# Russian President Vladimir Putin Addresses the Russian people



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Been keeping tabs on this... he's threatening nukes and has mobilized 300,000 troops.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1568391667643973632


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

homesteadforty said:


> Been keeping tabs on this... he's threatening nukes and has mobilized 300,000 troops.


He threatened nukes in response to the use of nukes against Russia.


----------



## robin416 (Dec 29, 2019)

homesteadforty said:


> Been keeping tabs on this... he's threatening nukes and has mobilized 300,000 troops.


Not quite. First he has to drag 300K men up to 50 yrs old kicking and screaming into the military with two weeks training.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Analysis by Larry Johnson - *Game Changer in Ukraine–Referenda*

Now we are getting some insight into Russia’s activities over the last three weeks. It now appears that the withdrawal/retreat from Kharkov was part of a broader plan that is going to culminate in the referenda by the oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson starting this Friday. This is not some last minute, desperate stunt. It flows logically from Russia’s attempt to use the Special Military Operation as leverage to compel serious negotiations on the futures and independence of Donetsk and Luhansk.​​The referenda are part of a dance with Russian law. Russia’s Duma has met and passed legislation that will govern how new territories, along with their citizens, are admitted into the Russian Republic. I must emphasize that the decision to hold the referenda this week was made some weeks ago. Ukraine’s continued shelling of civilians in the Donbas made this move an imperative.​​Once the votes are completed and the results announced, the next move will be Russia’s–i.e., welcoming the former Ukrainian oblasts into the Russian Republic. Once they are admitted, any further attack by Ukraine on those territories will be an act of war against Russia. Putin has made it very clear that he will act against any nation waging war against Russia and its citizens. This move is putting the United States and NATO on notice. If they continue to enable Ukrainian attacks on Russian citizens then they will be targeted in response.​​Continue reading​


----------



## robin416 (Dec 29, 2019)

MoonRiver said:


> He threatened nukes in response to the use of nukes against Russia.


Just who did the threatening and who said they said it?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> He threatened nukes in response to the use of nukes against Russia.


Who used nukes against Russia... and when. I would think that would have made the news somewhere????


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

robin416 said:


> Not quite. First he has to drag 300K men up to 50 yrs old kicking and screaming into the military with two weeks training.


Yeah... there are already anti-war protests in the streets with many arrests being made.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> Analysis by Larry Johnson - *Game Changer in Ukraine–Referenda*
> 
> Now we are getting some insight into Russia’s activities over the last three weeks. It now appears that the withdrawal/retreat from Kharkov was part of a broader plan that is going to culminate in the referenda by the oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson starting this Friday.​


Of course we all trust Russia to hold fair, open and honest referenda in areas they have forced into submission.

We also trust that you will defend their aggression in any way you possibly can... after all, that is what's expected of a commissar. Dobriy vecher Comrade.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

robin416 said:


> Just who did the threatening and who said they said it?


Did you watch the video? I simply wrote what Putin said in the speech.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

“If you can’t find the sucker at the poker table,” goes the saying, “you’re it.” 

Extrapolating that axiom to the present political moment, we may say: “If you don’t hear much about propaganda, that’s what you’re hearing.”


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Propagandists draw their power in large part from the fact that their targets are not aware that propaganda is being used on them.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

And before we start getting posts saying I support Putin, I am for the truth whatever it may be.

After watching the actions of our government and media over the last several years, I know that everything published by the media or stated by the government is, to be polite, suspect. I don't know what the truth is, but I'm pretty sure it is not what we are being told.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> Did you watch the video? I simply wrote what Putin said in the speech.


That's your excuse for every bit of propaganda you have posted since Feb. Sure seems strange that everything you've posted has been pro Russian... even if you're not the one saying it


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> And before we start getting posts saying I support Putin, I am for the truth whatever it may be.





MoonRiver said:


> Did you watch the video? I simply wrote what Putin said in the speech.



I think I may just take the time to search your previous posts and see how many of them supported Ukraine in any way, shape or form. I'll even settle on anything from the Ukrainian perspective. Care to bet on how many I find???


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

homesteadforty said:


> That's your excuse for every bit of propaganda you have posted since Feb. Sure seems strange that everything you've posted has been pro Russian... even if you're not the one saying it


The government lied to us about Covid, and the media lied to us about Covid, but you believe what they are saying about Ukraine. They are lying about inflation, energy, and food prices. They are lying about the southern border and illegal immigration. With this administration, what they say is more likely to be a lie than the truth.

I am pro-truth. To get to the truth you need to look at all available information as objectively as possible trying to keep one's beliefs out of it.

I simply post an alternate analysis of the Ukraine conflict from what the government and media are spoon-feeding us. In most cases, I don't even offer my opinion.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

homesteadforty said:


> I think I may just take the time to search your previous posts and see how many of them supported Ukraine in any way, shape or form. I'll even settle on anything from the Ukrainian perspective. Care to bet on how many I find???


Why should I post from Ukraine's perspective when everyone else does?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> The government lied to us about Covid, and the media lied to us about Covid, but you believe what they are saying about Ukraine.


You are making the *huge* assumption that my main sources are the government and msm.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> Why should I post from Ukraine's perspective when everyone else does?


Ummm... because you _claim_ to be interested in:



MoonRiver said:


> I am pro-truth. To get to the truth you need to look at all available information as objectively as possible trying to keep one's beliefs out of it.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

homesteadforty said:


> You are making the *huge* assumption that my main sources are the government and msm.


Then where did you get the information Putin threatened the use of nukes in his speech?


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> The government lied to us about Covid, and the media lied to us about Covid, but you believe what they are saying about Ukraine. They are lying about inflation, energy, and food prices. They are lying about the southern border and illegal immigration. With this administration, what they say is more likely to be a lie than the truth.
> 
> I am pro-truth. To get to the truth you need to look at all available information as objectively as possible trying to keep one's beliefs out of it.
> 
> I simply post an alternate analysis of the Ukraine conflict from what the government and media are spoon-feeding us. In most cases, I don't even offer my opinion.


Putin is a proven liar. You can count on him being deceitful at all times. Ukraine, a sovereign nation, has been invaded and pillaged by orcs. That is why so few Westerners would take anything Putin says as honest or forthcoming. 

And reposting that Kharkiv was a tactical withdrawal is absolutely bull hockey. They got their butts handed to them.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> Then where did you get the information Putin threatened the use of nukes in his speech?


I watched the speech... I did not hear him threaten to use nukes... he merely stated he would use all available weapons. Objective reasoning let me to the conclusion that his nukes would be included in "all available weapons"... I mean, since he has them available. Couple that with his past threats and I think my conclusion is valid. Maybe _your _version of reasoning tells you something different???


----------



## SWTXRancher_1975 (8 mo ago)

homesteadforty said:


> I watched the speech... I did not hear him threaten to use nukes... he merely stated he would use all available weapons. Objective reasoning let me to the conclusion that his nukes would be included in "all available weapons"... I mean, since he has them available. Couple that with his past threats and I think my conclusion is valid. Maybe _your _version of reasoning tells you something different???


Putin uses nukes he knows Moscow and St. Petersburg get glassed. That’s the end and when everyone loses you lose too.

Anyways, I’ll continue to watch the Russian Moex collapse upon news that the country is going to mobilize troops for the slaughter.


----------



## Max Overhead (Feb 22, 2021)

I think another $100 billion to Ukraine is in order. War isn't a racket, it is the protection of democracy. Don't ask questions, it just slows you down. Get your boosters and put your children on puberty blockers. It's the homesteader's way..


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Viet Nam, Iraq 1 and 2, and Afghanistan have led me to believe the government will say whatever best suits their war/political agenda. The truth means nothing.


----------



## robin416 (Dec 29, 2019)

MoonRiver said:


> Viet Nam, Iraq 1 and 2, and Afghanistan have led me to believe the government will say whatever best suits their war/political agenda. The truth means nothing.


You do realize there are other ways to follow what is going on in Ukraine? I've been following what is happening by reading what the people in Ukraine have to say about what is happening. Additionally it's not just our govt talking about this, it's the other nation states. Even Asian countries are turning against Russia at this time.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

robin416 said:


> You do realize there are other ways to follow what is going on in Ukraine? I've been following what is happening by reading what the people in Ukraine have to say about what is happening. Additionally it's not just our govt talking about this, it's the other nation states. Even Asian countries are turning against Russia at this time.


What do you think I have been posting if not information from non-traditional sources?

You have to understand this is a war between the West and Russia with Ukraine as collateral damage.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Hiro said:


> Putin is a proven liar. You can count on him being deceitful at all times. Ukraine, a sovereign nation, has been invaded and pillaged by orcs. That is why so few Westerners would take anything Putin says as honest or forthcoming.
> 
> And reposting that Kharkiv was a tactical withdrawal is absolutely bull hockey. They got their butts handed to them.


First, are you implying that Biden is not a liar? Or that what NATO and the US put out about Ukraine is not propaganda? Everyone involved in Ukraine, no matter which side they represent, is a liar.

I posted an article that gives an opposing point of view. I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with it, but I do want to hear both sides and not just one.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> First, are you implying that Biden is not a liar? Or that what NATO and the US put out about Ukraine is not propaganda? Everyone involved in Ukraine, no matter which side they represent, is a liar.
> 
> I posted an article that gives an opposing point of view. I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with it, but I do want to hear both sides and not just one.


Now you are just getting nasty. I am not posting things Biden says and then pretending it is just for diversity of view point. You have consistently been carrying a murderous thug's water during this. Why I don't know.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Hiro said:


> Now you are just getting nasty. I am not posting things Biden says and then pretending it is just for diversity of view point. You have consistently been carrying a murderous thug's water during this. Why I don't know.


 The only quote of Putin I remember posting was in this thread where I quoted what Putin actually said in his speech since it appears others may have not listened to it (or read the cc). Since the speech was in the OP, I quoted information from the speech.

What I post are references to other news and opinion sources that have a contrary view. When I post an article about Ivermectin, others often post articles with opposing views. That's how we learn!


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> The only quote of Putin I remember posting was in this thread where I quoted what Putin actually said in his speech since it appears others may have not listened to it (or read the cc). Since the speech was in the OP, I quoted information from the speech.
> 
> What I post are references to other news and opinion sources that have a contrary view. When I post an article about Ivermectin, others often post articles with opposing views. That's how we learn!


So you claim. You have been carrying his water since the days before this began.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Russia wouldn't be on the defence if Putin hadn't decided to invade Ukrane. End of story.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Hiro said:


> So you claim. You have been carrying his water since the days before this began.


You are wrong. I'm just not carrying the US's or Europe's water.

If you look at the majority of posts I have made about Ukraine, I provide a reference with no comment. 

At this point, I think the evidence points to US aggression in Ukraine provoked Russia and that the US could have prevented the war, but chose not to.

If you know differently, please make your factual argument.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> You are wrong. I'm just not carrying the US's or Europe's water.
> 
> If you look at the majority of posts I have made about Ukraine, I provide a reference with no comment.
> 
> ...


What US aggression specifically? Is that why your boy annexed Crimea in 2014? It is pretty darn obvious Russia wants all of Ukraine. Their crappy military just can't do it. They can shell cities and civilian infrastructure from afar and otherwise kill/kidnap civilians, but that is not an effective strategy.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Moonriver. Do you believe that Russia should be allowed to take any of Ukraine?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1572863899934019585


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

We wanted to see Russia go to war. Now we get to see how far the war goes.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Moonriver. Do you believe that Russia should be allowed to take any of Ukraine?


Take? No.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> Take? No.


So are you against this war that Putin started to do this?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

US aggression in Ukraine provoked Russia


Hiro said:


> What US aggression specifically? Is that why your boy annexed Crimea in 2014? It is pretty darn obvious Russia wants all of Ukraine. Their crappy military just can't do it. They can shell cities and civilian infrastructure from afar and otherwise kill/kidnap civilians, but that is not an effective strategy.


Just as in the Arab Spring, the CIA and state department fomented the uprising in Ukraine that deposed the elected President.

I provided 2 things I believe are factual.
1. US aggression in Ukraine provoked Russia​2. The US could have prevented the war, but chose not to​​You chose to ignore both of them.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

painterswife said:


> So are you against this war that Putin started to do this?


How do you define started? Who started the US Civil War?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Uh oh.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> US aggression in Ukraine provoked Russia
> Just as in the Arab Spring, the CIA and state department fomented the uprising in Ukraine that deposed the elected President.
> 
> I provided 2 things I believe are factual.
> 1. US aggression in Ukraine provoked Russia​2. The US could have prevented the war, but chose not to​​You chose to ignore both of them.


No, I asked you to define specifically what US aggression re: Ukraine you are referring to, which you didn't answer
As to the US being able to prevent the war, precisely how could we have prevented it.

You are just grasping around talking points provided by the RT.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> How do you define started? Who started the US Civil War?


Putin started taking parts of Ukraine in 2014. Do you believe he had the right to and still does?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Putin started taking parts of Ukraine in 2014. Do you believe he had the right to and still does?


