# Why Do We Care About Ukraine?



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

What is it that makes the Russian invasion of Ukraine such a big story?


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

To draw our attention aware from domestic failures.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> What is it that makes the Russian invasion of Ukraine such a big story?


It is a war of choice in Europe which has been at relative peace and prosperity for some decades. A war in Africa over damming a river or a war in the middle east over oil is something that wouldn't be surprising. A nuclear power invading their neighbor over nothing logical with no discernible end goal is something to take note of, because things get unpredictable and possibly out of control/expansionary in a hurry.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> What is it that makes the Russian invasion of Ukraine such a big story?


Ukraine is part of Europe, and Europe, post-Soviet era, is part of the free, democratic west. The attack is being waged by the greatest threat to the globe since Nazi Germany, and, arguably, one that was a much greater global threat than Nazi Germany. Given their adventurist actions over the last 14 years, it’s clear that they’re trying to reassemble the core of the empire from which they tried to take over the world throughout the entire second half of the 20th century. 

After an answer, a question in return: why do you think it wouldn’t or shouldn’t be such a big story?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> What is it that makes the Russian invasion of Ukraine such a big story?


Why did you care about the freedom convoy in Canada?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Why did you care about the freedom convoy in Canada?


Why didn't you care about the lost freedoms in Canada?


----------



## Largo (10 mo ago)

MoonRiver said:


> What is it that makes the Russian invasion of Ukraine such a big story?


Ukraine is a cow that would be ours in few years. As a member of EU it would be fed by them and grow strong and would send most of the milk to us. Russians want to steal the cow, starve it and keep all the milk. Ukraine can also control gas flow (prices) to Europe and mostly Germany. Nordstream II is bad because gas prices would be negotiated between Germany and Russia and we wouldn't have control over that.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Money


----------



## geo in mi (Nov 14, 2008)

*Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.*”

*(Meditation 17 of John Donne's Devotions upon Emergent Occasions* (1624).)

geo


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

geo in mi said:


> *Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.*”
> 
> *(Meditation 17 of John Donne's Devotions upon Emergent Occasions* (1624).)
> 
> geo


Well said!


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

I can't think of any other non-US war in my lifetime that has had this effect on the American people. Tiananmen Square probably comes closest, but nowhere near the the effect of Ukraine-Russia.

Is it because Ukraine is seen as good and Russia as evil? Is it because we see ourselves in the Ukrainian people? Is it because Ukraine is the underdog in the fight? Is it because many Americans have European ancestry? Is it because it is televised 24/7 and has made for TV heroes? Is it because we have been taught to fear Russia?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> I can't think of any other non-US war in my lifetime that has had this effect on the American people. Tiananmen Square probably comes closest, but nowhere near the the effect of Ukraine-Russia.
> 
> Is it because Ukraine is seen as good and Russia as evil? Is it because we see ourselves in the Ukrainian people? Is it because Ukraine is the underdog in the fight? Is it because many Americans have European ancestry? Is it because it is televised 24/7 and has made for TV heroes? Is it because we have been taught to fear Russia?


Media addiction, smaller world, manipulation, no memory of war, and so on


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

The solution is a simple one. We should invade and overthrow canada. It is a weak,corrupt country on our border, and cannot defend itself from our enemy, Russia, with whom it shares a border. This would put us in much closer striking distance of Russian infrastructure.


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> What is it that makes the Russian invasion of Ukraine such a big story?


Here is one view from a professional analyst (please see below); For background; the US possesses the largest percentage of the most viable soil type for agriculture. We also possess the largest percentage of the second best soil type. A salient argument could be made that many of the current and projected US environmental policies make this conflict even more important than (at present) than it otherwise might have been, due to the second order effects of the impact to agriculture. Eventually (2060-2065 based on the info in the link below), any conflict in a region with viable farmland and/or access to fresh water will have significant worldwide impact.


