeptical voices are being denounced at levels not seen since Iraq.It’s a highly effective system of thought control in free societies, going well beyond what Orwell imagined in his few words on this topic
    Last edited by Ludicus; May 25, 2022 at 05:20 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

  13. #4153
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    5,258

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

    Problem with Kissinger's realpolitik approach, is that while it has significant merit from a realist perspective, it was designed for a different era.

    We can now literally see in real time, mass murder and atrocity occur. Live. This makes the actions of our adversarial powers much more difficult to justify to our own populace. When the North Vietnamese committed mass killings of South Vietnamese civilians, it was a distant event, that occurred on the 6 o'clock news, with a talking head rationalising it for us. Now we can stream security camera footage of Russian soldiers firing 30mm IFV guns at elderly people on the platform we use to plan family get togethers, at the same time.

    As a politician, how does one rationalise a realpolitik response to international events when our constituents can watch the suffering of the innocent victims of our realpolitik in real time, uncensored? This is a realist consideration that must be taken into account. Without this consideration, our moral high ground is undermined and our adversaries are strengthened.

    I have always considered myself partial to IR realism. I had assumed like most, that Russia would have achieved a fait accompli in Ukraine very quickly. But it didn't, and that failing represents big shifts all around. So sure, I understand why any end to this must leave Russia still able to continue to provide that 3rd power counterbalance to China. I also think that can be done in the same way it was for post-WW2 Germany and Japan - as in, it is made to confront enough of it's actions so as for the political dialogue within Russia to become one where defence is not done by attacking one's neighbours, but rather by acting multilaterally within global institutions. Russian culture is not inherently violent or aggressive. That's a political narrative, and they can be changed. Russia does not need to be an authoritarian dictatorship or totalitarian to provide a counterbalance in global affairs. it can be both democratic, self confident, and independent in it's outlook. India has managed the same thing for 70 years as a democracy.

    So IMO, the true realpolitik response lies not in 'allowing' Russia a way out that keeps them as the third wheel with China, but rather it lies in changing the global order in such a way so as to illustrate to China of the consequences of attempts at fait-accompli attacks on neighbours, and that the response to such attacks might be existential in nature or worse.

    Of course, caveat for glass houses and rocks and all...
    Last edited by antaeus; May 25, 2022 at 05:36 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  14. #4154
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    15,116

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

    Kissinger is right, in my opinion.In the past, realism and triangular diplomacy helped produce "détente" (the period of the easing of Cold War tensions), SALT negotiations, and an opening to China.
    White House Years -Kissinger
    Too bad about those Cambodians, that almost democratically elected government in Chile, Oh that war by Pakistan against Bangladesh, he was a pretty big fan of Suharto as well. Kissinger is massively over credited for that the detente thing. Also over the longer run not seeing the US benefit in opening China. In any case he remains wrong on Ukraine until the point when Ukraine decides it wants to give up it territory or sovereignty. You seem to be forgetting that to Kissager little people in little countries are absolutely not important and expendable.

    Where is Kissinger when the US needs him?
    Unfortunately still hanging around and not in an unmarked grave where he belongs decades ago.

    Indeed.Russia and China Held Military Exercise in East Asia as Biden

    China and Russia on Tuesday held their first joint military exercise since Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.
    I wonder did the Chinese solders have to ordered not to laugh and make jokes.


    In any case I raise a cup to you the cognitive dissonance to citing both Kissinger and Chomsky in the same post is well breath taking. Also your intellectual dishonesty is showing you run with WW2 carpet bombing (US bad always, UK puppet as well) and than cite a man who would not hesitate and did not hesitate to support the same policies. I thought I was joking above about you citing the Kissinger comments but to see you applaud the vile Troll is quite delicious.

    ------------------


    So sure, I understand why any end to this must leave Russia still able to continue to provide that 3rd power counterbalance to China
    Who says it ever was and who says that some good ideal for the US?
    Last edited by conon394; May 25, 2022 at 06:00 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  15. #4155
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    5,258

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

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    Who says it ever was and who says that some good ideal for the US?
    Kissinger for starters.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  16. #4156
    Ludicus's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    12,484

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

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    Also your intellectual dishonesty is showing
    I'm not interested in trading insults with you.
    ------
    From the news,
    Israel rejects U.S. request to approve missile transfer to Ukraine

    Poll Shows Near Even Split Among Ukrainians Over Joining NATO.

