Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Alastor]

What Turkey can or can't do doesn't change the principal. You seem to be banking on "might makes right" argument indeed.

If you can't escalate a conflict why would anyone be concerned about an escalation? You make no sense.

[StarDreamer]

Ah, the good old putting words in my mouth tactic. I never said I would be equally opposed to it. I made it clear it wouldn't pose the same threat of a greater conflagration because Turkey is simply nowhere near as powerful as Russia. What could Turkey do if the US provoked them and kept provoking them this way? Turkey couldn't really escalate that hypothetical conflict, but Russia can. So whether the actor is able to take us to WW3 and nuclear apocalypse, what you call a moot point, is the whole point.

Yes, how is it an escalation to allow the Ukrainians to attack the Russian homeland with weapons we provide them, with intelligence and planning we provide them, likely even with our specialists helping them use them. That's an entirely normal thing. I wonder, if the Russians gave the Taliban ICBMs and the means to use them against America during the Afghan war, would America say, well that's normal nothing to see here... or would we be halfway to nuclear apocalypse by now.

I'm sure you considered the Iranian and North Korean weapons used on Ukrainian soil being an equal escalation? I don't recall you being concerned then.

[Alastor]

I'm sure you considered the Iranian and North Korean weapons used on Ukrainian soil being an equal escalation? I don't recall you being concerned then.

Concerned about what? That Ukraine may attack Iran or North Korea in response? No, I'm not concerned about that at all.

[StarDreamer]

Concerned about what? That Ukraine may attack Iran or North Korea in response? No, I'm not concerned about that at all.

So there is no principle behind your concern, You only care if someone is able to do something. Then you can rest assured, Russia has no ability to retaliate in non-covert ways that wouldn't lead to their destruction. This "red-line" is just one more that doesn't lead to any actual escalation, just as all the ones before that.

[Alastor]

So there is no principle behind your concern, You only care if someone is able to do something. Then you can rest assured, Russia has no ability to retaliate in non-covert ways that wouldn't lead to their destruction. This "red-line" is just one more that doesn't lead to any actual escalation, just as all the ones before that.

Says who? You? You understand nothing and you are wasting my time.

[Kyriakos]

So there is no principle behind your concern, You only care if someone is able to do something. Then you can rest assured, Russia has no ability to retaliate in non-covert ways that wouldn't lead to their destruction. This "red-line" is just one more that doesn't lead to any actual escalation, just as all the ones before that.

If you mean retaliate against some Eu country, by hitting it with missiles simply because it gave weapons and allowed them to be used inside Russia - it's debatable even if Russia would wish to do that, insofar as "inside Russia" doesn't mean any actually important city (eg Moscow).
But if you mean that Russia will never retaliate in the case some Eu country army fights it in Ukraine, I fear you are playing with fire. Maybe Russia would think twice before retaliation with missiles against something like Germany, but not Finland.

[Alastor]

If you mean retaliate against some Eu country, by hitting it with missiles simply because it gave weapons and allowed them to be used inside Russia - it's debatable even if Russia would wish to do that, insofar as "inside Russia" doesn't mean any actually important city (eg Moscow).
But if you mean that Russia will never retaliate in the case some Eu country army fights it in Ukraine, I fear you are playing with fire. Maybe Russia would think twice before retaliation with missiles against something like Germany, but not Finland.

Don't go far @Kyriakos, the idea that Russia's red lines mean nothing is easily shown to be a fantasy by the fact there is currently a war in Ukraine. As Burns put it, in "nyet means nyet", a Ukraine in NATO was a Russian red line. The US ignored it and we have a war.

Then again our leaders seem to be content to, as you put it, keep playing with fire. And we have all kinds of know-nothing idiots all over the west cheering as we go up and up the escalation ladder towards a nuclear war. What is the expectation here really? That Russia won't behave the way the US would? That Russia would keep being the responsible party in the face of continuous provocation? Well I don't know if I have that much faith in Russia as all these people seem to do.

[Kyriakos]

^Part of the serious problems with this war is that, ultimately, the only way Ukraine could win would be if it both retook everything/most of everything back conventionally, AND avoided Russia using nukes against it. I really don't see how those two could happen, even if the first could.
So, given I don't see how it can happen, I also don't see what the point of the war continuing is - unless there is at least some semblance of a plan to prevent Ukraine losing by more direct intervention (and likely causing nuclear war).

[PointOfViewGun]

Don't go far @Kyriakos, the idea that Russia's red lines mean nothing is easily shown to be a fantasy by the fact there is currently a war in Ukraine. As Burns put it, in "nyet means nyet", a Ukraine in NATO was a Russian red line. The US ignored it and we have a war.