“In the Black Sea region, around 22 million acres could be converted to farmland…We don't reach peak world farmland until about 2060 or 2065. That's when the fun really begins, because then it is all about yield. The world will have to figure out different ways of enhancing yield because it just will run out of variable land that is feasible to farm.”“



https://www.agweb.com/markets/market-outlooks/3-trends-will-ignite-commodity-super-cycle?mkt_tok=ODQzLVlHQi03OTMAAAGDF61NTSLSVkJZmbnps2Z02hG_2dEfzrb5kaSuBttjO4R14IgFhur-C6L-18CUgs7qWrJNujTrshAVHmpX-NHy0jgycGcH3Vwi8mujILrNPlCE7iAV


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

bubba42 said:


> Here is one view from a professional analyst (please see below); For background; the US possesses the largest percentage of the most viable soil type for agriculture. We also possess the largest percentage of the second best soil type. A salient argument could be made that many of the current and projected US environmental policies make this conflict even more important than (at present) than it otherwise might have been, due to the second order effects of the impact to agriculture. Eventually (2060-2065 based on the info in the link below), any conflict in a region with viable farmland and/or access to fresh water will have significant worldwide impact.
> 
> 
> “In the Black Sea region, around 22 million acres could be converted to farmland…We don't reach peak world farmland until about 2060 or 2065. That's when the fun really begins, because then it is all about yield. The world will have to figure out different ways of enhancing yield because it just will run out of variable land that is feasible to farm.”“
> ...


There seems to be a push in the US to take farm land out of production. 

“The president has committed to a 30×30 effort: 30% of our working lands and public lands being dedicated in some form or fashion to conservation [by 2030]. Opportunities coming for land stewardship, says Vilsack


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> What is it that makes the Russian invasion of Ukraine such a big story?


It will impact everyone around the world who wants to eat. It's about agriculture and control of the world through the threat of starvation. Ukraine is one of the 3 largest and most productive bread-baskets in the world, it supplies all of Europe and many regions of Africa, Asia and many more with food. 

Putin is not only creating a large scale humanitarian crisis, he is creating an agricultural crisis that will effect the whole world and could hold many other countries for ransom if they want to eat. He has now taken one the world's largest bread-baskets (all of the fertile farmlands of the Black Sea region) out of commission which means that every other agricultural nation in the world that produces and exports food to other countries, particularly those in North America (Canada and USA are respectively the 1st and 2nd largest global breadbaskets and world suppliers), will be greatly impacted and weakened in their attempts to produce 2 or 3 times more than what they ordinarily would in more stable times. Everyone world wide will suffer.

Think about the implications of Russia controlling the agricultural sectors of Europe and how that will impact the rest of the world.

.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Paumon said:


> It will impact everyone around the world who wants to eat. It's about agriculture and control of the world through the threat of starvation. Ukraine is one of the 3 largest and most productive bread-baskets in the world, it supplies all of Europe and many regions of Africa, Asia and many more with food.
> 
> Putin is not only creating a large scale humanitarian crisis, he is creating an agricultural crisis that will effect the whole world and could hold many other countries for ransom if they want to eat. He has now taken one the world's largest bread-baskets (all of the fertile farmlands of the Black Sea region) out of commission which means that every other agricultural nation in the world that produces and exports food to other countries, particularly those in North America (Canada and USA are respectively the 1st and 2nd largest global breadbaskets and world suppliers), will be greatly impacted and weakened in their attempts to produce 2 or 3 times more than what they ordinarily would in more stable times. Everyone world wide will suffer.
> 
> ...


99 out of 100 Americans (and Canadians) have no idea that Ukraine and Russia produce a lot of wheat, so that can't explain why so many people are so emotionally involved. What I want to understand is what is it about this particular war that has people so emotionally involved.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

barnbilder said:


> The solution is a simple one. We should invade and overthrow canada. It is a weak,corrupt country on our border, and cannot defend itself from our enemy, Russia, with whom it shares a border. This would put us in much closer striking distance of Russian infrastructure.


Making enemies out of the world's two strongest allies and strongest food and natural resources producers in the world and thereby creating a world-wide food apocalypse is exactly the knee-jerk reaction that Putin (and his friend China) would hope for America to do to play right into his (their) hands. Putin may be a mad man but he isn't stupid. Think again about the stupidity of your suggestion and it's implications.  I thought you were more intelligent and knowledgeable than that. I guess I was wrong.