    A poll conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) shows that 39 percent of Ukrainians believe that joining NATO would guarantee the nation's security, while 42 percent believe that in the current environment settling for security guarantees may be acceptable. The KIIS poll asked 2,000 people whether it would be acceptable not to join the alliance if Ukraine instead received security guarantees from NATO countries. The poll also showed that the population's readiness to abandon the idea of joining NATO and instead obtaining security guarantees from NATO countries is supported by 35 percent of the population in the country's west, which has been less affected by the war, and 50 percent in Ukraine's eastern regions. At the same time, people who strongly support Ukraine joining NATO is 46 percent in western regions of Ukraine and 25 percent in the country's east. The poll was conducted May 13-18 via computer-assisted telephone interviews based on a random sample of mobile telephone numbers throughout the country, except in Russian-occupied Crimea. Nineteen percent of respondents had no opinion or did not agree with either of the options.

    World leaders discuss deploying naval coalition to the Black Sea

    Estonian president Alar Karis said in an interview with Bloomberg that negotiations are ongoing to create what the Lithuanian foreign minister, Gabrielius Landsbergis, told the Guardian newspaper would be a naval coalition “of the willing”. The UK is likely to form part of the coalition according to The Times newspaper.
    Alan Karis (president of Estonia) on Twitter,
    #Russia must lose this war or there will be no peace in #Europe.
    Pure madness. For Europeans, apart from occasional convergences on sanctions, we/they are clearly divided, between the supporters of a line of moderation and appeasement, such as France and Germany, and the "hawks" which include the United Kingdom, Poland, and the Baltic countries, who advocate a war with no time limit until Russia's total defeat (read above) following a line adopted by the United States. The vital interest of the European Union must be a rapid stabilization of the situation, to recreate a lasting security balance on the European continent. As it turns out, the escalation to a different level is possible, since once a certain degree of NATO/western involvement in the war (and the threat to Russia's vital interests is reached, permanently weakening Russia as the American defense secretary wished) the temptation to resort to nuclear weapons may prevail.

    Until now, the war is relatively free for NATO. Only Ukraine pays. It is also an excellent business deal: it sells weapons to all members, who now cannot refuse the rearmament effort, it adds new members and new geography, it gains a new geostrategic rationale over an announced corpse (that is, Ukrainian devastation), it tests its military and weapons capabilities on the battlefield and not only in routine maneuvers, and it discovers, with supreme satisfaction, the weaknesses of the Russian enemy. If I remember well, a month ago, Zelensky was spouting offers of negotiations, saying he had already given up Crimea and NATO, and accusing the West of prolonging the war at the expense of the destruction of Ukraine. Today he has changed radically: he says that he will not give up an inch of territory and that only victory matters to him.
    What has changed, however, is that Biden has convinced him that, with the support he would not lack, he would defeat the Russians and go down in history as the man who defeated the "Red Army", even at the cost of the destruction of Ukraine. The problem is also that Zelensky is now a prisoner of the image the West has created of him. Mediocre politicians with no horizons beyond the next election, like Boris Johnson, are leaning on Zelensky in the same way that NATO is confronting Russia in the Ukraine.
    ---

    We Need a Real Debate About the Ukraine War | The Nation
    Those who provide history and context around the conflict should not be silenced or smeared. It’s time to challenge the orthodox view on the war in Ukraine.

    (...) the more protracted the war in Ukraine, the greater the risk of a nuclear accident or incident. And with the Biden administration’s strategy to “weaken” Russia with the scale of weapons shipments, including anti-ship missiles, and revelations of US intelligence assistance to Ukraine, the United States and NATO are in a proxy war with Russia.
    Shouldn’t the ramifications, perils and multifaceted costs of this proxy war be a central topic of media coverage—as well as informed analysis, discussion, and debate? Yet what we have in the media and political establishment is, for the most part, a one-sided, even nonexistent, public discussion and debate.

    Those who have departed from the orthodox line on Ukraine are regularly excluded from or marginalized—certainly rarely seen—on big corporate media. The result is that alternative and countervailing views and voices seem nonexistent. Wouldn’t it be healthy to have more diversity of views, history, and context rather than “confirmation bias”?