Then again our leaders seem to be content to, as you put it, keep playing with fire. And we have all kinds of know-nothing idiots all over the west cheering as we go up and up the escalation ladder towards a nuclear war. What is the expectation here really? That Russia won't behave the way the US would? That Russia would keep being the responsible party in the face of continuous provocation? Well I don't know if I have that much faith in Russia as all these people seem to do.

This has been one of the biggest lies in this conflict. Ukraine's relationship with NATO was more of a result of the Russian invasion then the other way around. First Crimea, then Donbas, now rest of Ukraine. There was no major development on Ukraine's relationship with NATO before Russia decided to invade Ukraine. The reason we have a war in Ukraine is purely because Russia was losing its political grip on Ukraine's administrative institutions. Popular and democratic ousting of the Russian puppet Petro Poroshenko was what really triggered the phased invasion. If something similar happens with the other Russian puppet Alexander Lukashenko a similar invasion will happen in Belarus.

[Alastor]

This has been one of the biggest lies in this conflict. Ukraine's relationship with NATO was more of a result of the Russian invasion then the other way around. First Crimea, then Donbas, now rest of Ukraine. There was no major development on Ukraine's relationship with NATO before Russia decided to invade Ukraine. The reason we have a war in Ukraine is purely because Russia was losing its political grip on Ukraine's administrative institutions. Popular and democratic ousting of the Russian puppet Petro Poroshenko was what really triggered the phased invasion. If something similar happens with the other Russian puppet Alexander Lukashenko a similar invasion will happen in Belarus.

Oh and who says it's a lie? You? Sorry, but it's not a lie. There are many lies associated with this war, like that it was unprovoked. This isn't one of them. The Bucharest NATO declaration of 2008 came years before Crimea. Here, you can read it: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive...texts_8443.htm
A key point is:

NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.

Let me reiterate for your benefit. "We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO". I would call that rather major and all that was left was to have a pliable, friendly government in Kiev. That's what the "democratic" coup in Ukraine, aka the Maidan, that put a US-affiliated regime in power was about. After that, the game was on.

Even Stoltenberg acknowledged that this is about NATO. Here, you can read: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm

So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.

Putin went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. That's the secretary general of NATO stating this. I guess you know better than him though. Right?

[PointOfViewGun]

Oh and who says it's a lie? You? Sorry, but it's not a lie. There are many lies associated with this war, like that it was unprovoked. This isn't one of them. The Bucharest NATO declaration of 2008 came years before Crimea. Here, you can read it: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive...texts_8443.htm
A key point is:Let me reiterate for your benefit. "We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO". I would call that rather major and all that was left was to have a pliable, friendly government in Kiev. That's what the "democratic" coup in Ukraine, aka the Maidan, that put a US-affiliated regime in power was about. After that, the game was on.

Facts with context indicate that what you claim there is a lie. That Bucharest declaration from 2008 doesn't say anything new. It's not a new step but just a reiteration of an existing position. The Euromaiden protests didn't put in a US-affiliated regime in Ukraine as well. Poroshenko was already at odds with the Ukrainian parliament working actively against resolutions it was adopting.

Even Stoltenberg acknowledged that this is about NATO. Here, you can read: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm
Putin went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. That's the secretary general of NATO stating this. I guess you know better than him though. Right?

Lovely attempt at deception there. Stoltenberg is not talking about the general context but within the context of Sweden and Finland joining NATO and how Putin asked NATO to retreat from existing members:

Then lastly on Sweden. First of all, it is historic that now Finland is member of the Alliance. And we have to remember the background. The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that.

The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.

So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite. He has got more NATO presence in eastern part of the Alliance and he has also seen that Finland has already joined the Alliance and Sweden will soon be a full member. Because at Vilnius Summit, we agreed a statement where it was clearly expressed how Sweden will do more, follow up the agreement we had in Madrid on fighting terrorism, and also address issues related to export of military equipment, and then Türkiye made it clear that they will ratify as soon as possible.

[Alastor]

Facts with context indicate that what you claim there is a lie. That Bucharest declaration from 2008 doesn't say anything new. It's not a new step but just a reiteration of an existing position. The Euromaiden protests didn't put in a US-affiliated regime in Ukraine as well. Poroshenko was already at odds with the Ukrainian parliament working actively against resolutions it was adopting.