.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Paumon said:


> Making enemies out of the world's two strongest allies and strongest food and natural resources producers in the world and thereby creating a world-wide food apocalypse is exactly the knee-jerk reaction that Putin (and his friend China) would hope for America to do to play right into his (their) hands. Putin may be a mad man but he isn't stupid. Think again about the stupidity of your suggestion and it's implications.  I thought you were more intelligent and knowledgeable than that. I guess I was wrong.
> 
> .


His comment is completely lost on you


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> 99 out of 100 Americans (and Canadians) have no idea that Ukraine and Russia produce a lot of wheat, so that can't explain why so many people are so emotionally involved. What I want to understand is *what is it about this particular war that has people so emotionally involved.*


Fear. Everybody's greatest gut-instinct fear is the fear of starvation and that is the greatest threat now. Most people_ at present_ may be thinking mainly about the humanitarian crisis for 40 million Ukrainians who may be becoming dependent on the generosity (and food) of other countries as refugees in their countries but their unacknowledged gut instincts are telling them that hunger is going to impact the whole world as a consequence.

The other thing is that the living generations of first world countries today have no experience with REAL war, never had to deal with, let alone even think about the devastating impacts of war and the potential threats of nuclear annihilation. Now they are getting slapped in the face with it because they are actually seeing (not just hearing about it but actually seeing) what's happening to Ukraine and are coming to the stark realization it may be coming to them too.

I can't speak for what Americans do or do not know about agriculture but you are wrong about what Canadians know. All Canadians know that Ukraine and Russia produce a lot of wheat and they know that Canada produces more wheat and other grains than Russia or any other nations.

On the emotional impact level for Canada at least, aside from Ukraine itself Canada has the largest Ukrainian diaspora in the world living in Canada and having friends and close relatives living in Ukraine.

.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

HDRider said:


> His comment is completely lost on you


Apparently his comment is lost on himself and lost on you too.

.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

The reason we should be involved in the Ukraine Russia conflict is because when the Soviet Union broke up (1994?) The US, UK. and Russia made a treaty with Ukraine that in exchange for Ukraine giving up all the nukes left in their country we would protect them from invasion. 

From Wikipedia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine

*Budapest Memorandum*

Main article: Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances

On December 5, 1994 the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Britain and the United States signed a memorandum to provide Ukraine with security assurances in connection with its accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. The four parties signed the memorandum, containing a preamble and six paragraphs. The memorandum reads as follows:[10]




> The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
> Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear-weapon State,
> Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,
> Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.
> ...


*France and China's commitments*

France and China also provided Ukraine with assurances similar to the Budapest Memorandum, but with some significant differences. For instance, France's pledge does not contain the promises laid out in paragraphs 4 and 6 above, to refer any aggression to the UN Security Council, nor to consult in the event of a question regarding the commitments.[11]

For some reason the mainstream media is not reporting this. We should have intervened when Putin took the Crimea and certainly should intervene now. Putin is going to get away with taking over Ukraine because the Us government doesn't have any balls.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Paumon said:


> Making enemies out of the world's two strongest allies and strongest food and natural resources producers in the world and thereby creating a world-wide food apocalypse is exactly the knee-jerk reaction that Putin (and his friend China) would hope for America to do to play right into his (their) hands. Putin may be a mad man but he isn't stupid. Think again about the stupidity of your suggestion and it's implications.  I thought you were more intelligent and knowledgeable than that. I guess I was wrong.
> 
> .


Russia has carried out exercises on Canadian soil that the Canadians could do little about. If we were Russia, we would take Canada. This is why Russia is taking Ukraine.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

barnbilder said:


> Russia has carried out exercises on Canadian soil that the Canadians could do little about. If we were Russia, we would take Canada. This is why Russia is taking Ukraine.


Prove it. And produce your proof from reliable non-propaganda sources. Not from propagandizing fear-mongering extreme right-wing sources in American mainstream media..

Just like Canada and USA have done, Canada and Russia have mutually carried out JOINT military observations of exercises with each other on each other's soil. Neither one has ever carried out independent exercises of their own on each other's soil.