    Those who speak of history and offer context about the West’s precipitating role in the Ukraine tragedy are not excusing Russia’s criminal attack. It is a measure of such thinking…that prominent figures such as Noam Chomsky, University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer, and former US ambassador Chas Freeman, among others, have been demonized or slurred for raising cogent arguments and providing much-needed context and history to explain the background of this war.

    In our fragile democracy, the cost of dissent is comparatively low. Why, then, aren’t more individuals at think tanks or in academia, media or politics challenging the orthodox US political-media narrative? Is it not worth asking whether sending ever-more weapons to the Ukrainians is the wisest course? Is it too much to ask for more questioning and discussion about how best to diminish the danger of nuclear conflict?...

    Before the war ends, many Ukrainians and Russians will die while Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman make fortunes. At the same time, network and cable news is replete with pundits and “experts”—or more accurately, military officials turned consultants—whose current jobs and clients are not disclosed to viewers.

    What is barely reflected on our TVs or Internet screens, or in Congress, are alternate views—voices of restraint, who disagree with the tendency to see compromise in negotiations as appeasement, who seek persistent and tough diplomacy to attain an effective cease-fire and a negotiated resolution (…)
    “Tell me how this end,” Gen. David Petraeus asked Washington Post writer Rick Atkinson a few months into the nearly decade-long Iraq War. Bringing this current war to an end will demand new thinking and challenges to the orthodoxies of this time.

    This column originally appeared in The Washington Post. You can find Katrina’s weekly columns for the Post here.
    Last edited by Ludicus; May 25, 2022 at 07:30 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

  17. #4157
    Alastor's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    1,879

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

    I was speaking to a friend who is frequenting the Russian telegram sphere earlier and he told me a few interesting things when it comes to how events are being perceived there, a few key points were:
    - The Kiev offensive was not a serious attempt to conquer the city, but an attempt to scare Ukraine into a quick capitulation.
    - It was also meant to make the Kherson offensive easier.
    - As such the failure of that offensive was not militarily as big a blow as presented, it still was an intelligence/political miscalculation though.
    - The retreat in Kharkov was a tactical choice meant to draw Ukrainians out in the open, which it successfully did.
    - The sinking of the Moskva was an embarrassment, it appears there is agreement here.
    - The Russian air force is performing better than reported by western media.
    - Ukraine is definitely losing the war, western aid is misappropriated and ineffective, Ukraine cannot replenish its losses and is on borrowed time.
    - Azov is evil personified and was in Bucha, among a litany of other accusations.
    - The war won't end before Russia captures Mykolaiv, the fall of that city will force Zelensky to accept territorial losses.
    - This will become the Russian focus once the situation in the Donbas get settled aka after the completion of the so-called second phase.

    The most striking take from this is perhaps how the reality present there seems to be completely different to the reality we, in the west, are presented with. Alternate realities, alternate facts. How can we possibly guess what the other side is thinking when there is almost no common ground?

    From the points themselves, I found the Mykolaiv one perhaps the most interesting. After the failure of the Kiev offensive Zelensky became bolder and less inclined to negotiate. It's not surprising, if the tide is turning he would want to be in the most advantageous position possible before serious negotiations can start. But if his optimism is unfounded and it is indeed Russia that is winning the conflict militarily, sth I still believe to be the case personally, then would a possible fall of Mykolaiv be the signal to negotiate?

    I remain uncertain as to what a possible exit strategy would be here. At least when Russia's victory appeared quick and certain, I could hope for a short war. Now, it seems this will last a while... and in my small corner of the world, inflation is already in the double digits.
    Last edited by Alastor; May 25, 2022 at 07:50 PM.

  18. #4158
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    15,116

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

    I'm not interested in trading insults with you.
    I don't believe it an insult to point out the problems with your argument. You can't cite a man who is basically a war criminal and quite fine with mass bombing as some paragon of what the west should do about the Ukraine, only a few posts after dragging up Dresden and WW2. If you want to be a hypocrite its no insult to point that out.

    ------
    @Alastor

    I don't believe Russia is winning. Nor do I believe either the attempt at Kviv or Kherson were feints or given up easily.

    "Ukraine is definitely losing the war, western aid is misappropriated and ineffective, Ukraine cannot replenish its losses and is on borrowed time."

