Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Sir Adrian]

I just explained to you why that will not happen. Besides if there is ever a war between the US and Russia it will be started by Russia.

[Alastor]

German embassy?

Putins actions toward Ukranian citizens of any ethnicity show no underlying racism: i think him capable of atrocirty to serve his own goals. Likewise his use of Nazis (like Ukraines) is opportunistic: hes not Hitler, but he is a terrorist.

Poland is watching Russia here not Ukraine. It knows the enemy.
The price of Peace is worth every penny, the price of appeasement is sadly subject to inflation.

If you mean the German consulate in Kiev sometime ago, then this has to be rather facetious.

Yes, he's not Hitler, though we like to pretend he is. To the point where we make policy demands with the assumption he is. Now, as far as being a terrorist goes, well that's a term that can apply to many and quite widely. So it's not quite as meaningful either. Yes Putin is a terrorist for the Ukrainians for sure. So was George W Bush for instance, for Afghanis Iraqis and other people he liberated with his humane bombs. So? We tolerate terrorists just fine. Why does it make Putin special?

To go back to the Balkan wars, which did involve ethnic cleansing. I will also remind that Europe did not destroy itself in our attempt to resolve the conflict. Again, why is Ukraine so special? Appeasement is a poisoned argument. The war hawks have poisoned it. It didn't manage to avert WW2 and that has become everyone's escalation mantra. Fight a war now to avoid fighting it later, because a war now is somehow not a war. The thing about appeasement is, when it works, it doesn't make quite as much of a bang. Literally. That's the problem. Finally, this isn't about peace. Let's not hide behind our fingers now. If Ukraine surrenders tomorrow there is peace. But that's not the peace you want. So you reject that outcome. Therefore it's not about peace, it's about victory.

[Muizer]

It's not just the threat of MAD that should convince us not to become openly involved as combatants in the war. At the moment, it is clear the Russian people are not convinced of the necessity of this war. That's because they consider Ukrainians as kin. It's why Putin feels compelled to speak of "military operation" and why, when he decided to do a partial mobilization, he prioritizes getting his cannon fodder from far flung regions and ethnic minorities. Once the conflict escalates into NATO vs Russia, that's a total game changer. NATO is not kin. It's the historical arch-enemy. We should not count on war enthusiasm remaining low in Russia. It will deliver Putin carte blanche for full mobilization. Unite the Russians against NATO and we know one thing for certain: the suffering in the war will be multiplied, not lessened.

[mishkin]

[I]

"Medium term"..! what are you talking about! If you are not afraid of a nuclear conflict, you should be.

now imagine being his ing neighbor. Are you aware of the atrocities he has committed in Ukraine?

[reavertm]

It's not just the threat of MAD that should convince us not to become openly involved as combatants in the war. At the moment, it is clear the Russian people are not convinced of the necessity of this war. That's because they consider Ukrainians as kin. It's why Putin feels compelled to speak of "military operation" and why, when he decided to do a partial mobilization, he prioritizes getting his cannon fodder from far flung regions and ethnic minorities. Once the conflict escalates into NATO vs Russia, that's a total game changer. NATO is not kin. It's the historical arch-enemy. We should not count on war enthusiasm remaining low in Russia. It will deliver Putin carte blanche for full mobilization. Unite the Russians against NATO and we know one thing for certain: the suffering in the war will be multiplied, not lessened.

Except Russian population is already brainwashed to believe this is Russia vs "rotten West".
Those who oppose and those who could, already left when drafts started or in March.
The rest has feudal serf mentality with learned helplessness and will go and die in Ukraine, even if they don't support the war openly.
Watch street interviews in Russia on YT - "1420" channel.
Russians are sadly a lost cause, just like German population in 40s last century.
NATO should not enter Russian territory but should be free to put to ground everything that flies over Ukraine.

[Stario]

Zelensky is not a saint and he is the leader of a devastated/war country.

Zelensky is determined to make Ukraine a woke WEF puppet state. And Ukraine w their own "Anti-Terrorist Operation" since 2014, is still no better than Russia imo.
If Putin loses he will probably be replaced w Klaus Schwab. This would be a lose-lose situation for everyone🤣

[Ludicus]

. Are you aware of the atrocities he has committed in Ukraine?

mishkin, I understand what you are saying, but that's not the point. Atrocities committed in wartime are well known.. It happens all the time. The destruction of the enemy's energy networks is an important element in any war, it serves to hinder the movement of armies and has a moral effect on civilian populations. In this case, civilian casualties are low compared to those of previous wars. The Ukrainian civilian population has generally been spared the bombing. This is not what the Russians are doing: Anything That Flies, On Anything That Moves

Poland heard Biden's voice of command, but Zelensky did not. The creature no longer obeys the creator. Right now, many critical Ukrainian infrastructures are under attack, including gas infrastructures.
I heard just a short time ago on CNN Zelensky saying that he has been under pressure to negotiate with Russia, and he added that he knows Moscow is interested in direct negotiations, without intermediaries, with Ukraine. But Zelensky is convinced that he will win the war next summer, and insists, "If we survive this winter, and we will do it, Ukraine will definitely win this war". I don't know what Zelensky means by "we will survive this winter”. The question is, is he referring to the Ukrainian army or the Ukrainian people?