.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Paumon said:


> Prove it. And produce your proof from reliable non-propaganda sources. Not from propagandizing fear-mongering extreme right-wing sources in American mainstream media..
> 
> Just like Canada and USA have done, Canada and Russia have mutually carried out JOINT military observations of exercises with each other on each other's soil. Neither one has ever carried out independent exercises of their own on each other's soil.
> 
> .


The US occupied parts of eastern Russia/USSR from 1918-1925.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Hiro said:


> The US occupied parts of eastern Russia/USSR from 1918-1925.


So what does that have to do with a hill of beans? I couldn't care less about who occupied who 100 years ago, I only care about what has happened in recent past 20 years and is happening now.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/russian-arctic-training-1.5563691










Russian soldiers training in Canada given 24 hours to leave country


Nine Russian soldiers who were participating in military exercises in Canada have been expelled from the country, as Ottawa continues to denounce Russia’s military intervention in Crimea, CTV News has learned.



www.ctvnews.ca






https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/12/world/canada/arctic-security-concerns-resurface-in-canadas-territories-amid-russian-war.htmhttps://resourceworld.com/russia-preparing-to-beat-canada-in-race-for-arctic-resources/


Russia basically owns the Canadian arctic.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Canadians might not realize it, but they share a border with a hostile superpower. That makes them a buffer state. https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/arctic-militarization-1.4594397


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

barnbilder said:


> Canadians might not realize it, but they share a border with a hostile superpower. That makes them a buffer state. https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/arctic-militarization-1.4594397


Look on the bright side. I think you should consider yourself lucky to have such a friendly neighbour for your personal buffer zone.  

.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Paumon said:


> Look on the bright side. I think you should consider yourself lucky to have such a friendly neighbour for your personal buffer zone.
> 
> .


You are ruled by Castro's son and it shows.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

While not exactly answering the question, I think we all could add to our education so we can better understand current events. 
When we wonder about Muslim terrorists, perhaps watching "Captain Phillips" might help you understand who we face. When we were fighting in Afghanistan, perhaps watching "Charlie Wilson's War" gives perspective. 
Long before Putin invaded Ukraine, we should know about Finland's Winter War, by watching "Fire and Ice", on youtube where Stalin lost millions of Russian military against a mostly defenseless Finland.
Then, to understand the depth of hate Ukraine has against Russian aggressors, watch you tube "Harvest of Despair" to learn about Stalin's intentional starvation of millions of Ukrainians.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Why? How about because a cold blooded ex KGB agent, who happens to the the president of Russia is shelling cities into dust, and murdering women and children. I don't care what he thinks his justification is.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

muleskinner2 said:


> Why? How about because a cold blooded ex KGB agent, who happens to the the president of Russia is shelling cities into dust, and murdering women and children. I don't care what he thinks his justification is.


I know I sound like a broken record when I say this one more time, this makes no sense. He, or who is really in charge, can level Ukrainian cities and kill countless civilians. But, what his, if he were in charge, end goals are, as he as iterated, will never be met. 

This damages my calm in ways the Wuflu never even came close to. I know I hold a minority position in this. But, I think a nuclear power is not in the power of the person that you believe it is.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

I will add to beat this dead horse. The US "intelligence agencies" predicted all of this accurately and published it. Granted, they also published it would be over in a week. But when, in your whole life has that ever happened on an invasion of another nation that was "friendly".

This is all hinky.


----------



## Obie (Jan 1, 2021)

Hiro said:


> You are ruled by Castro's son and it shows.


----------



## starrynights (Oct 7, 2021)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Ukraine is part of Europe, and Europe, post-Soviet era, is part of the free, democratic west. The attack is being waged by the greatest threat to the globe since Nazi Germany, and, arguably, one that was a much greater global threat than Nazi Germany. Given their adventurist actions over the last 14 years, it’s clear that they’re trying to reassemble the core of the empire from which they tried to take over the world throughout the entire second half of the 20th century.
> 
> After an answer, a question in return: why do you think it wouldn’t or shouldn’t be such a big story?


absolutely! It IS a big story and if you need to ask, I don't know what to say to you


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Hiro said:


> You are ruled by Castro's son and it shows.


Yeah, yeah, sure.  Go do something to your sheep. 🐑

.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Hiro said:


> . But, I think a nuclear power is not in the power of the person that you believe it is.