What I believe and what I believe to be the truth are not necessarily the same. 

What do you believe the US would do if Russia interfered in Mexico to the extent the US interfered in Ukraine?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Hiro said:


> No, I asked you to define specifically what US aggression re: Ukraine you are referring to, which you didn't answer
> As to the US being able to prevent the war, precisely how could we have prevented it.
> 
> You are just grasping around talking points provided by the RT.


As I said, I believe them to be factually accurate so prove them wrong.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> What I believe and what I believe to be the truth are not necessarily the same.
> 
> What do you believe the US would do if Russia interfered in Mexico to the extent the US interfered in Ukraine?


I asked a very simple question. You either believe Putin has the right to take parts of Ukraine or he does not. All other discussion proceeds after that. Will you answer or will you obfuscate?


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> As I said, I believe them to be factually accurate so prove them wrong.


So, to summarize your "thoughts" on the matter. The US provoked Russia to invade Ukraine, but you don't know what the provocation was. The US could have prevented the conflict, but you don't know how.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Hiro said:


> So, to summarize your "thoughts" on the matter. The US provoked Russia to invade Ukraine, but you don't know what the provocation was. The US could have prevented the conflict, but you don't know how.


The way it works is I throw out my hypothesis and if you don't agree with it, either refute it or ignore it.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> The way it works is I throw out my hypothesis and if you don't agree with it, either refute it or ignore it.


If you ever formulate one that has facts, not just unfounded assertions, I'll be happy to refute it.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I asked a very simple question. You either believe Putin has the right to take parts of Ukraine or he does not. All other discussion proceeds after that. Will you answer or will you obfuscate?


Your question was simple which is the problem. The Ukraine conflict is extremely complicated with any number of players pulling the strings. You can try to make it black and white, but it is not. Why was there a revolution to depose the elected president of Ukraine?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> If you look at the majority of posts I have made about Ukraine, I provide a reference with no comment.


Bull. You haven’t commented much on the conflict ever since all your early theories proved wrong and Russia started getting its ass kicked, but you made a hundred or so posts early on, in your own words, explaining how this was was the US’s fault, how Russia was just defending itself, and how Ukraine needed to do the right thing and give up while it still could, based on detailed military analyses you were constructing.

Don’t try to dodge the fact that you‘ve provided A LOT of commentary on this conflict, every word of it pro-a Russia. The post history is there to prove it.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Hiro said:


> If you ever formulate one that has facts, not just unfounded assertions, I'll be happy to refute it.


If it was facts, it wouldn't be a hypothesis, would it?

I said it was my hypothesis and it is based on what I believe to be factual information. That defines what a hypothesis is.

All you have to do is prove either of my 2 assertions is wrong.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> Your question was simple which is the problem. The Ukraine conflict is extremely complicated with any number of players pulling the strings. You can try to make it black and white, but it is not. Why was there a revolution to depose the elected president of Ukraine?


No. I asked a simple question that is simple to answer. What the reason is for your answer would be the next step but if you can't answer the first question with honestly and no guile then there is no point in discussing anything else on the subject. Do you understand that?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> At this point, I think the evidence points to US aggression in Ukraine provoked Russia and that the US could have prevented the war, but chose not to.


This has all been discussed, with detailed facts and timelines that prove that Russia was meddling in Ukraine long before the US started trying to influence them toward western allegiance. The Ukrainian people have chosen, time and time again, to try to align and partner with their western neighbors since their eastern neighbor was forced to release them from Soviet slavery.

The US, EU and NATO welcoming Ukraine to align with the western economy, where Ukraine’s financial and military prosperity are more secure, is not a provocation to Russia unless Russia just wanted to steal Ukraine back in the first place.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)




----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

painterswife said:


> No. I asked a simple question that is simple to answer. What the reason is for your answer would be the next step but if you can't answer the first question with honestly and no guile then there is no point in discussing anything else on the subject. Do you understand that?


I understand you don't know much about the Ukraine War and what led up to it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> I understand you don't know much about the Ukraine War and what led up to it.


You have no idea about that because we did not discuss it. You are refusing to answer a simple question. I did not ask why you believe something I asked what you believe. It is a starting point for a discussion. Why will you not answer that simple question?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


>


Peterson makes some interesting points, and we can’t deny the energy pain we’re facing, but that’s entirely self-inflicted.

His logic fails on the point that he predicted Russia “losing” on Ukraine “winning”.

Ukraine has only one condition under which it could win, and even that is potentially a Pyrrhic victory: if Ukraine manages to do so well on the battlefield that they get Crimea back from Russia, then they regain control over the oil that Russia stole from them in 2014.

Russia doesn’t have a path to military victory anymore. Even if the Ukrainian resistance folded today, they’ve managed to grind Russia’s Army, lauded as the 2nd strongest in the world just eight months ago, down to the bloody nubs.

Putin has put great effort into underplaying the extent to which he’s marshaled his forces throughout this bout of adventurism. He’s called it a “Special Military Operation” to make it seem like a limited, localized effort, despite mobilizing over 10% (of his combined active and reserve) forces for his initial invasion, and had to scrape all the way to the bottom of the materiel barrel, cobbling together units from mixed battalions and half-broken equipment.

Now, seven months into the “special military operation”, he’s conscripting everyone who’s ever given military service, and calling it a “limited mobilization”. What he announced is not a “limited mobilization”. He’s mobilizing like no major nation has done since WWII, and deeper even than many did then. He’s now so desperate that he’s now going to drag old women from their homes to force them to try to fix up mothballed armor, and thrust old Nagant rifles into the hands of old men and bus them to the Ukraine border.

That’s not a “limited mobilization”. That’s a last-ditch military hail-Mary play.

Even if Ukraine capitulates today, Russia has already lost, militarily.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> You are wrong. I'm just not carrying the US's or Europe's water.
> 
> If you look at the majority of posts I have made about Ukraine, I provide a reference with no comment.
> 
> ...


Your position is uninformed. Putin is still using the Soviet playbook, and he doesn't even hide that fact, he says so proudly. So what is that playbook? Before World War II, Lenin and Stalin intentionally starved 2 million Ukrainians by stealing their harvest and trading their grain to the United States and Great Britain in return for steel and other things needed for their infrastructure. The Ukrainians call it The Holodomor. This angered the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians, mostly, have had a strong independence streak ever since. There were no free elections in Crimea, that is a Kremlin lie. There will be no free elections in Donetsk and Luhansk, that is a Kremlin lie. This is nothing more than Putin attempting to piece together the old Soviet Union, and we know that because he has been stating that as his goal since 1999. Most Ukrainians were beginning to want European Union membership...........................and so Russia attacked. You're a fool if you believe anything else.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Peterson makes some interesting points, and we can’t deny the energy pain we’re facing, but that’s entirely self-inflicted.
> 
> His logic fails on the point that he predicted Russia “losing” on Ukraine “winning”.
> 
> ...


I'd like to believe that, but personally I think he hasn't really committed his air force. I think they're trying to avoid mass casualties to their air force, but once they do they will gain air superiority and then they'll just carpet bomb until Ukraine capitulates.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

wiscto said:


> You're a fool if you believe anything else.


The first three words pretty much sums it up.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

wiscto said:


> I'd like to believe that, but personally I think he hasn't really committed his air force. I think they're trying to avoid mass casualties to their air force, but once they do they will gain air superiority and then they'll just carpet bomb until Ukraine capitulates.


They did try to establish air superiority. They failed woefully. The orcs are less likely to be able to now than then.


----------



## crabappleplum (9 mo ago)

Ukraine Threatens 5-Year Prison Sentence For Anyone Voting In "Sham Referendums" | ZeroHedge 

How democratic of the Ukraine government.

Will The United States and NATO Wake Up To What Happened at the Meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization? - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com 

Try to get out of the left vs. right false dichotomy media narratives and look for truth and facts they are hiding from you.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

wiscto said:


> Your position is uninformed. Putin is still using the Soviet playbook, and he doesn't even hide that fact, he says so proudly. So what is that playbook? Before World War II, Lenin and Stalin intentionally starved 2 million Ukrainians by stealing their harvest and trading their grain to the United States and Great Britain in return for steel and other things needed for their infrastructure. The Ukrainians call it The Holodomor. This angered the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians, mostly, have had a strong independence streak ever since. There were no free elections in Crimea, that is a Kremlin lie. There will be no free elections in Donetsk and Luhansk, that is a Kremlin lie. This is nothing more than Putin attempting to piece together the old Soviet Union, and we know that because he has been stating that as his goal since 1999. Most Ukrainians were beginning to want European Union membership...........................and so Russia attacked. You're a fool if you believe anything else.


That has nothing to do with the 2 points I gave. 

Ukraine and the West provoked Putin
(That's a very simple statement. Don't read anything into it that I didn't say.)

The US likely could have prevented the war, but Biden didn't even try.
(Again, I don't understand how this is debatable)

I hope you got everything off your chest. Since I didn't discuss any of the points you made, you have no idea what I think about them.

I will refute one point. Ukraine has a west side and an east side. The west side leans toward Europe and the east leans toward Russia. Ukraine had an elected president that tried to play things down the middle but he was overthrown in what was likely a CIA/State Dept sponsored rebellion and a President favorable to the West was installed.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Hiro said:


> They did try to establish air superiority. They failed woefully. The orcs are less likely to be able to now than then.


I kind of agree. I think they tried to establish low cost air superiority. I don't think they've attempted the more costly version where they sacrifice a lot of aircraft in order to completely destroy Ukraine's air defenses.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

crabappleplum said:


> Ukraine Threatens 5-Year Prison Sentence For Anyone Voting In "Sham Referendums" | ZeroHedge
> 
> How democratic of the Ukraine government.


Anyone who voluntarily votes in a referendum controlled by a foreign invader should be tried for treason. I think 5 years is extremely lenient.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> That has nothing to do with the 2 points I gave.
> 
> Ukraine and the West provoked Putin
> The US likely could have prevented the war, but Biden didn't even try
> ...


Ukraine and The West provoked Putin by making Ukrainians an appealing offer? You actually care what Putin thinks about that? Seriously? You actually care that it interferes with Putin's imperial ambitions, and Ukrainians are supposed to care what you think about that? What is this? Are you Russian? Are you crying in your oatmeal because you want to dominate your neighbors but the Europeans keep forming up to stand up to your bullying?

To say that the east side leans toward Russia is a gross overstatement. A little over half the people in the eastern regions did. And you can't even call Donetsk and Luhansk "half" the country. So that isn't anywhere near half the country. But okay.

Whether the CIA or State Department sponsored it or not, the Ukrainians found out that their president was a corrupt Kremlin crony shoveling all of their wealth into his own pockets, and they realized that even corrupt westerners are nowhere near as crappy a deal as the Kremlin. That's how the world works. You really think Putin doesn't stick his nose into American politics? You aren't that naïve are you? We played the game, we appealed to the Ukrainians, proved that The West was the better deal, and now it's time for Putin to suck it up and stop grinding his country into the dirt.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> That has nothing to do with the 2 points I gave.
> 
> Ukraine and the West provoked Putin
> (That's a very simple statement. Don't read anything into it that I didn't say.)


Why wouldn't we. Russia has been a main adversary of the west for over 100 years. We should take every chance we have to stick it to them.



> The US likely could have prevented the war, but Biden didn't even try.
> (Again, I don't understand how this is debatable)


Why would we try to prevent it. Russia has been a main adversary of the west for over 100 years. We should take every chance we have to stick it to them.

There was nothing in the world that would have stopped Putin's invasion... he has coveted Ukraine since he was a KGB agent. He saw what he considered a weak President elected in the U.S. and started making his operational plans.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

homesteadforty said:


> Why wouldn't we. Russia has been a main adversary of the west for over 100 years. We should take every chance we have to stick it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You can argue about things I never said all you want. 
You can try to read things into what I said.
But no one has in any way shown that those 2 points are not true.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> You can argue about things I never said all you want.
> You can try to read things into what I said.
> But no one has in any way shown that those 2 points are not true.


Try some reading comprehension classes. I'm didn't say if they were true or not but merely said that if they were true... so what???... who cares???... big deal... BFD... etc. that's what adversaries/enemies do... they always have, and they always will. BTW...some deductive reasoning classes might not hurt either... jeez!


----------



## robin416 (Dec 29, 2019)

MoonRiver said:


> That has nothing to do with the 2 points I gave.
> 
> Ukraine and the West provoked Putin
> (That's a very simple statement. Don't read anything into it that I didn't say.)
> ...


What did Biden do or not do that provoked Putin? I still haven't seen you mention that.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

crabappleplum said:


> Ukraine Threatens 5-Year Prison Sentence For Anyone Voting In "Sham Referendums" | ZeroHedge
> 
> How democratic of the Ukraine government.
> 
> ...


This isn’t a left vs right thing. This is a Commies trying to steal territory vs the only good Commie is a dead Commie thing.