[mishkin]

There is a somewhat demagogic comment nowadays on the networks that says something like "if you want to know what position you would have taken in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, now is your chance."

"Appease the beast, negotiate with the invading fascist". It sounds as obscene now as it did eighty years ago.

[Ludicus]

There is a somewhat demagogic comment nowadays on the networks that says something like "if you want to know what position you would have taken in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, now is your chance."

I have been carefully avoiding personal attacks for a long time. The link I have provided you does not take us back to 1940. It takes us back to the US bombing missions over Southeast Asian countries in the 1960s and 70s. And more- in Kosovo, America claimed its war was a "humanitarian intervention," in Afghanistan, "self-defense," and in Iraq, it claimed the authority of the Security Council of the UN. Yet each of these wars was illegal according to established rules of international law.

"Appease the beast, negotiate with the invading fascist". It sounds as obscene now as it did eighty years ago.

That's your opinion, bur let me tell you this: the war in Ukraine did not start on February 24. To say that we must distinguish aggressor and victimis a simplistic explanation. The causes cannot be decontextualized, and it reminds us of the story of three friends who chase a dog, including the dog's owner. The dog ends up biting the owner,violently, with several bites. Is it the dog's fault only? This war was predicted many years ago, and many said so at the time.
I have no sympathy for any autocratic regime, including the Russian regime; but I also have no particular sympathy for the so-called democratic regimes (regimes are not to be confused with peoples) that are fighting for world hegemony using proxy wars,to the dangerous limit of being able to trigger a nuclear war. Now what matters is to negotiate peace and put an end to this madness. The Ukrainian population is a poor victim of a struggle for world supremacy. When this war is over, whatever the outcome of the final negotiations, it is then a moral duty for European citizens to provide effective humanitarian aid to the Ukrainian population.

That's my opinion.

EDIT:mishkin, the link I provided you and for which you thanked me, was written before the Ukrainian war, not during the war. Following the Pentagon order, RAND Corporation prepared a report in 2019- How to destroy Russia: Overextending and Unbalancing Russia

----

I just explained to you why that will not happen

Please don’t patronize me. Why hasn't the US intervened directly in the war yet? You are entitled to your opinion, it’s your opinion, but you don’t explain me nothing, sorry.

The moment Putin pushes that button the russian people are gone

Probably not unless a tactical nuclear war escalates to a full nuclear war. In that case, all the US cities will be also wiped off the world map, not only the northern hemisphere and the Russia people. There will be no winners, and, as Einstein said "World War IV would be fought with sticks and stones”

[Kyriakos]

There is a somewhat demagogic comment nowadays on the networks that says something like "if you want to know what position you would have taken in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, now is your chance."

"Appease the beast, negotiate with the invading fascist". It sounds as obscene now as it did eighty years ago.

If the germans had nukes (moreover current tech and in numbers Russia has) when they invaded Poland, you shouldn't at all be sure there would have been a ww2.
Not that equating current Russia with nazi Germany is apt either; Germany in ww2 run incredibly systematized genocides and erased tens of millions of people from the world. Their ideology explicitly stated they were superior and others are subhuman.

Nukes do matter. They are the reason we haven't had ww3 yet => the moment there is working defense against major nuclear hits, is the moment ww3 starts.

[Ludicus]

If the germans had nukes (moreover current tech and in numbers Russia has) when they invaded Poland, you shouldn't at all be sure there would have been a ww2.

Or- we are just speculating- Hitler would have used the bomb.( "Because we have it"- who said that?). They could even have said something along these lines, just change the names: “My object is to save as many American lives as possible, but I also have a human feeling for the women and children of Japan.”
In my opinion, the moral assessment of these moral issues has not changed since World War II, unless it all depends on who uses the nuclear bomb.

[Kyriakos]

Or- we are just speculating- Hitler would have used the bomb.( "Because we have it"- who said that?). They could even have said something along these lines, just change the names: “My object is to save as many American lives as possible, but I also have a human feeling for the women and children of Japan.”
In my opinion, the moral assessment of these moral issues has not changed since World War II, unless it all depends on who uses the nuclear bomb.