I do wish you would say more...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bring it on my eastern friend

When dealing with its relations with Russia, the US should not impose so-called sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction on Chinese companies and individuals or undermine the legitimate rights and interests of China, otherwise China will make strong and resolute response. https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/2511_665403/202203/t20220310_10650654.html​


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

starrynights said:


> absolutely! It IS a big story and if you need to ask, I don't know what to say to you


I'm asking why so many people are so emotionally involved? They weren't over Syria or Iraq or Afghanistan or Georgia or Tibet or any of the other wars over the last 30 years. Is it because it is televised 24/7? Is it because it has been portrayed as good against evil? Is it because we have been conditioned to hate Putin and Russia?

It is similar to hurricane Katrina. Most people accepted what they were told on TV and didn't understand what had really happened. People gave huge amounts of money, celebrities did what they always do - ask other people to give money, former presidents got involved, etc. But people quickly tired and moved on to other things. 

That's how I see Ukraine. Most people don't have a clue as to what the war is about. Most people believe what they are told by the media or read on social media. There is a political agenda shaping everything about the war. In a week or so, people will move on to other things and forget about the war. Soon Poland will find other European countries, as well as the US, aren't as willing to support the Ukrainian war refugees and they will be left to fend for themselves. Slowly but surely, countries will start trading with Russia again. Big money interests will soon move back into Ukraine trying to exploit their natural resources. And the people of Ukraine will still be pawns.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nimrod said:


> The reason we should be involved in the Ukraine Russia conflict is because when the Soviet Union broke up (1994?) The US, UK. and Russia made a treaty with Ukraine that in exchange for Ukraine giving up all the nukes left in their country we would protect them from invasion.
> 
> From Wikipedia; Nuclear weapons and Ukraine - Wikipedia
> 
> ...


Why should the US have intervened? There is nothing in the agreement that says the US agrees to come to the defense of Ukraine or any other country.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> That's how I see Ukraine. Most people don't have a clue as to what the war is about. Most people believe what they are told by the media or read on social media. There is a political agenda shaping everything about the war.


That’s cute coming from someone who has spent the last several weeks parroting the RT position verbatim.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Why should the US have intervened? There is nothing in the agreement that says the US agrees to come to the defense of Ukraine or any other country.


This was included in the memorandum the US (and Russia) signed:



> The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.


As a signatory of an agreement that was enacted, in part, for our own security, when another signatory so blatantly breaks the agreement, we have a moral obligation to go to the defense of the signatory who we convinced to disarm for our benefit.

That you can’t see that is equal parts alarming and disgusting.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> This was included in the memorandum the US (and Russia) signed:
> 
> As a signatory of an agreement that was enacted, in part, for our own security, when another signatory so blatantly breaks the agreement, we have a moral obligation to go to the defense of the signatory who we convinced to disarm for our benefit.
> 
> That you can’t see that is equal parts alarming and disgusting.


The memorandum has absolutely nothing to do with any moral obligation you may think the US has. The memorandum says it goes to the UN. I am also not sure if these are actually binding agreements as they are not treaties.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That’s cute coming from someone who has spent the last several weeks parroting the RT position verbatim.


Insulting me does nothing to convince anyone you have the better argument.

I don't know how many times I have to post that Putin was wrong and should be condemned. The thing is, it doesn't change the situation in Ukraine one bit. They will continue to die and the country will continue to be bombed.

And to what end? Tell me how Ukraine will benefit by continuing the war.


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)




----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Insulting me does nothing to convince anyone you have the better argument.
> 
> I don't know how many times I have to post that Putin was wrong and should be condemned. The thing is, it doesn't change the situation in Ukraine one bit. They will continue to die and the country will continue to be bombed.
> 
> And to what end? Tell me how Ukraine will benefit by continuing the war.


It’s only an insult if you take it as one. You posted saying that you thought people didn’t “understand” what was happening in Ukraine and that they were just listening to what the media told them… yet your position has tracked 100% alongside the reporting of RT.

It’s more than a little ironic that you accuse people of not understanding something that you do, and of getting their position from the media, when your own position perfectly mirrors that of one of the belligerents’ own propaganda network.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> The memorandum has absolutely nothing to do with any moral obligation you may think the US has. The memorandum says it goes to the UN. I am also not sure if these are actually binding agreements as they are not treaties.