I really couldn’t care less about Ukraine, but Russia has been trying to put them back in shackles since they day after they were forced to let them off the plantation in the 90s, and they shouldn’t be allowed to succeed.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

wiscto said:


> I'd like to believe that, but personally I think he hasn't really committed his air force. I think they're trying to avoid mass casualties to their air force, but once they do they will gain air superiority and then they'll just carpet bomb until Ukraine capitulates.





wiscto said:


> I kind of agree. I think they tried to establish low cost air superiority. I don't think they've attempted the more costly version where they sacrifice a lot of aircraft in order to completely destroy Ukraine's air defenses.


That’s the thing: everything Russia has tried in this latest adventure has been the low-rent version because, as we’re finding out, that’s all they got.

Yes, Russia surely has more military, from all branches, that they can pour into this thing, but that’s the case of every military in every war. The last time we were fully mobilized, in WWII, some 75% of our forces at any given time were still right here at home. A country being invaded can only mobilize something like 25-50% of its forces to the front- dependent on geography and logistics. An invading force that has sent even 5-10% of its boots to a front is already “fully deployed”.

For some perspective on how bad @MoonRiver ’s team is failing right now, the Russian fatality count is somewhere between 6,000 and 30,000; 6k being the number Russia admits, 30k being the number Ukraine claims. We can fully expect that both sides are lying, but can’t be sure to what degree.

So, let’s take Russia’s 6,000 figure, for a best-case, never-gonna-happen, Putin’s-one-good-night’s-sleep-in-seven-months-wet-dream -scenario.

If, in only seven months, Russia has lost 6k fighters, that’s almost half what they lost in nine years in Afghanistan. It’s roughly how many we lost in both Iraq AND Afghanistan in 20 years.

Russia started this invasion trying to me-too the US’ “shock and awe” campaigns that we launched in Iraq I, Iraq II and Afghanistan. They started with air and indirect-fire operations, and still failed to sufficiently soften a primary objective enough for their armor chains to be able to take anything west or south of Kyiv, and still had to pull back from the Kyiv offensive in 30 days.

30 days.

They were supposed to have Kyiv in 72 hours, and be negotiating with an in-hand Zelenskyy within the week.

Why did they fail? Two reasons.

1- Russia sucks at everything (sorry, Moon, I should have given you a trigger warning to look away)

2- The west, not wanting to get its hands bloody but see Europe get back to money-printing stability, for the more-equals ASAP, loaded the Ukrainians up with expensive indirect-fire surface-to-surface and surface-to-air weapons.

Russia has had its ass handed to it via a reverse shock-and-awe campaign funded by expensive western weaponry because the western bankers just want this little kerfluffle to go away so they can get back to marching toward digital currencies with expiration dates and mandatory vaccines against boo-boos.

Russia has experienced troop fatality-counts at a rate of 10x their last real war, and at a daily velocity they haven’t seen since Stalingrad. And, and this is the point, they tried to pull a US and exert their dominance via overwhelming technology, from the start. The losses they’ve seen, astounding as they are, have been weighted more heavily toward their Air and Armor corps.

If Putin is now telling the old men to report to their nearest armory to be issued a Nagant, the guy behind them getting the spare stripper, he’s certainly not throwing back shots of vodka with his best fighter pilots, gaming out how they’re going to win this thing.

He’s already gone last-ditch. He’s literally asking the small territory he’s captured to hold a referendum on who’s side they want to be on and, when they inevitably choose their occupier’s side, threatening to launch nukes if the Ukrainians challenge his claim.

Putin is done, and he’s narcissistic enough to insist on taking the world with him. The only thing left to determine is if he’s sufficiently insulated himself from soldiers willing to refuse an order and put him down.


----------



## robin416 (Dec 29, 2019)

@*GunMonkeyIntl *I think that number is closer to 54K now. That seems to be the last number I read. There was a Russian document obtained, don't know how vetted it was, but it dealt with the payouts for the Russian casualties in Ukraine. According to the math the number came to over 40K. The LDR/DNR deaths would not be part of those counts. Nor with Wagner be part of those counts.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

robin416 said:


> What did Biden do or not do that provoked Putin? I still haven't seen you mention that.


I don't believe I said Biden.


----------



## Mike in Ohio (Oct 29, 2002)

homesteadforty said:


> Ummm... because you _claim_ to be interested in:


That's because when he says "truth" he means Pravda.


----------



## robin416 (Dec 29, 2019)

Your words: 
The US likely could have prevented the war, but Biden didn't even try.
(Again, I don't understand how this is debatable)


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

The nuke talk is ramping up. Putin says he has nukes and may use them. Biden says that is a dangerous threat. Zelensky says the US should preemptively use nukes if Russia even THINKS about it. We now know Russia and Ukraine negotiators reached an agreement last April to end the war. The agreement said Russia would leave all Ukrainian territory and Ukraine would agree to not join NATO. That was a win for everybody. But, no, Biden sent his incompetent people to meet Boris Johnson and they killed the agreement. So the war continues and rhetoric increases. Biden's advisors want war with Russia solely because they want regime change there. They want Putin out even though whoever would replace him may be even worse. Know this. If nukes start flying. NYC will be gone and millions of lives with it, along with other cities, including DC. But, whoever is left to represent this administration will declare the whole thing Putin's fault.


----------



## robin416 (Dec 29, 2019)

Where did you get that Zelensky says to preemptively use nukes? He did say that there was a high probability of Russia using them and that the world needed to more strongly lay out what would happen if he does.

Ukraine had already agreed not to join NATO if Russia left them alone. That didn't work out so well. Russia still attacked them so the US had nothing to do with that agreement.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

robin416 said:


> Your words:
> The US likely could have prevented the war, but Biden didn't even try.
> (Again, I don't understand how this is debatable)


Your question. 

@Robin "What did Biden do or not do that provoked Putin? I still haven't seen you mention that."​
Look at what you quoted I said and what you asked. I said nothing about Biden provoking Putin. I said Biden could have likely prevented the war.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Hiro said:


> So, to summarize your "thoughts" on the matter. The US provoked Russia to invade Ukraine, but you don't know what the provocation was. The US could have prevented the conflict, but you don't know how.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Hiro said:

So, to summarize your "thoughts" on the matter. The US provoked Russia to invade Ukraine, but you don't know what the provocation was. The US could have prevented the conflict, but you don't know how.
.................................................................
Ukraine and the West provoked Putin
(That's a very simple statement. Don't read anything into it that I didn't say.)
I did not say provoked Russia TO INVADE UKRAINE.

The US likely could have prevented the war, but Biden didn't even try.
(Again, I don't understand how this is debatable)
I think my answer was clear. Biden could have gotten involved, BUT BIDEN DIDN'T EVEN TRY.

You do remember how long the buildup was and you do remember Biden doing nothing during that time to try to prevent Russia from invading, right?

WASHINGTON —​A group of Republican U.S. senators called on the Biden administration Wednesday to adopt a tougher response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threats to invade Ukraine.​​“Historically, wars are easy to start, and they're hard to finish. *That's why this threat of sanctions after the fact is not alone enough to deter (Russian President) Vladimir Putin and to prevent him from invading — further invading Ukraine*,” Senator John Cornyn said in a Capitol Hill press conference on Wednesday.​​*“Neither are the promises of financial assistance to the Ukrainians sufficient to deter Putin*. And make no mistake about it — our *goal on a bipartisan basis should be to stop Putin and to make him think twice about invading Ukraine*,” Cornyn continued.​​The group includes Republicans from the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees.​​Three of those members — Kevin Cramer, Roger Wicker and Rob Portman — were part of a bipartisan congressional delegation that traveled to Kyiv to meet with Ukrainian officials this week to reinforce U.S. support for Ukraine and its defensive needs.​​A bipartisan group of senators also met virtually with President Biden Wednesday morning to discuss U.S. policy in Ukraine. In a readout of the meeting released afterward, the White House said, “President Biden commended the strong history of support for Ukraine from both sides of the aisle, and agreed to keep working closely with Congress as the Administration prepares to* impose significant consequences in response to further Russian aggression against Ukraine.*”​​VOA​​Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee took to Twitter. “*I am very concerned by the weak, incoherent message we just heard from [President Biden] on Ukraine*,” he posted.​​“This administration must be clear that ANY Putin move into Ukraine is unacceptable, and we should do more to impose costs on him.”​​Representative Michael McCaul, (R-TX), and the top GOP member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee echoed Inhofe’s feelings on the situation. “*President Biden’s remarks on Russia’s buildup near Ukraine tonight were nothing short of a disaster*,” he said, adding that the president’s comments *gave Russia a green light for a limited invasion*.​​1945​


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

MoonRiver said:


> What I believe and what I believe to be the truth are not necessarily the same.
> 
> What do you believe the US would do if Russia interfered in Mexico to the extent the US interfered in Ukraine?


Similar to what we did in Cuba ?


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

MoonRiver said:


> That has nothing to do with the 2 points I gave.
> 
> Ukraine and the West provoked Putin
> (That's a very simple statement. Don't read anything into it that I didn't say.)
> ...


Biden’s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan is a large part of the reason for russia invading urkraine in my opinion. It also seems to be serving as a likely test for china to observe. Factor in the condition of Europe’s military and europes reliance on energy from russia and it would seem putin had a likely easy win.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Redlands Okie said:


> Biden’s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan is a large part of the reason for russia invading urkraine in my opinion. It also seems to be serving as a likely test for china to observe. Factor in the condition of Europe’s military and europes reliance on energy from russia and it would seem putin had a likely easy win.


I agree. Biden is just the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt. 

Biden is Talk Loudly and Don't Carry a Stick.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

robin416 said:


> @*GunMonkeyIntl *I think that number is closer to 54K now. That seems to be the last number I read. There was a Russian document obtained, don't know how vetted it was, but it dealt with the payouts for the Russian casualties in Ukraine. According to the math the number came to over 40K. The LDR/DNR deaths would not be part of those counts. Nor with Wagner be part of those counts.


No doubt it’s higher than 6k. I used that number because that’s the number Putin admits, and even that is HUGE when put in perspective of superpowers in war in the last 40 years.

I tend to believe it’s somewhere closer to that 50k number which, if true, means that Russia is truly on the ropes. That would be 5% of this standing army. Normally, something like 10-15% of a war-posture army is actually frontline fighters. A 5% loss means you’re getting down to mechanics and potato peelers.

That actually jibes with what we’re seeing from Putin. Losing 6,000 troops, seven months into a war that was supposed to last a week, is bad, but not “mobilize 300,000 former soldiers” bad. Losing 50,000 soldiers, in that same short period is exactly “mobilize 300,000 former soldiers” bad.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

poppy said:


> …We now know Russia and Ukraine negotiators reached an agreement last April to end the war. The agreement said Russia would leave all Ukrainian territory and Ukraine would agree to not join NATO. That was a win for everybody. But, no, Biden sent his incompetent people to meet Boris Johnson and they killed the agreement…


You’re mistaken on that. There has not, to anyone’s knowledge, ever been a draft agreement on the table that had Russia pulling out of Ukraine altogether. The draft agreement from April, by reports from both sides, had Russia keeping Donetsk and Luhansk (as well as Crimea). 

We don’t know for sure why the talks fell apart but, from Zelenskyy’s side, the reasoning was that they weren’t willing to give up 1/3 of their country, and they had just discovered the atrocities committed by the Russians in liberated territories.

Whether or not Zelenskyy wanted to sign it, the Russians also backed out, with their defense minister quoting that taking Luhansk and Donetsk was “no longer enough”, and that they wanted Kherson and Kharkiv as well.

There’s been a narrative constructed that the west told Zelenskyy what to do, and that may even be, but Russia publicly rejected the talks because, in April, they still thought they could have half the country and weren’t willing to settle for 1/3.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I am surprised so many people are either not aware, or deny the US role in Russia's action with Ukraine. It is all out there.

This thread is a perfect example of how well US propaganda works.

The US set up Ukraine to fight a proxy war, We got it. The question now is whether the control burn will get out of control.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> I am surprised so many people are either not aware, or deny the US role in Russia's action with Ukraine. It is all out there.
> 
> This thread is a perfect example of how well US propaganda works.
> 
> The US set up Ukraine to fight a proxy war, We got it. The question now is whether the control burn will get out of control.


I’m aware of the extent (I guess that any of us are) of the US’ meddling in Ukraine, but saying that we set them up for a proxy war is far from plain truth. 

Ukraine is a source of strategic power and resources in Eastern Europe, and any country with an active foreign policy would see the value in having them aligned with you rather than your enemy. When the USSR crashed, and was forced to turn loose of its slave states, for economic reasons, the west actively courted alliance with all of them. Was that wrong to do? 

Hungary and Poland have become valuable allies in that theatre, and freedom in Eastern Europe is more secure with them being aligned with the west rather than Russia. Maybe even more importantly, Hungary and Poland are much more productive and prosperous than they were under slavery to Russia. Aligning with the west has been good for Hungary and Poland, as well as good for the west. It pissed Russia off, but so what?