    Western aid says otherwise while Russia breaking let's checks more T14s err sorry T64s

    I remain uncertain as to what a possible exit strategy would be here. At least when Russia's victory appeared quick and certain, I could hope for a short war. Now, it seems this will last a while... and in my small corner of the world, inflation is already in the double digits.
    Likely would have been anyway as long as china continues its inane COVID policy.
    Last edited by conon394; May 25, 2022 at 09:24 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  19. #4159
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    5,258

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    I was speaking to a friend who is frequenting the Russian telegram sphere earlier and he told me a few interesting things when it comes to how events are being perceived there, a few key points were:
    - The Kiev offensive was not a serious attempt to conquer the city, but an attempt to scare Ukraine into a quick capitulation.
    - It was also meant to make the Kherson offensive easier.
    - As such the failure of that offensive was not militarily as big a blow as presented, it still was an intelligence/political miscalculation though.
    - The retreat in Kharkov was a tactical choice meant to draw Ukrainians out in the open, which it successfully did.
    - The sinking of the Moskva was an embarrassment, it appears there is agreement here.
    - The Russian air force is performing better than reported by western media.
    - Ukraine is definitely losing the war, western aid is misappropriated and ineffective, Ukraine cannot replenish its losses and is on borrowed time.
    - Azov is evil personified and was in Bucha, among a litany of other accusations.
    - The war won't end before Russia captures Mykolaiv, the fall of that city will force Zelensky to accept territorial losses.
    - This will become the Russian focus once the situation in the Donbas get settled aka after the completion of the so-called second phase.

    The most striking take from this is perhaps how the reality present there seems to be completely different to the reality we, in the west, are presented with. Alternate realities, alternate facts. How can we possibly guess what the other side is thinking when there is almost no common ground?

    From the points themselves, I found the Mykolaiv one perhaps the most interesting. After the failure of the Kiev offensive Zelensky became bolder and less inclined to negotiate. It's not surprising, if the tide is turning he would want to be in the most advantageous position possible before serious negotiations can start. But if his optimism is unfounded and it is indeed Russia that is winning the conflict militarily, sth I still believe to be the case personally, then would a possible fall of Mykolaiv be the signal to negotiate?

    I remain uncertain as to what a possible exit strategy would be here. At least when Russia's victory appeared quick and certain, I could hope for a short war. Now, it seems this will last a while... and in my small corner of the world, inflation is already in the double digits.
    The amount of equipment and lives lost, and in particular the amount of equipment abandoned to be employed by Ukraine evidences the significance of those offensives now rationalised as 'feints'. People will rationalise defeat all day to justify the cognitive dissonance that occurs when confronted with the truth of failure.

    Certainly the way the attacks were carried out indicate miscalculation at all levels. Reading interviews with civilians in the areas Russian forces retreated from leaves no doubt that they retreated in some disarray, under constant artillery attacks, and with significant loss. Staff at Chernobyl described troops resting after retreat in a state of exhaustion, driving vehicles with tires shredded to the rim, and being warned about the dangers of antagonising soldiers who had experienced significant loss. There should be no mistake that this was not a significant defeat.

    The problem with social media, including Telegram, is that it allows us to ascribe strategic significance to tactical events, often shown without context. Throughout this war, Russian users have shared footage of Russian successes, and Western users have seen Ukrainian successes. But usually these successes are localised incidents and rarely illustrate strategic impacts. The withdrawal from Kyiv and the north is one such event where the weight of loss shows clear evidence of defeat. But we can only judge this with hindsight. But one consideration to make when discussing Russian social media, is that it is not operating in a free and open space. Certainly Western pundits are prone to look for success and shy away from failure, but they still report failure and loss. There are Western journalists in Donbas, reporting loss and withdrawal now. Unapologetically reporting Ukrainian struggles for manpower and arms. The same can't be said for those reporting on the Russian side - rather they seek to make everything look intentional. So pinches of salt must be taken with Telegram groups.

    Russia's attack in Donbas hasn't yet culminated, so we don't know how it will end, or what Ukraine has in the tank to stop it, or counter attack. Before this attack has culminated, talk of an exit-strategy is premature.
    Last edited by antaeus; May 25, 2022 at 08:40 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  20. #4160
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,433

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

    The relevance of Versailles is that trying to keep the peace by weakening the enemy ensures your enemy will remain your enemy. Anyone who says the goal of the West in Ukraine is to weaken Russia has already made the decision that Russia is irredeemable. Putin certainly is irredeemable, but he will die sooner or later. The Russian memory of the role of the West in this war will outlast him.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

Posting Permissions

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