The Budapest Memorandum absolutely does pertain to direct obligations of the US, UK and Russia. The clause I posted above was #1 and mentions the UN nowhere. Clause #4 specifically mentions the UN, and only I. The capacity of what the signatories agreed to do in the UN should another country attack Ukraine involving nuclear weapons. 


> The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.


Clause #1 directly binds both the US and Russia to respect the sovereignty of Ukrainians borders, as they stood in 1994. Russia, one of the signatories, broke that agreement to which we’re party and were beneficiary. That absolutely constitutes a moral obligation to go to Ukraine’s aid.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> I'm asking why so many people are so emotionally involved? They weren't over Syria or Iraq or Afghanistan or Georgia or Tibet or any of the other wars over the last 30 years. Is it because it is televised 24/7? Is it because it has been portrayed as good against evil? Is it because we have been conditioned to hate Putin and Russia?
> 
> It is similar to hurricane Katrina. Most people accepted what they were told on TV and didn't understand what had really happened. People gave huge amounts of money, celebrities did what they always do - ask other people to give money, former presidents got involved, etc. But people quickly tired and moved on to other things.
> 
> That's how I see Ukraine. Most people don't have a clue as to what the war is about. Most people believe what they are told by the media or read on social media. There is a political agenda shaping everything about the war. In a week or so, people will move on to other things and forget about the war. Soon Poland will find other European countries, as well as the US, aren't as willing to support the Ukrainian war refugees and they will be left to fend for themselves. Slowly but surely, countries will start trading with Russia again. Big money interests will soon move back into Ukraine trying to exploit their natural resources. And the people of Ukraine will still be pawns.


It's on the MSM 24/7, because the resident of the White House desperately needs a distraction. It's called wag the dog. But if I lived in Ukraine, I might be worried about other things than the resident clown in the White House. When you are up to your butt in alligators, it's difficult to remember that the original intent was to drain the swamp.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> It’s only an insult if you take it as one. You posted saying that you thought people didn’t “understand” what was happening in Ukraine and that they were just listening to what the media told them… yet your position has tracked 100% alongside the reporting of RT.
> 
> It’s more than a little ironic that you accuse people of not understanding something that you do, and of getting their position from the media, when your own position perfectly mirrors that of one of the belligerents’ own propaganda network.


I was referring to the American people in general. That should have been obvious when I made the comparison to hurricane Katrina. 

Many conservative websites are far more suspicious of the West's motivation than I am. When I see Congress passing a $1.5 billion spending bill and using the war in Ukraine as their justification. my suspicion grows. Did you see where the Biden administration just met with Tic Toc influencers to make sure the administration's point of view was propagated?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> The Budapest Memorandum absolutely does pertain to direct obligations of the US, UK and Russia. The clause I posted above was #1 and mentions the UN nowhere. Clause #4 specifically mentions the UN, and only I. The capacity of what the signatories agreed to do in the UN should another country attack Ukraine involving nuclear weapons.
> 
> Clause #1 directly binds both the US and Russia to respect the sovereignty of Ukrainians borders, as they stood in 1994. Russia, one of the signatories, broke that agreement to which we’re party and were beneficiary. That absolutely constitutes a moral obligation to go to Ukraine’s aid.


Did Congress pass the Budapest Memorandum as a Treaty? No. It is a guideline and has no legal basis.

Memorandums are what politicians do to look good without taking any responsibility or making any legal obligations.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> I was referring to the American people in general. That should have been obvious when I made the comparison to hurricane Katrina.
> 
> Many conservative websites are far more suspicious of the West's motivation than I am. When I see Congress passing a $1.5 billion spending bill and using the war in Ukraine as their justification. my suspicion grows. Did you see where the Biden administration just met with Tic Toc influencers to make sure the administration's point of view was propagated?


I did see that. Never underestimate the US politicians’ ability to milk a crises for more money and power. I saw a breakdown of the $1.5T spending bill. It had something like $30B for Ukrainian aid, and nearly twice that for K-12 education “initiatives” that we both know are really CRT funding.