The real “meddling” the West did in Ukraine was in two positions/events. In the first, we helped them to come to action to replace a president that Putin had installed through violence and espionage. In the second, the west offered them a better deal on their Black Sea oil holdings than what Russia offered them. At the end of that second event, Russia showed their true colors and simply took the Ukrainian oil. 

The west’s actions in Ukraine may have been provocative to Russia, but only in the sense that it’s made it harder for Russia to take Ukraine back onto the plantation. I don’t think we owe any apologies for that.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Did we set South Korea up for a proxy war with the Chinese when we helped them to ward off an attempt by the communists to take them over?

Should we feel bad that South Korea doesn’t look more like North Korea today?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> saying that we set them up for a proxy war is far from plain truth.


That is where we part ways. 



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I don’t think we owe any apologies for that.


The apology might come after the nuclear launch. We are playing a very dangerous game.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Did we set South Korea up for a proxy war with the Chinese when we helped them to ward off an attempt by the communists to take them over?
> 
> Should we feel bad that South Korea doesn’t look more like North Korea today?


Apples and oranges. That is weak Monkey


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Apples and oranges. That is weak Monkey


Please share the differences you see in the analog.

For similarities: China fomented a pro-communist insurgency in Korea, trying to bring Korea into alignment with China’s political interests. The US, through direct military involvement, bolstered the democratic government in Korea, and fought off the communists. 

Russia fomented a pro-Russia insurgency in Ukraine, trying to bring Ukraine into alignment with Russia’s political interests. The US, through financial and materiel support, bolstered the Ukrainian military to fight off the Russian invasion. 

The significant difference I see between Korea c. 1950 and Ukraine today is that we’ve stopped short of putting US boots on the ground (at least overtly).


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> The apology might come after the nuclear launch. We are playing a very dangerous game.


If Putin, a crazy, dying dictator decides to launch nukes, you would apologize? For what? Once a nation has nuclear weapons, are we supposed to let them take whatever territory they want?

If Kim launches a nuke into Seoul, is that our fault? If China nukes Taiwan, is that our fault?

Nuclear weapons are a terrible reality of modern geo-politics, but we can’t (shouldn’t) allow it to be a border erasure tool. 

I believe you’ve commented before that you recognize the mistake Chamberlain made in looking the other way when Hitler demanded control of Sudetenland. Would that have become the right choice if Hitler had nuclear weapons?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Please share the differences you see in the analog.
> 
> For similarities: China fomented a pro-communist insurgency in Korea, trying to bring Korea into alignment with China’s political interests. The US, through direct military involvement, bolstered the democratic government in Korea, and fought off the communists.
> 
> ...


What ideology are we fighting in Russia?

Right or wrong, Korea and Vietnam were wars of ideology. 

I see the difference in fighting a named country, versus fighting an ideology. Don't take me wrong, I am not saying our fight in Korea or Vietnam was justified.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> If Putin, a crazy, dying dictator decides to launch nukes, you would apologize? For what? Once a nation has nuclear weapons, are we supposed to let them take whatever territory they want?
> 
> If Kim launches a nuke into Seoul, is that our fault? If China nukes Taiwan, is that our fault?
> 
> ...


Why do you rely so heavily on false equivalencies? 

I do think TPTB will owe the world an apology if Ukraine goes nuclear. You cannot toy with world powers and predict how it plays out. That said, that apology will be a very poor substitute for good judgement.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I believe you’ve commented before that you recognize the mistake Chamberlain made in looking the other way when Hitler demanded control of Sudetenland. Would that have become the right choice if Hitler had nuclear weapons?


The entire world turned a blind eye to Hitler for as long as they could.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> The entire world turned a blind eye to Hitler for as long as they could.


I listened to an interview with Jordan Peterson where he said there is a little Hitler and Stalin in all of us; otherwise, they never could have remained in power. Look at all the people that willingly joined Hitler.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> What ideology are we fighting in Russia?


That’s a question with a simple answer, but one with some nuance. The ideology we’re fighting in Russia is the exact same one we were fighting in the USSR. Whether you call it Monarchy, Totalitarianism, Marxism, Communism or, the modern preference, Oligarchy. All of those are just different names for the same thing; sheep skins on a wolf. 

I say it requires nuance because the west is clearly falling into a state of Oligarchy, but not to the degree that Russia is, and has remained since 1919. If Russia and China were left to adventure, unchecked, we would have no allies. All of our allies would eventually be holdings of the Chinese and Russian oligarchies, and we’d finally have to face them when they were amassing troops at our borders with Mexico and Canada, each long since become slave-states to Russia or China, and each contributing their resources and soldiers to the battle against us. 



HDRider said:


> Right or wrong, Korea and Vietnam were wars of ideology.
> 
> I see the difference in fighting a named country, versus fighting an ideology. Don't take me wrong, I am not saying our fight in Korea or Vietnam was justified.


I guess I’m not understanding your logic, then. We can certainly differ on whether or not Korea and Vietnam were just wars. I happen to think that helping to keep allied nations free of the slavery of Communism is a worthy cause. 

But, to the point of your comment, Korea and Vietnam were wars against an ideology only in that China and Russia were using those countries to fight proxy wars against _us_. China and Russia didn’t publicly acknowledge the depth of their involvement, at the time, but they were using the cover of ideology to hide the war they were waging against democracy and capitalism. 

In Ukraine, Russia is not hiding behind proxy. Sure, they’re using ideological propaganda as an excuse, vis a vis the “de-nazification” of Ukraine, but they are overtly waging the war themselves. 

So, which are you saying is easier to justify, a war against a named country, or a war against an ideological insurgency?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> The entire world turned a blind eye to Hitler for as long as they could.


Sure. We did. The US did because it wasn’t our problem. For all we cared, Hitler could have Europe. It wasn’t in our backyard. That said, had Hitler been allowed to take all of Europe, our allegiance landscape would have looked very different, and we would have been in a much weaker geo-political position. In that light, Hitler was very much our problem as well. 

But that wasn’t really the question. Do you think Chamberlain made a mistake in allowing Hitler to take Sudetenland unchecked? If so, would it have been different if Hitler had nukes?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Why do you rely so heavily on false equivalencies?
> 
> I do think TPTB will owe the world an apology if Ukraine goes nuclear. You cannot toy with world powers and predict how it plays out. That said, that apology will be a very poor substitute for good judgement.


I’ll stand by on this as I asked for clarification on where you see differences between our involvement in Korea and our involvement in Ukraine. Just calling it a false-equivalency may make for a convenient dodge to an inconvenient question, but it doesn’t negate the validity of the question.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That’s a question with a simple answer, but one with some nuance. The ideology we’re fighting in Russia is the exact same one we were fighting in the USSR. Whether you call it Monarchy, Totalitarianism, Marxism, Communism or, the modern preference, Oligarchy. All of those are just different names for the same thing; sheep skins on a wolf.


I disagree. The ideology the US and NATO are fighting is "nationalism". Me, I am in favor of nationalism as opposed to globalism. Ukraine is a WEF war.



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I say it requires nuance because the west is clearly falling into a state of Oligarchy


We have fallen into an oligarchal system. Sadly using "democracy" to do it. The mob likes free stuff and TicTok




GunMonkeyIntl said:


> But, to the point of your comment, Korea and Vietnam were wars against an ideology only in that China and Russia were using those countries to fight proxy wars against _us_.


And we are using a proxy (Ukraine) to fight against Russia.



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> So, which are you saying is easier to justify, a war against a named country, or a war against an ideological insurgency?


I am not in favor of either. A bad ideology will die on its own.

I can justify defending oneself, but I cannot justify an offensive attack, and I see us playing offense with Russia to remove a thorn in the paw of globalism. I don't expect you, or anyone to agree with me. It is just how I see it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Do you think Chamberlain made a mistake in allowing Hitler to take Sudetenland unchecked?


In hindsight, of course



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> If so, would it have been different if Hitler had nukes?


Does Britain also have nukes?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> In hindsight, of course
> 
> 
> Does Britain also have nukes?


In our hypothetical, sure, both Hitler and Chamberlain have nukes. Was Chamberlain’s strategy still a mistake?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

robin416 said:


> *Where did you get that Zelensky says to preemptively use nukes?* He did say that there was a high probability of Russia using them and that the world needed to more strongly lay out what would happen if he does.
> 
> Ukraine had already agreed not to join NATO if Russia left them alone. That didn't work out so well. Russia still attacked them so the US had nothing to do with that agreement.


In this video.

(3) Tucker Carlson: This is insane - YouTube


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> I disagree. The ideology the US and NATO are fighting is "nationalism". Me, I am in favor of nationalism as opposed to globalism. Ukraine is a WEF war.
> 
> 
> We have fallen into an oligarchal system. Sadly using "democracy" to do it. The mob likes free stuff and TicTok


That’s why I said there was a difficult nuance in that answer about ideology. Yes, I agree that we’re becoming an oligarchy as well, but we are not yet anywhere near to the degree that Putin’s Russia is. 

Russia’s position is not nationalism, or at least not naked nationalism. Nationalism is a defensible position, but nationalism with imperialistic designs really means “_our country is best and most important, and we intend to make all nations part of our nation_”. That is exactly what (big C) “Communism” was. It wasn’t about “equity” for the people. It was about putting as many people under the boot of the oligarchy as possible. 




HDRider said:


> And we are using a proxy (Ukraine) to fight against Russia.
> 
> 
> I am not in favor of either. A bad ideology will die on its own.
> ...


We didn’t use Ukraine for anything other than a strategic regional ally. Helping another country to distance themselves from your enemy, toward better alignment with you, is only a “provocation” to that enemy. Russia had no claim over Ukraine. Ukraine didn’t belong to them. 

But, to pivot back to the point above, I do agree with you that the “they” globalist force of the UN/WEF/Fed/CBs is working toward a global oligarchy. Our cooperation with them makes us (the US) part of the problem.

That said, Russia and China aren’t any different. They’re not “not globalists”. They want the world unified under their power. They’re globalists of their own stripe. 

Two questions, but really the same:

In today’s geo-political landscape, where do you feel you’d have a have better chance at avoiding a future under the boot of oligarchy- in the US or Russia/China?

If you were a Ukrainian nationalist, under which alliance would you feel more secure, the west or the east?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> In our hypothetical, sure, both Hitler and Chamberlain have nukes. Was Chamberlain’s strategy still a mistake?


The question becomes was Chamberlain was willing to risk the population of Britain to stop Hitler's advance. Factor in the fact that the world was not lined up behind Chamberlain and one could argue he made the right call.

It is dumb to argue historical actions with the advantage of hindsight. Knowing what is right in the present is hard.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> We didn’t use Ukraine for anything other than a strategic regional ally.


That is the crux of our disagreement.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> The question becomes was Chamberlain was willing to risk the population of Britain to stop Hitler's advance. Factor in the fact that the world was not lined up behind Chamberlain and one could argue he made the right call.
> 
> It is dumb to argue historical actions with the advantage of hindsight. Knowing what is right in the present is hard.


I disagree that it’s dumb to argue historical actions with the advantage of hindsight. That is exactly what a military AAR is, and an AAR is run to ensure that all applicable lessons are taken from an operation that is now in the past. 

To your point, though, the question about the security of the British people is precisely the important one. 

In the no-nukes reality, Chamberlain chose to capitulate to Hitler (what the rest of the world thought is relevant to his decision making, but not the outcome), ostensibly for the security of the British people. In the moment, that’s an easy decision to justify- but what ended up happening?

The British didn’t need a whole-Czechoslovakia, for their security; at least it didn’t so appear. Chamberlain traded security, today, for a less secure future. Once Hitler had brought all of Czechoslovakia under his boot and folded its resources into his, he used those resources to attack the British from a strengthened position. 

So, in hindsight, you’re right, it’s dismissively easy to call Chamberlain’s capitulation a poor choice. That’s exactly why I’m asking the hypothetical about how it would be different if nukes were involved.


----------



## robin416 (Dec 29, 2019)

poppy said:


> In this video.
> 
> (3) Tucker Carlson: This is insane - YouTube


OK.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

poppy said:


> In this video.
> 
> (3) Tucker Carlson: This is insane - YouTube


Tucker’s analysis of Biden’s regime change posture is spot-on, but the specific points about Zelenskyy and the April peace agreement are soft, if not outright wrong. 

First, the comment about preemptive nuclear strikes is purely a choice of interpretation. He chose to focus on Zelenskyy’s use of “as soon as they even think about..” which is something of a colloquialism, and does not necessarily mean precisely what the words sum up to, but Tucker then glassed over the much more important/clear use of the word “retaliatory”. I’m not saying that Zelenskyy was not calling for preemptive nuclear strikes. We don’t know. I’m only saying that the interpretation of that comment is not so cut-and-dried as Tucker implied. 

Second, Tucker also took the RT-common position on why the April talks fell apart. He uses a quote from a magazine article, using the author’s words but implying that they were Boris Johnson’s words. None of us know exactly what Boris Johnson said to Zelenskyy, and it likely did have something to do with “keeping up the fight”, but we don’t know that he said those words, and, more importantly, we don’t know if Zelenskyy was in disagreement and had to be convinced. If, as Zelenskyy has said, he was against signing the agreement due to the atrocities uncovered, then Boris Johnson, assuming he did say something like that, didn’t really convince Zelenskyy of anything. 