Afaik, also, both US and Russia (when it developed nuclear weapons) stated openly that if the other side attacks them, nukes will be used. US back when Russia had a massive tank army following the end of ww2 (possibility of attack against western Europe) and Russia when US and allies clearly had a conventional military edge.
It's nothing new. Only for some reasons currently we heard a lot of rhetoric that it doesn't mean anything and it would never be used - I guess the cold war wasn't about nukes after all

Imo, until some working defense against nuclear hits is developed (new tech), we will only see a light version of ww3, with conventional weapons and proxies. And it can escalate to more countries than just Russia and Ukraine, that's certain (but US won't be sending its army openly against Russia).

[mishkin]

no one stopped Hirohito/Mussolini/Hitler ibecause europe was terrified of getting into another war. Sounds pretty familiar, stop making excuses

[conon394]

I have been carefully avoiding personal attacks for a long time. The link I have provided you does not take us back to 1940. It takes us back to the US bombing missions over Southeast Asian countries in the 1960s and 70s. And more- in Kosovo, America claimed its war was a "humanitarian intervention," in Afghanistan, "self-defense," and in Iraq, it claimed the authority of the Security Council of the UN. Yet each of these wars was illegal according to established rules of international law.

You strung a lot together but a fair amount of false equivalence or just error.

in Afghanistan, "self-defense,"

I can't see inclusion of this one. Seems pretty clear yes it was self defense. And thus self defense under the UN

and in Iraq, it claimed the authority of the Security Council of the UN

Not going to deny the US bent the existing authority all over the place to scare up it justification (and got a stream of own goal assists from Saddam). Nor will I deny the Fools who managed the bending (which they were good at) - proved beyond incompetent at managing the situation they created.

And more- in Kosovo, America claimed its war was a "humanitarian intervention,"

Yep no agency for Slobodan or Serbia in any of that.

It takes us back to the US bombing missions over Southeast Asian countries in the 1960s and 70s.

I think the us was wrong in the bombing campaigns they were blunt instruments that did far more harm than good. But let's not forget Cambodia and Laos were neither defending or maintaining their neutrality in a war.

[Kyriakos]

no one stopped Hirohito/Mussolini/Hitler ibecause europe was terrified of getting into another war. Sounds pretty familiar, stop making excuses

War enthusiasm was real before any world war. And it is also currently. But the difference is the existence of nukes: you won't win if you invade (or attack, eg attack Russia in Donbas/Crimea) a country with nukes, because your own country will be nuked and taken out of history.
It's not an excuse to say that x won't decide to fight y to defend z, if it means x will die.

[mishkin]

I hope that at least you are not against sovereign countries rushing to join NATO, only possible defense against invasion by a country with nuclear weapons. What a wonderful world.

[Kyriakos]

Why would I be against countries joining nato? Afaik Sweden/Finland are currently still blocked by Turkey (and Hungary hasn't officially accepted either).
I see no issue with them joining.

[mishkin]

Do you realize that these countries are forced to participate in a military alliance? is that the climate we want in europe? anyone would say that someone in nato is a super brain and all this was his idea. Who benefits from a crazy Russia? nato, an organization that only ten years ago was in clear decline.

(NB: there is no one behind the wheel, the elites (politicians, oligarchs, whoever) are incompetent idiots with no vision of the future beyond their well-being over the next ten years).

[Sir Adrian]

Please don’t patronize me. Why hasn't the US intervened directly in the war yet? You are entitled to your opinion, it’s your opinion, but you don’t explain me nothing, sorry.

Why exactly would the US intervene? Come on. You can do better than this.

Probably not unless a tactical nuclear war escalates to a full nuclear war. In that case, all the US cities will be also wiped off the world map, not only the northern hemisphere and the Russia people. There will be no winners, and, as Einstein said "World War IV would be fought with sticks and stones”

The studies I posted are all for wars using Hiroshima level nukes. What you call "tactical".

[Muizer]

no one stopped Hirohito/Mussolini/Hitler ibecause europe was terrified of getting into another war. Sounds pretty familiar, stop making excuses

It can hardly be said the NATO is sitting idly by in this conflict. It is propping up Ukraine in all manners available short of getting directly involved (as far as we know anyway). Evidently, the hope is that Putin will wear himself out against the Ukraine. And as horribly cynical is to acknowledge that Ukraine is basically serving as a punch bag, in the grand scheme of things, it is still preferable to both giving Putin what he wants and escalating to WWIII, even if it stays conventional. Can't blame Zelenski for not seeing it that way, of course. His country didn't actually have much of a choice in the matter and yet is taking all the hits. That is why we don't really have much moral ground to berate him for accidentally landing a rocket in Poland, or blaming Russia for it. Hell, I wouldn't even blame him for trying a false flag operation. I definitely would blame those who would fall for it though.