I’m not suspicious of the US politicians’ motivations and their spending bill. I _know_ they’re bunk.

The malfeasance of the US’ ruling class doesn’t change my view of what is the right thing to do in Ukraine, though. Ukraine is a free nation, and an ally. They are in the process of being attacked by an enemy who once controlled an empire trying to take over the world, and an enemy who has actively worked to bring down our systems and infrastructure. Allowing them to attack and attempt to enslave a peaceful and productive ally cannot be tolerated.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Did Congress pass the Budapest Memorandum as a Treaty? No. It is a guideline and has no legal basis.
> 
> Memorandums are what politicians do to look good without taking any responsibility or making any legal obligations.


It’s not a treaty. It’s an international agreement. We helped to talk a future ally into giving up its nuclear weapons, for the benefit of our own and global security. In exchange, we and the other signatories agreed to respect their sovereignty and borders.

If you don’t see that as a moral obligation that we’re bound to honor, I feel sorry for anyone who ever makes a deal with you.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> if these are actually binding agreements as they are not treaties.


If you saw someone beating an old lady in the street, would you walk on by because you didn't have a binding agreement with the old lady? Or maybe it just isn't any of your business? The world is a dangerous neighborhood, and the bullies always want people to "mind their own business". 

A few months ago prominent members of the Democratic Party were calling for people who had voted against them, to be rounded up and placed into reeducation camps. Free people will always have enemies, and you don't have to go far from home to find them.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> It’s not a treaty. It’s an international agreement. We helped to talk a future ally into giving up its nuclear weapons, for the benefit of our own and global security. In exchange, we and the other signatories agreed to respect their sovereignty and borders.
> 
> If you don’t see that as a moral obligation that we’re bound to honor, I feel sorry for anyone who ever makes a deal with you.


Politicians and governments have no moral obligations.

One more time, the Budapest Memorandum is not binding on any of the signatories. Morality is subjective. I don't know of any recourse against someone you believe is acting immorally if it has not been made into a law.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

muleskinner2 said:


> If you saw someone beating an old lady in the street, would you walk on by because you didn't have a binding agreement with the old lady? Or maybe it just isn't any of your business? The world is a dangerous neighborhood, and the bullies always want people to "mind their own business".
> 
> A few months ago prominent members of the Democratic Party were calling for people who had voted against them, to be rounded up and placed into reeducation camps. Free people will always have enemies, and you don't have to go far from home to find them.


That's quite a stretch. GunMonkey said because of the Budapest Memorandum we had an obligation to defend Ukraine against Russia. I pointed out the Budapest memorandum is not a legally binding document. Then he said it was a moral obligation. Who decides what is moral and who decides when to go to war with another country because of a question of morality? I thought most people agreed it was only appropriate for the US to go to war if the US is threatened or if we are bound by a treaty. Neither of these 2 cases exists for the war in Ukraine.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> That's quite a stretch. GunMonkey said because of the Budapest Memorandum we had an obligation to defend Ukraine against Russia. I pointed out the Budapest memorandum is not a legally binding document. Then he said it was a moral obligation. Who decides what is moral and who decides when to go to war with another country because of a question of morality? I thought most people agreed it was only appropriate for the US to go to war if the US is threatened or if we are bound by a treaty. Neither of these 2 cases exists for the war in Ukraine.


As far as I can tell "we" aren't going to war with anybody. You asked "why do we care" not if we should go to war. Evil is always bad, and not only if is happening to someone you have and agreement with. I almost never agree with our official policy, but that doesn't mean I don't care. I cared enough to go to Rhodesia, Central America, West Africa, and Iraq. I am too old to be useful so I don't go any more, but I still care.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> That's quite a stretch. GunMonkey said because of the Budapest Memorandum we had an obligation to defend Ukraine against Russia. I pointed out the Budapest memorandum is not a legally binding document. Then he said it was a moral obligation. Who decides what is moral and who decides when to go to war with another country because of a question of morality? I thought most people agreed it was only appropriate for the US to go to war if the US is threatened or if we are bound by a treaty. Neither of these 2 cases exists for the war in Ukraine.


And that’s quite a lie. The exchange is on this page for anyone to see. I didn’t back peddle on the weight of our obligation. I stated it as what it is from the beginning: a moral obligation.