Second, Tucker left out additional quotes from that same article (in which a discussion was had here: Western Allies Sabotaged Tentative Ukraine-Russia Peace...).

Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, said in reference to the failure of the April negotiations (his direct quotes in italics):

…this compromise is no longer an option. Even giving Russia all of the Donbas is not enough. “_Now the geography is different,_” Lavrov asserted, in describing Russia’s short-term military aims. “_It’s also Kherson and the Zaporizhzhya regions and a number of other territories_.” 

Summing the issue up as “Boris Johnson went to Kyiv and told Zelenskyy to keep fighting, so that’s why the war wasn’t ended in April” is not a fair assumption and also intentionally leaves out important details that indicate that that is probably not at all what happened.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

HDRider said:


> The entire world turned a blind eye to Hitler for as long as they could.


Au contraire Pierre ..... That is revisionist history, written by the victors of course. The fact is, the majority of the world did not turn a blind eye, they supported the 3rd Reich. Polls in the USA, Canada, Britain, Australia, et al strongly supported Hitler until mid-war. Most of the British in particular opposed honoring the mutual defense treaty with France, but the government did it anyway.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Vjk said:


> Au contraire Pierre ..... That is revisionist history, written by the victors of course. The fact is, the majority of the world did not turn a blind eye, they supported the 3rd Reich. Polls in the USA, Canada, Britain, Australia, et al strongly supported Hitler until mid-war. Most of the British in particular opposed honoring the mutual defense treaty with France, but the government did it anyway.


Bullsquirt. 

You’ve made that claim multiple times, and have yet to offer even a single thing to back it up. Where are these polls?


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

HDRider said:


> That is where we part ways.
> 
> 
> The apology might come after the nuclear launch. We are playing a very dangerous game.


Since we provoked this war, somehow, and have been doing everything wrong, what would you do right now differently if you were in charge of US policy?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Hiro said:


> Since we provoked this war, somehow, and have been doing everything wrong, what would you do right now differently if you were in charge of US policy?


I can't speak for HDRider, but I would tone down the insults and rhetoric and encourage negotiations. An agreement where both parties could save face could be reached. Unfortunately, the US and Europe seem bent on either destroying Putin or war. History is full of cases where a government leader is losing support in his country and opts for war to distract attention from his failed policies and rally the people to back him. I think that is where we are. Elections are soming soon and it is not looking good for the party in power. A war would certainly dominate the news and many would forget all about inflation and other key issues. Those in power now are exactly the type to do such a thing.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

poppy said:


> …I would tone down the insults and rhetoric and encourage negotiations. An agreement where both parties could save face could be reached.


You would encourage Ukraine to give up some of its land to Russia in order to appease them? Why? Why does Ukraine owe Russia a single inch of its land? In fact, Russia still owes Ukraine its Crimean region back. 

If we really want to stay out of it, then we get out of it. We stop sending weapons and money to Ukraine, but, if they want to keep fighting, why would we want to encourage them to bow to the demands of an invader? I don’t get what purpose that serves.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Hiro said:


> Since we provoked this war, somehow, and have been doing everything wrong, what would you do right now differently if you were in charge of US policy?


Horse is out now. All we can do is see where he goes


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Horse is out now. All we can do is see where he goes


So, with the current situation at-hand, you think we’re doing the right things?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> So, with the current situation at-hand, you think we’re doing the right things?


I have never said bleeding Russia was wrong. Reagan did it very eloquently during his time battling the USSR.

This effort now is ham fisted, clumsy and very dangerous. Putin is becoming cornered. We all know you fight hardest with your back to the wall. 

Strategy should have a high probability of success. I don't think a proxy war with a desperate nuclear power is smart.

As to whether what we are doing is "right", it is too late to ask that question. How this turns out all depends on whether Putin backs down.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

HDRider said:


> I have never said bleeding Russia was wrong. Reagan did it very eloquently during his time battling the USSR.
> 
> This effort now is ham fisted, clumsy and very dangerous. Putin is becoming cornered. We all know you fight hardest with your back to the wall.
> 
> ...


You and @MoonRiver are still basing everything on unproven hypothesis that this wouldn't have happened without our involvement. The US Dept. of State and other US officials primary concern involving themselves with Ukraine wasn't strategic opposition to Russia, imho. It was simply to keep the money laundering operation going. 

I'll go back to my original concern, this debacle Russia is involved in was easily predicted, would have been more likely to succeed if they had waited until this November and had slowly squeezed out gas shipments to Europe this summer so that they couldn't stockpile and secure alternative sources. So, why did they do it when they did and what are we missing?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Hiro said:


> You and @MoonRiver are still basing everything on unproven hypothesis that this wouldn't have happened without our involvement.
> 
> So, why did they do it when they did and what are we missing?


I admit proving what might have happened if history was completely different is difficult.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Hiro said:


> So, why did they do it when they did?


I thought everyone knew that


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

HDRider said:


> I thought everyone knew that


Educate this poor farmer.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Hiro said:


> Educate this poor farmer.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

So Brandon will be gone by this November?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Hiro said:


> So Brandon will be gone by this November?


Yes, if DeSantis gets the (R) nomination.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Hiro said:


> So Brandon will be gone by this November?


Not sure what you mean.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

My calendar must be messed up.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Hiro said:


> My calendar must be messed up.


I do believe you are correct... I guess I let my wishful thinking get in the way  . Ackkk... that means we have two more years.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

The *Maidan coup* (_pron: My-dan coo_) or *Ukrainian crisis of 2014* was a U.S-backed color revolution which brought the neo-fascist *Maidan regime* to power. It began when the democratically elected government of President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown on February 22, 2014 following months of agitation by the Obama State Department and John Brennan's CIA. It was an extension or continuation into Europe of the Obama administration's failed "Arab Spring" regime change policy and widely seen as Western imperialism.

With the overthrow of the democratically elected government, in April 2014 the majority Russian populations in Crimea and Donbas voted for re-incorporation into the Russian Federation in popular plebiscites; Crimea's request for re-admission was accepted by the Russian State Duma,[13] while the Donbas territories were rejected. The Donetsk and the Lugansk People's Republics then declared independence as the fascist Maidan regime implemented a full-scale policy of ethnic cleansing and began artillery shelling of civilian residential neighborhoods to drive ethnic Russians and Russian-speakers out of the former Ukrainian territories. The newly declared independent republics organized their own defense militias.





__





Maidan coup - Conservapedia







www.conservapedia.com


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Revolution of Dignity - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





_The *Revolution of Dignity* (Ukrainian: Революція гідності, romanized: Revoliutsiia hidnosti), also known as the *Maidan Revolution* and the *Ukrainian Revolution*,[2] took place in Ukraine in February 2014[2][1] at the end of the Euromaidan protests,[1] when deadly clashes between protesters and the security forces in the Ukrainian capital Kyiv culminated in the ousting of elected President Viktor Yanukovych, the overthrow of the Ukrainian government, and the outbreak of the Russo-Ukrainian War.[1][2]
In November 2013, a wave of large-scale protests (known as Euromaidan) erupted in response to President Yanukovych's sudden decision not to sign a political association and free trade agreement with the European Union (EU), instead choosing closer ties to Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union. In February of that year, the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian parliament) had overwhelmingly approved finalizing the agreement with the EU.[26] Russia had put pressure on Ukraine to reject it.[27] These protests continued for months; their scope widened, with calls for the resignation of Yanukovych and the Azarov Government.[28] Protesters opposed what they saw as widespread government corruption and abuse of power, the influence of oligarchs, police brutality, and violation of human rights in Ukraine.[29][30] Repressive anti-protest laws fuelled further anger.[29] A large, barricaded protest camp occupied Independence Square in central Kyiv throughout the 'Maidan Uprising'.
In January and February 2014, clashes in Kyiv between protesters and Berkut special riot police resulted in the deaths of 108 protesters and 13 police officers,[20] and the wounding of many others. The first protesters were killed in fierce clashes with police on Hrushevskoho Street on 19–22 January. Following this, protesters occupied government buildings throughout the country. The deadliest clashes were on 18–20 February, which saw the most severe violence in Ukraine since it regained independence.[31] Thousands of protesters advanced towards parliament, led by activists with shields and helmets, and were fired on by police snipers.[20] On 21 February, an agreement between President Yanukovych and the leaders of the parliamentary opposition was signed that called for the formation of an interim unity government, constitutional reforms and early elections.[32] The following day, police withdrew from central Kyiv, which came under effective control of the protesters. Yanukovych fled the city.[33] That day, the Ukrainian parliament voted to remove Yanukovych from office by 328 to 0 (72.8% of the parliament's 450 members).[34][35][36][32]
Yanukovych said that this vote was illegal and possibly coerced, and asked Russia for help.[37] Russia considered the overthrow of Yanukovych to be an illegal coup, and did not recognize the interim government. Widespread protests, both for and against the revolution, occurred in eastern and southern Ukraine, where Yanukovych previously received strong support in the 2010 presidential election. These protests escalated into violence, resulting in pro-Russian unrest throughout Ukraine, especially in the southern and east regions in the country. As such, the early phase of the Russo-Ukrainian War soon quickly escalated into a Russian military intervention,[38][39] the annexation of Crimea by Russia, and the creation of self-proclaimed breakaway states in Donetsk and Luhansk. This sparked the Donbas War, and culminated with Russia initiating a full-scale invasion of the country in 2022.
The interim government, led by Arseniy Yatsenyuk, signed the EU association agreement and disbanded the Berkut. Petro Poroshenko became president after a victory in the 2014 presidential elections (54.7% of the votes cast in the first round). The new government restored the 2004 amendments to the Ukrainian constitution that had been controversially repealed as unconstitutional in 2010,[40] and initiated a removal of civil servants associated with the overthrown regime.[41][42][43] There was also a widespread decommunization of the country._


*My memory may not be what it used to be, but for once Wikipedia seems a much more accurate representation of what I recall. *


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Hiro said:


> Revolution of Dignity - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you like the liberal interpretation of history. Wikipedia is as biased as Google, FB, Twitter, etc.

Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, published a blog post this month declaring that the online encyclopedia’s “neutral point of view” policy is “dead” due to the rampant left-wing bias of the site. Noting the article on President Donald Trump, Sanger contrasted its extensive coverage of presidential scandals with the largely scandal-free article on former President Barack Obama.​...​On May 14, Sanger published a blog piece titled “Wikipedia Is Badly Biased” and started by declaring Wikipedia’s “Neutral Point of View” policy dead. Having founded the online encyclopedia with Jimmy Wales and having been involved in the original drafting of the policy, Sanger offered particular insight into its development and its practice in recent years. On the current policy’s rejection of providing “equal validity” to different views, Sanger stated this went directly against the original policy’s intent and that “as journalists turn to opinion and activism, Wikipedia now touts controversial points of view on politics, religion, and science.”​​Breitbart​


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> If you like the liberal interpretation of history. Wikipedia is as biased as Google, FB, Twitter, etc.
> 
> Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, published a blog post this month declaring that the online encyclopedia’s “neutral point of view” policy is “dead” due to the rampant left-wing bias of the site. Noting the article on President Donald Trump, Sanger contrasted its extensive coverage of presidential scandals with the largely scandal-free article on former President Barack Obama.​...​On May 14, Sanger published a blog piece titled “Wikipedia Is Badly Biased” and started by declaring Wikipedia’s “Neutral Point of View” policy dead. Having founded the online encyclopedia with Jimmy Wales and having been involved in the original drafting of the policy, Sanger offered particular insight into its development and its practice in recent years. On the current policy’s rejection of providing “equal validity” to different views, Sanger stated this went directly against the original policy’s intent and that “as journalists turn to opinion and activism, Wikipedia now touts controversial points of view on politics, religion, and science.”​​Breitbart​


Yeah, that's me a left wing dude. That hooey you posted is an abomination to the historical facts surrounding those events.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Hiro said:


> Yeah, that's me a left wing dude. That hooey you posted is an abomination to the historical facts surrounding those events.


And where did you learn these facts from? We have been lied to by the media for as long as I have been alive, but Obama raised it to an art form. Thanks to the Patriot Act, Obama was able to use the Intelligence community as the government's propaganda vehicle. The FBI leaks to the Washington Post, DOJ to the NYT, etc. Each agency has contacts with a specific media outlet to get the information out that they want to be pushed. Remember all the intelligence analysts CNN had on that flat-out lied to the American people?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> And where did you learn these facts from? We have been lied to by the media for as long as I have been alive, but Obama raised it to an art form. Thanks to the Patriot Act, Obama was able to use the Intelligence community as the government's propaganda vehicle. The FBI leaks to the Washington Post, DOJ to the NYT, etc. Each agency has contacts with a specific media outlet to get the information out that they want to be pushed. Remember all the intelligence analysts CNN had on that flat-out lied to the American people?