"Facts with context"? You have got to be kidding me. I have seen poor deflections but this one takes the cake. How exactly is what's stated in 2008 nothing new? Was there an agreement or a pledge before that Ukraine will join NATO? By all means show me, where is it? Funnily enough, even if you could show me an earlier statement, the point wouldn't change, it would still be before Crimea. Also to call a government Nuland was instrumental in picking "not US affiliated" is beyond laughable. We have the tapes, you can read the transcript here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

Lovely attempt at deception there. Stoltenberg is not talking about the general context but within the context of Sweden and Finland joining NATO and how Putin asked NATO to retreat from existing members:

The only attempts at deception come from you and they aren't that lovely. As for Stoltenberg, his words are clear. Putin went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. That's what he said. You can't, no matter how much you try, misconstrue this. We both comprehend English well enough I assume, how about you use that ability for a change.

[PointOfViewGun]

"Facts with context"? You have got to be kidding me. I have seen poor deflections but this one takes the cake. How exactly is what's stated in 2008 nothing new? Was there an agreement or a pledge before that Ukraine will join NATO? By all means show me, where is it? Funnily enough, even if you could show me an earlier statement, the point wouldn't change, it would still be before Crimea. Also to call a government Nuland was instrumental in picking "not US affiliated" is beyond laughable. We have the tapes, you can read the transcript here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

The only attempts at deception come from you and they aren't that lovely. As for Stoltenberg, his words are clear. Putin went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. That's what he said. You can't, no matter how much you try, misconstrue this. We both comprehend English well enough I assume, how about you use that ability for a change.

Ukraine's relationship with NATO goes as back as 1994 where they concluded a number of aggreements. More recently, as early as 2004, the Ukrainian president Yushchenko was an open supporter of NATO. He was making joint statements as early as 2005 with Bush on joining NATO. Yet, those, along with the statements from 2008, were just that, statements. Time and time again Ukraine took measures to exclude references to NATO membership just to appease Russia. In turn, NATO officials and members downplayed Ukraine's membership prospects for the same purpose. There was no change in that course in 2008 or in 2014 when Russia started invading.

You're blatantly altering what Stoltenberg was aiming at by selective quoting. Its so obvious that its no fun. Try not to project failures of your own claims on me.

[Alastor]

Ukraine's relationship with NATO goes as back as 1994 where they concluded a number of aggreements. More recently, as early as 2004, the Ukrainian president Yushchenko was an open supporter of NATO. He was making joint statements as early as 2005 with Bush on joining NATO. Yet, those, along with the statements from 2008, were just that, statements. Time and time again Ukraine took measures to exclude references to NATO membership just to appease Russia. In turn, NATO officials and members downplayed Ukraine's membership prospects for the same purpose. There was no change in that course in 2008 or in 2014 when Russia started invading.

You're blatantly altering what Stoltenberg was aiming at by selective quoting. Its so obvious that its no fun. Try not to project failures of your own claims on me.

Let me repeat: "We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO", show me an open pledge like that from the NATO alliance before that. If you can't, then accept that this was a major step. More importantly, how is anything you say proof that a Ukraine in NATO wasn't a Russian red-line? The point you highlighted and claimed to be a lie. You are if anything providing evidence FOR it, not against it.

I am altering nothing. I am quoting him verbatim. I have also shared the full text and even your quote with the parts, before and after my quote, still support my interpretation just fine. The only one projecting their failures on anyone here is you. Simply admit you were wrong to say what you said and move on.

[PointOfViewGun]

Let me repeat: "We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO", show me an open pledge like that from the NATO alliance before that. If you can't, then accept that this was a major step. More importantly, how is anything you say proof that a Ukraine in NATO wasn't a Russian red-line? The point you highlighted and claimed to be a lie. You are if anything providing evidence FOR it, not against it.

I am altering nothing. I am quoting him verbatim. I have also shared the full text and even your quote with the parts, before and after my quote, still support my interpretation just fine. The only one projecting their failures on anyone here is you. Simply admit you were wrong to say what you said and move on.

I'm not really gonna spoon feed everything to you in your attempt to use obfuscation as an argumentation tactic. Ukrainian president Kuchma made Ukraine's desire to join NATO public in 2002. They even sent troops to Iraq in 2003. If you look at the string of events you can see that Ukraine's relations with NATO have been ongoing for decades and did not suddenly pick up steam right before the invasion of Crimea.

Oh, yes, you are altering what he said by taking it out of context. There is a reason why you have not been able to even address that other than to repeat the same claims. Lashing out like that is no sign either.

[Alastor]

I'm not really gonna spoon feed everything to you in your attempt to use obfuscation as an argumentation tactic. Ukrainian president Kuchma made Ukraine's desire to join NATO public in 2002. They even sent troops to Iraq in 2003. If you look at the string of events you can see that Ukraine's relations with NATO have been ongoing for decades and did not suddenly pick up steam right before the invasion of Crimea.