If everybody is a liar, then there's no sense in you posting all this crap... right??? Or are your sources the only honest ones??? Or... maybe you're claiming to be the only one intelligent enough to figure out the truth???


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> And where did you learn these facts from? We have been lied to by the media for as long as I have been alive, but Obama raised it to an art form. Thanks to the Patriot Act, Obama was able to use the Intelligence community as the government's propaganda vehicle. The FBI leaks to the Washington Post, DOJ to the NYT, etc. Each agency has contacts with a specific media outlet to get the information out that they want to be pushed. Remember all the intelligence analysts CNN had on that flat-out lied to the American people?


You are way off base on this pro-neo Soviet love affair. I have no illusions of the US, EU, or Ukraine as virginal states. But, the whole affair with Ukraine during 2013-2014 up until now is a clear cut attempted takeover by Putin to make them a part of a new USSR. Or do you still pretend to think it is to prevent a land border with NATO? 

Your allegiances are clear.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

HDRider said:


> People sometimes fall for lies





homesteadforty said:


> I usually don't but I'm certainly not above it.





Hiro said:


> No one is above it. Those that think they are have issues.





HDRider said:


> And then they argue about it, each knowing they are right, and the other is an idiot


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Fair enough. But, I have first hand knowledge of some things that makes it hard to tolerate propaganda that I know to be BS.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Hiro said:


> You are way off base on this pro-neo Soviet love affair. I have no illusions of the US, EU, or Ukraine as virginal states. But, the whole affair with Ukraine during 2013-2014 up until now is a clear cut attempted takeover by Putin to make them a part of a new USSR. Or do you still pretend to think it is to prevent a land border with NATO?
> 
> Your allegiances are clear.


You mistake my distrust of our own government for a favorable view of Russia. 

I just read this post by Dr. Malone. Do you believe this is something new? I urge you to consider what you believe to be true may not be. I have gone from someone who used to be rigid in my thinking to now questioning everything and seeking out alternate explanations and sources. Something as simple as doing a search is going to direct you to what is approved and quite often, not even list sources deemed unacceptable. 

Quote from Dr. Malone:

Reading this paper brought tears to my eyes. I and others are getting hammered from all sides in this fight - including a lot of clearly controlled opposition, who are being sponsored to “attack from within” via government, advertising $$$, clicks and media fame. There are also more and more false-flag psyop campaigns that are being pushed into social media. Alternative media is under attack by what appears to be “friendly” fire, but is probably an effort by government to interject doubt into groups that they disapprove of - such as those that questions the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines. In any case, those of us on the front lines are under constant stress.​​The government has all the resources in the world. This truly is psychological asymmetric warfare by our government against scientists and healthcare workers who don’t comply with their narrative.​


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> You mistake my distrust of our own government for a favorable view of Russia.
> 
> I just read this post by Dr. Malone. Do you believe this is something new? I urge you to consider what you believe to be true may not be. I have gone from someone who used to be rigid in my thinking to now questioning everything and seeking out alternate explanations and sources. Something as simple as doing a search is going to direct you to what is approved and quite often, not even list sources deemed unacceptable.
> 
> ...


You have consistently favored neo-Soviet views and propaganda since February even when presented with evidence that it was propaganda. I still don't know why.


----------



## SWTXRancher_1975 (8 mo ago)

poppy said:


> The nuke talk is ramping up. Putin says he has nukes and may use them. Biden says that is a dangerous threat. Zelensky says the US should preemptively use nukes if Russia even THINKS about it. We now know Russia and Ukraine negotiators reached an agreement last April to end the war. The agreement said Russia would leave all Ukrainian territory and Ukraine would agree to not join NATO. That was a win for everybody. But, no, Biden sent his incompetent people to meet Boris Johnson and they killed the agreement. So the war continues and rhetoric increases. Biden's advisors want war with Russia solely because they want regime change there. They want Putin out even though whoever would replace him may be even worse. Know this. If nukes start flying. NYC will be gone and millions of lives with it, along with other cities, including DC. But, whoever is left to represent this administration will declare the whole thing Putin's fault.


The whole thing is Putin’s fault. Without his approval Russia wouldn’t be doing this. So yeah, they’d be right.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Hiro said:


> You have consistently favored neo-Soviet views and propaganda since February even when presented with evidence that it was propaganda. I still don't know why.


Simply your opinion. I have posted links to articles that offer a different perspective than mainstream media. Everyone is free to take it for what it is worth. I don't understand why people get upset that I don't agree with their set of "facts". None of us know the real truth about what is happening and why. I still find it amazing that a person realizes the government and media lied to them about covid, but believes what they say about Ukraine.

That's why I listed only 2 things that I believe to be true.

The US and the West provoked Putin. (Notice how you add to attack Ukraine. That should tell you that you just might be making assumptions.)
Biden likely could have prevented the war
I think it's great you and @homesteadforty have it all figured out.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> I think it's great you and @homesteadforty have it all figured out.


Thank you for finally realizing it


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Simply your opinion. I have posted links to articles that offer a different perspective than mainstream media. Everyone is free to take it for what it is worth. I don't understand why people get upset that I don't agree with their set of "facts". None of us know the real truth about what is happening and why. I still find it amazing that a person realizes the government and media lied to them about covid, but believes what they say about Ukraine.
> 
> That's why I listed only 2 things that I believe to be true.
> 
> ...


That’s the thing, you’re not just posting articles that provide a different perspective than the MSM. You’re actively selecting items from history that construct a pro-Russia, anti-West narrative. 

You’ve posted the same tripe, several times, about how the US meddled in the 2014 election, but, EVERY SINGLE TIME, refuse to acknowledge that it was in response to Russia’s extremely heavy handed meddling in the 2010 election, up to and including assassination attempts against the opposition party. 

The historical timeline, not the MSM narrative, but the actual historical events, of post-Soviet Ukraine are clear, and it starts with Russia quite overtly trying to install and keep puppet governments in place there. The US largely stayed out of it until, in 2010, Putin tried to kill and stole an election from a democratically-elected president that reflected the will of the Ukrainian people to align with the EU. 

Nobody is making the claim that everything the USDOS and CIA do are 100% on the up-and-up and giving them a pass. You, on the other hand, have spent your every breath on this issue trying to make excuses and carry water for Russia.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

SWTXRancher_1975 said:


> The whole thing is Putin’s fault. Without his approval Russia wouldn’t be doing this. So yeah, they’d be right.


Putin is not good but he is no worse than many other leaders. From your name, I assume you are in Texas. Would you be okay with China or Russia putting offensive weapons in Mexico and urging Mexico to ally with them? I guarantee you would, or should, raise hell. Look what we did when Russia put missiles in Cuba. We came close to going to war with Russia over that and Cuba owed the US nothing. No dofferent than how Russia feels about Ukraine. Putin simply does not want NATO threatening his home country and that is the main reason he wants more territory as a buffer zone. There are also a lot of Russian people in that land he wants. Is Putin a bad leader? Sure. Is China's leader a bad leader? Sure, but for some reason this administration is willing to go to war with one but bows to the other one that is a far bigger threat to the US than Russia. There are many in this administration hell bent on destroying Russia simply because they still believe Putin helped Trump win an election, even though it has been proven false. It is insanity on full parade.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

poppy said:


> Putin is not good but he is no worse than many other leaders. From your name, I assume you are in Texas. Would you be okay with China or Russia putting offensive weapons in Mexico and urging Mexico to ally with them? I guarantee you would, or should, raise hell. Look what we did when Russia put missiles in Cuba. We came close to going to war with Russia over that and Cuba owed the US nothing. No dofferent than how Russia feels about Ukraine. Putin simply does not want NATO threatening his home country and that is the main reason he wants more territory as a buffer zone. There are also a lot of Russian people in that land he wants. Is Putin a bad leader? Sure. Is China's leader a bad leader? Sure, but for some reason this administration is willing to go to war with one but bows to the other one that is a far bigger threat to the US than Russia. There are many in this administration hell bent on destroying Russia simply because they still believe Putin helped Trump win an election, even though it has been proven false. It is insanity on full parade.


I think you left out a key player. Is Biden a bad leader?


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> I think you left out a key player. Is Biden a bad leader?


Brandon is not in charge of anything.


----------



## SWTXRancher_1975 (8 mo ago)

poppy said:


> Putin is not good but he is no worse than many other leaders. From your name, I assume you are in Texas. Would you be okay with China or Russia putting offensive weapons in Mexico and urging Mexico to ally with them? I guarantee you would, or should, raise hell. Look what we did when Russia put missiles in Cuba. We came close to going to war with Russia over that and Cuba owed the US nothing. No dofferent than how Russia feels about Ukraine. Putin simply does not want NATO threatening his home country and that is the main reason he wants more territory as a buffer zone. There are also a lot of Russian people in that land he wants. Is Putin a bad leader? Sure. Is China's leader a bad leader? Sure, but for some reason this administration is willing to go to war with one but bows to the other one that is a far bigger threat to the US than Russia. There are many in this administration hell bent on destroying Russia simply because they still believe Putin helped Trump win an election, even though it has been proven false. It is insanity on full parade.



so… still his fault.

Russia has a history of going into their neighbors and conquering them to use as slave labor/cannon fodder. This is an attempt of more or less the same.

and to answer your question, it’s a complete false equivalency. The west has been pouring training and munitions into Ukraine since 2014 because that’s when this war of Russian aggression started with the invasion of Crimea.

If the US went and seized Juarez and Nuevo Laredo because we like having access to cheap Mexican labor and resources (tho N Mex exists entirely as a trade hub with the US) back in 2014 and the Mexicans armed with Russian or Chinese weapons on the border I still wouldn’t support the US in that endeavor. Which is more equivalent to what’s happening there.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> You would encourage Ukraine to give up some of its land to Russia in order to appease them? Why? Why does Ukraine owe Russia a single inch of its land? In fact, Russia still owes Ukraine its Crimean region back.
> 
> If we really want to stay out of it, then we get out of it. We stop sending weapons and money to Ukraine, but, if they want to keep fighting, why would we want to encourage them to bow to the demands of an invader? I don’t get what purpose that serves.


Crimea is historically Russian territory. It was only given to Ukraine in 1953. Even so, it has been the home of Russia's Eastern fleet for centuries and that it shall remain. The areas Russia seized have a large ethnic majority of Russian descent. The minions of Obama who overthrew the Ukraine government in 2014 have been killing those ethnic Russians ever since, and Putin finally said enough. Russia and Ukraine had reached an agreement, but Biden et al put the kibbosh on it. And Zelenski is an all-in 100% globalist. The same excrement as Biden, Obama, Schwab et al.


----------



## SWTXRancher_1975 (8 mo ago)

Vjk said:


> Crimea is historically Russian territory. It was only given to Ukraine in 1953. Even so, it has been the home of Russia's Eastern fleet for centuries and that it shall remain. The areas Russia seized have a large ethnic majority of Russian descent. The minions of Obama who overthrew the Ukraine government in 2014 have been killing those ethnic Russians ever since, and Putin finally said enough. Russia and Ukraine had reached an agreement, but Biden et al put the kibbosh on it. And Zelenski is an all-in 100% globalist. The same excrement as Biden, Obama, Schwab et al.


Found the Putler brown noser.

Claims of ethnic purging of Russians are completely unsubstantiated. If anything the Russians purged the Ukrainians then imported their own citizens into the territory.

To say the US overthrew Ukraine in 2014, directly or indirectly is a drastic oversimplification of the Obama admins foreign policy preferences. Sure, having a west friendly government in power is preferable but we were not organizing their revolution, that was an in-house affair.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

SWTXRancher_1975 said:


> Found the Putler brown noser.
> 
> Claims of ethnic purging of Russians are completely unsubstantiated. If anything the Russians purged the Ukrainians then imported their own citizens into the territory.
> 
> To say the US overthrew Ukraine in 2014, directly or indirectly is a drastic oversimplification of the Obama admins foreign policy preferences. Sure, having a west friendly government in power is preferable but we were not organizing their revolution, that was an in-house affair.


And where did you get all these facts from?


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

HDRider said:


> The entire world turned a blind eye to Hitler for as long as they could.


As they have Putin


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

poppy said:


> Putin is not good but he is no worse than many other leaders. From your name, I assume you are in Texas. Would you be okay with China or Russia putting offensive weapons in Mexico and urging Mexico to ally with them? I guarantee you would, or should, raise hell. Look what we did when Russia put missiles in Cuba. We came close to going to war with Russia over that and Cuba owed the US nothing. No dofferent than how Russia feels about Ukraine. Putin simply does not want NATO threatening his home country and that is the main reason he wants more territory as a buffer zone. There are also a lot of Russian people in that land he wants. Is Putin a bad leader? Sure. Is China's leader a bad leader? Sure, but for some reason this administration is willing to go to war with one but bows to the other one that is a far bigger threat to the US than Russia. There are many in this administration hell bent on destroying Russia simply because they still believe Putin helped Trump win an election, even though it has been proven false. It is insanity on full parade.


I think Putin wants the resources in Ukraine. Warmish water port, oil, productive land, traditional area of precision industrial ability, etc. The buffer zone seems to me to be propaganda.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

SWTXRancher_1975 said:


> so… still his fault.
> 
> Russia has a history of going into their neighbors and conquering them to use as slave labor/cannon fodder. This is an attempt of more or less the same.
> 
> ...


We have been getting more cheap Mexican labor than needed for decades. No need to annex Juarez and Nuevo Laredo.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

Hiro said:


> You have consistently favored neo-Soviet views and propaganda since February even when presented with evidence that it was propaganda. I still don't know why.


Russia and the Soviet Union are not synonymous.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Vjk said:


> Russia and the Soviet Union are not synonymous.


Try to follow along.


----------



## SWTXRancher_1975 (8 mo ago)

Redlands Okie said:


> We have been getting more cheap Mexican labor than needed for decades. No need to annex Juarez and Nuevo Laredo.


Yes I know lol. NAFTA benefits both sides pretty well. It would be dumb to take over Mexico because it’s more valuable as a trade partner than as a territory to be held via military power. Ukraine for a Russia SHOULD essentially be the same, but Russians gotta Russia.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Vjk said:


> Russia and the Soviet Union are not synonymous.


Fraternal twins instead of maternal twins... two peas in a pod... interchangeable... indistinguishable... cut from the same cloth... like Tweedledee and Tweedledum.


----------



## SWTXRancher_1975 (8 mo ago)

homesteadforty said:


> Fraternal twins instead of maternal twins... two peas in a pod... interchangeable... indistinguishable... cut from the same cloth... like Tweedledee and Tweedledum.


The USSR at its height was a Russian agenda realized.
Expand in all directions until all direct invasion routes to Moscow are buffered with tens of millions of lives to be sacrificed that are not Russian.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Vjk said:


> Russia and the Soviet Union are not synonymous.


You’re right. One is a totalitarian state, head-quartered in Moscow and bent on global domination, facilitated by an oligarchy paid off by the totalitarian. The other is a totalitarian state, head-quartered in Moscow and bent on global domination, facilitated by an oligarchy paid off by the totalitarian.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Some perspective

US Miltary deaths in WWII - about 400,00
Soviet Deaths in WWII - About 10 million plus additional 10-20 million civilian deaths


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> Some perspective
> 
> US Miltary deaths in WWII - about 400,00
> Soviet Deaths in WWII - About 10 million plus additional 10-20 million civilian deaths


Other perspective, the USSR allied itself with Nazi Germany to divide up eastern Europe. Just because they decided to fight Nazi Germany after Nazi Germany invaded them, does not make them virtuous. Imprisoning half of Europe under their totalitarian rule for 40+ years afterwards puts them in the right perspective.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Hiro said:


> Other perspective, the USSR allied itself with Nazi Germany to divide up eastern Europe. Just because they decided to fight Nazi Germany after Nazi Germany invaded them, does not make them virtuous. Imprisoning half of Europe under their totalitarian rule for 40+ years afterwards puts them in the right perspective.


I simply posted a couple of facts with no opinion or editorial comment.


----------



## Pickupman (11 mo ago)

MoonRiver said:


> I simply posted a couple of facts with no opinion or editorial comment.


Funny. Seems like all of your “facts” are pro-Russia/Putin.
Do you really think people can’t figure out what your opinion is?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Pickupman said:


> Funny. Seems like all of your “facts” are pro-Russia/Putin.
> Do you really think people can’t figure out what your opinion is?


I didn't know we had that many mind readers here. Why are so many scared of simple facts that they have to assign meaning to them beyond what was stated?

And that would be pro-Russian as opposed to what? Pro Biden? Pro NATO? Pro EU?

Why are people so upset that I am searching for the truth, as opposed to simply being anti-Russia? Facts over feelings.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> Some perspective
> 
> US Miltary deaths in WWII - about 400,00
> Soviet Deaths in WWII - About 10 million plus additional 10-20 million civilian deaths


What perspective are these facts supposed to show???

You forgot to mention the 20 million or so deaths in Gulags, etc during Soviet rule. You also forgot to mention millions of deaths from Russian invasions of its neighbors (Azerbaijan, Georgia, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Ukraine, etc.).


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

homesteadforty said:


> What perspective are these facts supposed to show???
> 
> You forgot to mention the 20 million or so deaths in Gulags, etc during Soviet rule. You also forgot to mention millions of deaths from Russian invasions of its neighbors (Azerbaijan, Georgia, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Ukraine, etc.).


I forgot nothing. The perspective was a comparison of deaths during WWII of the US and Soviet Union. Why reply to my post if you want to discuss something different?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> I didn't know we had that many mind readers here. Why are so many scared of simple facts...


Believe me @MoonRiver, nobody here finds your "facts" scary. I'd say most find your posts range from inane to outright propaganda... often with a good dash of hilarity mixed in.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> I forgot nothing. The perspective was a comparison of deaths during WWII of the US and Soviet Union. Why reply to my post if you want to discuss something different?


Who said I want to discuss something different??? I simply presented further perspective and question what on Gods green earth your "perspective" has to do with any of the conversation so far?????


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

This closely mirrors my beliefs about the Ukrainian War. The only thing I would add is the meddling of the WEF. Since so many of you think you know what I believe, I hope you take the time to watch the entire video and learn what I actually believe.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

It seems some are still stuck in the cold war days or else get their reasoning from the lie that Putin helped Trump win election. Look at Russia. They can't even defeat Ukraine militarily. What chance would they have against Europe? Zero. However, they do have nukes that would kill millions both here and abroad. I see some of the most ardent supporters of COVID lockdowns for a disease that killed 1 million people in this country openly calling for actions that could cost 100 million lives in this country. That is insane in my book. What exactly is the US going to gain by giving Ukraine billions of dollars? Ukraine has for decades been one of the most corrupt countries in the world and much of those billions will end up in someone's pocket. But face it, we are using Ukraine to do the fighting while hoping Putin will be removed from power. The war is a proxy war and we are involved while wanting people to believe our hands are clean.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> Some perspective
> 
> US Miltary deaths in WWII - about 400,00
> Soviet Deaths in WWII - About 10 million plus additional 10-20 million civilian deaths


LOL please stop, I'm getting side cramps. The Soviet Union was an aggressor in WWII, and anyone with any understanding of history knows that. They starved 2 million Ukrainians to buy the infrastructure they needed to wage the future wars of conquest Stalin had in mind. They agreed to split Poland with Germany and massacred 40,000 Polish officers. Then they used the Blitzkrieg as cover for their invasion of Finland. And frankly, we still don't know how many millions of Soviet citizens died at the hands of the Germans and how many died at the hands of the Russians themselves. We will likely never know. And Vladimir Putin considers himself the policy descendent of these Russian fools who helped drag the world into WWII.

Furthermore, the Soviets were dead without the United States, just like the rest of Europe, and even Stalin, Zhukov, and Kruschev all admitted it. You would know that if you actually studied the history. We built over 90% of their railroad equipment, including 20,000 locomotives and around 500,000 railcars. We built 1/3rd of the Red Army's trucks. We gave them steel, aluminum, cable, food, cloths, and most importantly guns and ammunition, much of which they couldn't have made themselves after their scorched Earth retreat. We gave them nearly 20,000 aircraft, about 30% of their total wartime capacity.

And then, after all that, they took half of Europe and turned them into medieval vassal states of their rotten empire.



> "I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so." - Nikita Khruschev, from his own memoirs


The United States had to defeat the world's most successful navy, build up its own forces, build Britain's forces, keep the Soviet Union alive, all while figuring out how to actually land on the continent of Europe without suffering a major catastrophe. The West won World War II. There's more to winning a war than simply suffering the most after participating in the initial aggression...


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> This closely mirrors my beliefs about the Ukrainian War. The only thing I would add is the meddling of the WEF. Since so many of you think you know what I believe, I hope you take the time to watch the entire video and learn what I actually believe.


So, you took one piece of what Jordan said and take it as gospel. I watched the whole thing and 90% of what he said I agreed with. The parts I took exception to was Putin appears to be a practicing Christian and is defending Russia against Western decadence and immorality ........ by killing civilians and invading a non-hostile neighbor? 

I admire and respect Jordan Peterson and listen to everything he says. It appears you have become his disciple. I don't think that is what he wants.

I hoped that you would had learned better than after your prior devotion to Dr. Birx. if my recollection is still intact. Don't go full on with any human, no matter how convincing their argument they no anything about everything.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Hiro said:


> So, you took one piece of what Jordan said and take it as gospel. I watched the whole thing and 90% of what he said I agreed with. The parts I took exception to was Putin appears to be a practicing Christian and is defending Russia against Western decadence and immorality ........ by killing civilians and invading a non-hostile neighbor?
> 
> I admire and respect Jordan Peterson and listen to everything he says. It appears you have become his disciple. I don't think that is what he wants.
> 
> I hoped that you would had learned better than after your prior devotion to Dr. Birx. if my recollection is still intact. Don't go full on with any human, no matter how convincing their argument they no anything about everything.


It's good to know you know more than Peterson, who has studied Russia extensively as well as what makes people like Stalin and Hitler do what they did.

This video was made in July and I just watched it now. It confirmed much what I had come to believe after my own research. What Peterson is saying is all these things could be what is motivating Putin, but we don't really know for sure. What we do know is that the West has little to win and a lot to lose. 

He proposes questions we should ask and steps we should take to try to end the war. Most importantly, he provides a pragmatic, rather than ideological analysis, something many here have yet to do.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

wiscto said:


> LOL please stop, I'm getting side cramps. The Soviet Union was an aggressor in WWII, and anyone with any understanding of history knows that. They starved 2 million Ukrainians to buy the infrastructure they needed to wage the future wars of conquest Stalin had in mind. They agreed to split Poland with Germany and massacred 40,000 Polish officers. Then they used the Blitzkrieg as cover for their invasion of Finland. And frankly, we still don't know how many millions of Soviet citizens died at the hands of the Germans and how many died at the hands of the Russians themselves. We will likely never know. And Vladimir Putin considers himself the policy descendent of these Russian fools who helped drag the world into WWII.
> 
> Furthermore, the Soviets were dead without the United States, just like the rest of Europe, and even Stalin, Zhukov, and Kruschev all admitted it. You would know that if you actually studied the history. We built over 90% of their railroad equipment, including 20,000 locomotives and around 500,000 railcars. We built 1/3rd of the Red Army's trucks. We gave them steel, aluminum, cable, food, cloths, and most importantly guns and ammunition, much of which they couldn't have made themselves after their scorched Earth retreat. We gave them nearly 20,000 aircraft, about 30% of their total wartime capacity.
> 
> ...


And this has what to do with Ukraine. In case you didn't know, Stalin has been dead for almost 70 years.

The US is protected by the Atlantic and Pacific. World Wars were not fought here. Millions in US did not starve during WWII. Americans and Russians look at European aggression differently.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

__





Loading…






www.cato.org




*Russia Is Not the Soviet Union*
The bottom line is that Russia is a conventional, somewhat conservative, power, whereas the Soviet Union was a messianic, totalitarian power.
JULY 28, 2018 • COMMENTARY
By Ted Galen Carpenter
SHARE
https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?te...hare&via=CatoInstitute&related=Libertarianism
https://www.facebook.com/dialog/sha...m=facebook&utm_campaign=Cato%20Social%20Share
https://www.linkedin.com/shareArtic...%20Share&title=Russia Is Not the Soviet Union
https://reddit.com/https://www.cato...ium=reddit&utm_campaign=Cato%20Social%20Share

This article appeared on _National Interest (Online)_ on July 28, 2018.

TOP


The American public and U.S. policymakers both have an unfortunate tendency to conflate Russia with the Soviet Union. That habit emerged again with the media and political reaction to the Helsinki summit between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump’s critics accused him of appeasing Putin and even of committing treason for not doing enough to defend American interests and for being far too solicitous to the Russian leader. They regarded that as an unforgivable offense because Russia supposedly poses a dire threat to the United States. Hostile pundits and politicians charged that Moscow’s alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. elections constituted an attack on America akin to Pearl Harbor and 9–11.
Trump’s supplicant behavior, opponents contended, stood in shameful contrast to the behavior of previous presidents toward tyrants, especially toward the Kremlin’s threats to America and the West. They trotted out Ronald Reagan’s “evil empire” speech and his later demand that Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall as examples of how Trump should have acted.
The problem with citing such examples is that they applied to a different country: the Soviet Union. Too many Americans act as though there is no meaningful difference between that entity and Russia. Worse still, U.S. leaders have embraced the same kind of uncompromising, hostile policies that Washington pursued to contain Soviet power. It is a major blunder that has increasingly poisoned relations with Moscow since the demise of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) at the end of 1991.