Oh, yes, you are altering what he said by taking it out of context. There is a reason why you have not been able to even address that other than to repeat the same claims. Lashing out like that is no sign either.

Spoon feed? You will need to actually present arguments before you try to spoon feed anything and to accuse me of obfuscation tactics, when you are the one vaguely talking about "facts with context" is the pinnacle of projection. What facts? I have presented facts, links, everything. You have presented nothing. What context? The one that exists only in your head where you are right and everyone else is wrong? Sorry but I'm not interested in inhabiting your reality. If you can't understand that an open pledge in 2008 by the NATO alliance that Ukraine WILL join, is an escalation of Ukraine's bid to a NATO membership, one that got further escalated with the Euromaidan, that's only because you don't want to.

Again, I am altering nothing. There is a reason indeed I'm simply repeating what I have said. You have made no argument as to why what I said is wrong. I can only assume that's because you have no argument. As for the lashing out part, I see you are as always debating in bad faith. So let me put it in terms you may understand:

I have demolished your idiotic, insincere, sad and pathetic argument, harder than Israel has demolished North Gaza. Squirm around as much as you want, use every slimy debate trick you know and you clearly know plenty, it changes nothing. You have presented no arguments. You have presented no sources. You are wrong.

[AqD]

So, given I don't see how it can happen, I also don't see what the point of the war continuing is - unless there is at least some semblance of a plan to prevent Ukraine losing by more direct intervention (and likely causing nuclear war).

Ukraine's fight is helping NATO's war against Russia. We're at war. We've been at war since a KGB agent came to power. It's not just the leader, but an entire branch of people.


Even if a peace settlement is reached, the war against Russia must continue to protect Europe. The only way to keep us safe, as the war has shown us, is to keep Russia half dead, corrupt and continuously being weakened in industry, economy and patriotism, and to create conflict between it and China, and this can be best achieved by helping Putin or whoever succeeds him with weaker control keep his seat.

[Stario]

https://youtu.be/gk7D_TliAuE?si=PjIksWl2uNw56oha

Interesting video. Interesting how much the Russians were able to adapt in many areas - one example being jamming and electronic warfare i.e., EXCALIBUR at beginning war was hitting roughly 70% of targets and now its down to about 6%. Similar stats across the other western weapon systems delivered to Ukraine (JDAM-ER, HIMARS, STORM SHADOW, DRONES etc.
Also the use of Robots against Ukrainian positions. Something out of Terminator movies (well not quite)...but still interesting.
Seems like situation is desperate for the Ukranians if not outright hopeless.

[PointOfViewGun]

Spoon feed? You will need to actually present arguments before you try to spoon feed anything and to accuse me of obfuscation tactics, when you are the one vaguely talking about "facts with context" is the pinnacle of projection. What facts? I have presented facts, links, everything. You have presented nothing. What context? The one that exists only in your head where you are right and everyone else is wrong? Sorry but I'm not interested in inhabiting your reality. If you can't understand that an open pledge in 2008 by the NATO alliance that Ukraine WILL join, is an escalation of Ukraine's bid to a NATO membership, one that got further escalated with the Euromaidan, that's only because you don't want to.

Again, I am altering nothing. There is a reason indeed I'm simply repeating what I have said. You have made no argument as to why what I said is wrong. I can only assume that's because you have no argument. As for the lashing out part, I see you are as always debating in bad faith. So let me put it in terms you may understand:

I have demolished your idiotic, insincere, sad and pathetic argument, harder than Israel has demolished North Gaza. Squirm around as much as you want, use every slimy debate trick you know and you clearly know plenty, it changes nothing. You have presented no arguments. You have presented no sources. You are wrong.

When you write such a salty response its hard to take it seriously and find any merit in it. Claiming that arguments do not exist after failing to refute them is not a good argumentation tactic. Good luck with that.

https://youtu.be/gk7D_TliAuE?si=PjIksWl2uNw56oha

Interesting video. Interesting how much the Russians were able to adapt in many areas - one example being jamming and electronic warfare i.e., EXCALIBUR at beginning war was hitting roughly 70% of targets and now its down to about 6%. Similar stats across the other western weapon systems delivered to Ukraine (JDAM-ER, HIMARS, STORM SHADOW, DRONES etc.
Also the use of Robots against Ukrainian positions. Something out of Terminator movies (well not quite)...but still interesting.
Seems like situation is desperate for the Ukranians if not outright hopeless.

Which Ukrainians? The ones you've been repeatedly claiming to be non-existent?

[Stario]

Which Ukrainians? The ones you've been repeatedly claiming to be non-existent?

Do you mean do I think Ukraine already lost? Yes I do!