The bottom line is that Russia is a conventional, somewhat conservative, power, whereas the Soviet Union was a messianic, totalitarian power.
One obvious difference between the Soviet Union and Russia is that the Soviet governing elite embraced Marxism‐Leninism and its objective of world revolution. Today’s Russia is not a messianic power. Its economic system is a rather mundane variety of corrupt crony capitalism, not rigid state socialism. The political system is a conservative autocracy with aspects of a rigged democracy, not a one‐party dictatorship that brooks no dissent whatsoever.
Russia is hardly a Western‐style democracy, but neither is it a continuation of the Soviet Union’s horrifically brutal totalitarianism. Indeed, the country’s political and social philosophy is quite different from that of its predecessor. For example, the Orthodox Church had no meaningful influence during the Soviet era—something that was unsurprising, given communism’s official policy of atheism. But today, the Orthodox Church has a considerable influence in Putin’s Russia, especially on social issues.
The bottom line is that Russia is a conventional, somewhat conservative, power, whereas the Soviet Union was a messianic, totalitarian power. That’s a rather large and significant difference, and U.S. policy needs to reflect that realization.
An equally crucial difference is that the Soviet Union was a global power (and, for a time, arguably a superpower) with global ambitions and capabilities to match. It controlled an empire in Eastern Europe and cultivated allies and clients around the world, including in such far‐flung places as Cuba, Vietnam, and Angola. The USSR also intensely contested the United States for influence in all of those areas. Conversely, Russia is merely a regional power with very limited extra‐regional reach. The Kremlin’s ambitions are focused heavily on the near abroad, aimed at trying to block the eastward creep of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the U.S.-led intrusion into Russia’s core security zone. The orientation seems far more defensive than offensive.
It would be difficult for Russia to execute anything more than a very geographically limited expansionist agenda, even if it has one. The Soviet Union was the world’s number two economic power, second only to the United States. Russia has an economy roughly the size of Canada’s and is no longer ranked even in the global top ten. It also has only three‐quarters of the Soviet Union’s territory (much of which is nearly‐empty Siberia) and barely half the population of the old USSR. If that were not enough, that population is shrinking and is afflicted with an assortment of public health problems (especially rampant alcoholism).
All of these factors should make it evident that Russia is not a credible rival, much less an existential threat, to the United States and its democratic system. Russia’s power is a pale shadow of the Soviet Union’s. The only undiminished source of clout is the country’s sizeable nuclear arsenal. But while nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent, they are not very useful for power projection or warfighting, unless the political leadership wants to risk national suicide. And there is no evidence whatsoever that Putin and his oligarch backers are suicidal. Quite the contrary, they seem wedded to accumulating ever greater wealth and perks.
Finally, Russia’s security interests actually overlap substantially with America’s—most notably regarding the desire to combat radical Islamic terrorism. If U.S. leaders did not insist on pursuing provocative policies, such as expanding NATO to Russia’s border, undermining longtime Russian clients in the Balkans (Serbia) and the Middle East (Syria), and excluding Russia from key international economic institutions such as the G‑7, there would be relatively few occasions when vital American and Russian interests collide.
A fundamental shift in U.S. policy is needed, but that requires a major change in America’s national psychology. For more than four decades, Americans saw (and were told to regard) the Soviet Union as a mortal threat to the nation’s security and its most cherished values of freedom and democracy. Unfortunately, a mental reset did not take place when the USSR dissolved, and a quasi‐democratic Russia emerged as one of the successor states. Too many Americans (including political leaders and policymakers) act as though they are still confronting the Soviet Union. It will be the ultimate tragic irony if, having avoided war with a totalitarian global adversary, America now stumbles into war because of an out‐of‐date image of, and policy toward, a conventional, declining regional power. Yet unless U.S. leaders change both their mindsets and their policies toward Russia, that outcome is a very real possibility.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> And this has what to do with Ukraine. In case you didn't know, Stalin has been dead for almost 70 years.
> 
> The US is protected by the Atlantic and Pacific. World Wars were not fought here. Millions in US did not starve during WWII. Americans and Russians look at European aggression differently.


You're the one who brought up World War II. And at least now you're showing some semblance of an understanding of what actually happened. Yes, of course we are protected by distance. Russia looks at European aggression differently, so Russia attacking Ukraine is not aggression? Russia is the only aggressor left in Europe. Everyone else has a paltry defense budget and has demonstrated for over 70 years that they have no wish to invade one another. Everything NATO does is to provide themselves with a defense against the only aggressive power left on the continent. The one exception to that may be the Turkey and Greece situation, because they still hate each other.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

wiscto said:


> You're the one who brought up World War II. And at least now you're showing some semblance of an understanding of what actually happened. Yes, of course we are protected by distance. Russia looks at European aggression differently, so Russia attacking Ukraine is not aggression? Russia is the only aggressor left in Europe. Everyone else has a paltry defense budget and has demonstrated for over 70 years that they have no wish to invade one another. Everything NATO does is to provide themselves with a defense against the only aggressive power left on the continent. The one exception to that may be the Turkey and Greece situation, because they still hate each other.


BS. All I posted were deaths in WWII for US and the Soviet Union. That does not show knowledge or ignorance, it was simply a statement of fact.

I see you join the others who argue against things I never said.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

With four occupied regions of Ukraine currently in the midst of a five-day referendum on whether to join the Russian federation, a Kremlin lawmaker told state media over the weekend that the territories are likely to be *absorbed by Russia on September 30*.​​"Taking into account the preliminary results of the referendums and Russia’s readiness to acknowledge them, the accession of the territories is likely to take place as early as on September 30," the unnamed member of Russia’s State Duma said to TASS. zerphedge​​​


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> BS. All I posted were deaths in WWII for US and the Soviet Union. That does not show knowledge or ignorance, it was simply a statement of fact.
> 
> I see you join the others who argue against things I never said.


Everyone already knows the Kremlin's WWII talking points, and it's all part of the same "the allies and Europe didn't help us, we saved them" rhetoric, and it's BS. Everyone can see what you are inferring from those statistics... "Oh poor Russia. Poor downtrodden Russia. They just want European security, that's all they've ever wanted. And they should know because they were so badly brutalized in that war. Awww." They helped START that war. They WANTED that war. They had the same goals Hitler had, imagine the Warsaw Pact reaching all the way to Greenland okay, because that's what they were hoping would happen by 1945. The Kremlin was just hoping that they would have more time to build up and sweep in to mop up the scraps.

Russia IS the destabilizing force in Europe, and they have been since 1945. People here mock the EU as progressive Germans trying to take the continent, but even the nationalist conservative wings of those countries were interested in some kind of unified economic front to compete with the United States and China...and Russia. The Soviet Union was meant to be a global empire. Vladimir Putin sees himself in their image. His rhetoric now is that he just doesn't want global US hegemony. He's a lying POS. What he wants is the same thing that Stalin wanted. Global Russo-Hegemony. They use any excuse they can find to rally the troops and avoid a coupe. In the end it's just Russian imperialism disguised as anti-imperialism, like always, since 1917.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> With four occupied regions of Ukraine currently in the midst of a five-day referendum on whether to join the Russian federation, a Kremlin lawmaker told state media over the weekend that the territories are likely to be *absorbed by Russia on September 30*.​​"Taking into account the preliminary results of the referendums and Russia’s readiness to acknowledge them, the accession of the territories is likely to take place as early as on September 30," the unnamed member of Russia’s State Duma said to TASS. zerphedge​​​


An illegal war of annexation, with no real reason to believe that the opposition will even be allowed to vote, as was the case ten years ago. And eventually, RT and other sources in the US will point out all the pro-war demonstrations in Russia and Donetsk. Yes. It's easy to go out into the streets in support of a war when you know you're on the side that won't be arrested or killed for voicing your opinion.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> And this has what to do with Ukraine. In case you didn't know, Stalin has been dead for almost 70 years.


You're the one that brought up WW2.

_ETA...I see someone already said that._


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Came back to do a couple of edits when I had time to reread my comments. I added this, because it's the most important thing to know about The Kremlin. In the end it's just Russian imperialism disguised as anti-imperialism, like always, since 1917. Everything else is just a rhetorical device to keep the troops in a fighting mood. A lot of the crap tearing our country apart now was brought to us _by _Soviet propagandists looking to.......you guessed it.....destroy us from within. Vladimir Putin comes from that same KGB stock. He's from that era. He knew this was coming, and he's been planning to take advantage of it for decades.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

wiscto said:


> A lot of the crap tearing our country apart now was brought to us _by _Soviet propagandists


I am curious. Which of these derive their perceived importance from Russian propaganda? Or did I leave them off?


Abortion
Gender Identity
Gun Control
Immigration
Health Care
Military Spending
Social Spending
Defund Police
Climate Change
Over Regulation
LGBT Rights
Voting Fraud
Income Inequality
Race Affirmative Action
Trust in Media
Big Tech
Trade Policy
Campaign Finance
Electoral College
Gerrymandering
Reparations
Black Lives Matter
Prisons
Riots
American Exceptionalism
Nationalism
Drugs
Surveillance Sate
Social Security
China
Israel


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

HDRider said:


> I am curious. Which of these derive their perceived importance from Russian propaganda? Or did I leave them off?
> 
> 
> Abortion
> ...


Okay... I'll throw two names out there. Horowitz and Mitroykin. While Americans had homegrown communist movements, the communications with and direct ties to the Soviet Union date all the way back to before 1917. The KGB, while they supposedly lacked the ability to infiltrate, used those old lines of communication to finance and influence groups like the Black Panthers, the Students for a Democratic State, the Nation of Islam, etc. According to Mitroykin, most Soviet sympathizers in the US, many of whom were in academia and moving to the Far Left, were literally paid by the KGB. According to David Horowitz, Paul Robeson (the singer) would brazenly recommend to people that they should seek them out for financial assistance.

The reasons they did this were threefold... 1.) They could deepen the racial divisions in America and use that to deflect global scrutiny of their own mistreatment of minority groups and dissidents, so for example when national guard troops were sent to stop school integration they ran articles that said "troops sent to smash children". 2.) They could influence and radicalize American academia so that they would skew toward communism and therefore make the United States more vulnerable to Soviet intervention. 3.) They could disrupt American society by financially supporting groups who, essentially, hated America.

Many of the groups who consider themselves "progressives" survive today because their parent organizations' propaganda and growth activities were funded and sponsored by the Soviets. While they may have evolved beyond Soviet doctrine, you can draw direct line from today's soy addled, purple haired violent AntiFa trans activist to Soviet funding and communist influence dating all the way back to before World War II.

I mean AntiFa itself was literally funded by Stalin in Germany, and it has now spread to every Western country on Earth. Yet somehow they don't really exist in Russia, a blatantly fascist state. Hmm. I wonder why. The Red Scare may have been a bit over dramatic, but that doesn't mean the Reds weren't pulling some strings.

BLM. Gender Identity. Social Spending. LGBT rights. Affirmative Action. All of those issues were just seeds sprouting in communist gardens in the 50s and 60s. The KGB provided the fertilizer. Did they know exactly what they were growing? Maybe not exactly. But how different really is BLM from the Black Panthers? Would that doctrine have made it through the 60s without the KGB? How much effort did the KGB put into pushing people away from voices of peace and reason like MLK Jr. and toward people like Elijah Muhammad (who was Louis Farrakhan's predecessor)? It isn't like Nation of Islam doesn't need funding. They're getting it from Scientology these days... 

And every issue you just listed is used by Russians on social media to further divide Americans. They fill every divide with as much hate and disruption as they can, from legitimate Kremlin funded news organizations to subversive troll farms. The fact that they didn't hack voting computers in 2016 or steal the election for Donald Trump does not mean that they, along with Chinese and other countries, are not successfully fanning the flames in this country.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

wiscto said:


> Okay... I'll throw two names out there. Horowitz and Mitroykin. While Americans had homegrown communist movements, the communications with and direct ties to the Soviet Union date all the way back to before 1917. The KGB, while they supposedly lacked the ability to infiltrate, used those old lines of communication to finance and influence groups like the Black Panthers, the Students for a Democratic State, the Nation of Islam, etc. According to Mitroykin, most Soviet sympathizers in the US, many of whom were in academia and moving to the Far Left, were literally paid by the KGB. According to David Horowitz, Paul Robeson (the singer) would brazenly recommend to people that they should seek them out for financial assistance.
> 
> The reasons they did this were threefold... 1.) They could deepen the racial divisions in America and use that to deflect global scrutiny of their own mistreatment of minority groups and dissidents, so for example when national guard troops were sent to stop school integration they ran articles that said "troops sent to smash children". 2.) They could influence and radicalize American academia so that they would skew toward communism and therefore make the United States more vulnerable to Soviet intervention. 3.) They could disrupt American society by financially supporting groups who, essentially, hated America.
> 
> ...


The Soviet Union has been gone for over 30 years


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> The Soviet Union has been gone for over 30 years


LOL Yea. And the guy people foolishly believe is simply protecting western values, Vladimir Putin, is a former high ranking KGB official who says the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy of the 20th Century. He used the Soviet playbook when he was a KGB officer, and he's using it now. He's openly stated that he thinks all Slav nations belong in the Russian sphere, whether they agree or not, and that the old Soviet order needs to be reformed....whether the old Soviet order agrees or not. He has said all of those things repeatedly since he came into worldview in 1999.


----------