MoonRiver said:


> Politicians and governments have no moral obligations.


The United States of America does. We’re only better than the rest of the world if we’re actually better than the rest of the world. We’ve reneged on our word before, and we will again, but our moral obligation, as citizens of a free nation governed of, by, and for The People (that’s us), is to speak up and call for our politicians and government to do the right thing. Some of us have that moral integrity, and some are like you, but that doesn’t change the direction of our national moral compass, unless we let the ones like you prevail- then we can be just like Russia, too.



MoonRiver said:


> One more time, the Budapest Memorandum is not binding on any of the signatories. Morality is subjective. I don't know of any recourse against someone you believe is acting immorally if it has not been made into a law.


The United States of America (again, that’s you and me) gave our word that we would respect Ukraine’s sovereignty in exchange for its turning over its nuclear weapons. That sovereignty was breached by a co-signatory on that agreement. This is not some random country in the middle of some random ocean with which we have no history or dealings. It is a western democracy and ally with whom we’ve made an agreement. They kept up their part of the bargain.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

> MoonRiver said:
> Why should the US have intervened? There is nothing in the agreement that says the US agrees to come to the defense of Ukraine or any other country.


*GunMonkeyIntl said: *This was included in the memorandum the US (and Russia) signed:


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

The ship has sailed. America's ability to do anything about anything evaporated when we did not have a revolution over the stolen election and hand out Pinochet style helicopter rides. That would have sent a strong message to Russia, and Russia's allies, about meddling in US elections. Instead, they got the message that we are a hamstrung sheep, soon weak enough to be taken without risk of a kick. 

Should have is irrelevant when could have is unrealistic. Our military is made up of soy boys who have skipped target practice to take gender studies. Any meaningful attempt to stay in the world superpower category gets shot down by our enemy's paid operatives who serve as our elected representatives. We are broke. We are a beached whale that is still breathing. Russia has a leader. Time to learn conversational Russian.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Russia can not even handle the military in Ukraine. They can't handle the rest of the world without using nukes. They do and they will no longer exist. Putin showed how weak they really are.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Russia can not even handle the military in Ukraine. They can't handle the rest of the world without using nukes. They do and they will no longer exist. Putin showed how weak they really are.


I am having a hard time believing that Russia's conventional forces are so weak.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

1. State Department’s Victoria Nuland acknowledged such labs containing dangerous pathogens exist in Ukraine in her testimony to the US Senate (March 8, 2022): “Ukraine has biological research facilities which, in fact we are quite concerned that Russian troops may be seeking to gain control of. We are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach.”

2. Pentagon Fact sheet (March 11, 2022) has numerous statements directly & indirectly confirming the existence of such biolabs: “The United States, through BTRP, has invested approximately $200 million in Ukraine since 2005, supporting 46 Ukrainian laboratories, health facilities, and diagnostic sites.” *LINK*

3. CBS Face the Nation (March 13, 2022) National Security correspondent David Martin said he’d spoken to a Pentagon official who told him they’re concerned about the existence of such biolabs in Ukraine: “The concern is that the Russians will seize one of these biomedical research facilities that Ukraine has where they do research on deadly pathogens like botulism and anthrax, seize one of those facilities, weaponize the pathogen, and then blame it on Ukraine and the US, because the US has been providing support for some of the research being done in those facilities.”

4. In April 2020, in refuting Russia’s accusation that U.S. is using biolabs in Ukraine to develop biological weapons, U.S. Embassy in Ukraine acknowledged there are U.S. funded labs in Ukraine working with pathogens for vaccine and other peaceful purposes. *LINK*

5. CNN fact-check (March 10, 2022): “There are US-funded biolabs in Ukraine, that much is true.”

6. Furthermore, according to the DoD, there are two biolabs in Ukraine that have been under Russian control for some time: “Russia illegally took possession of two Ukrainian-owned laboratories that BTRP upgraded in 2014 and continues to deny Ukrainian access to these facilities.” 









Tulsi calls for Mitt Romney to resign…


‘Romney must apologize and resign for his slanderous accusations’ TRANSCRIPT Senator Romney, you have called me a ‘treasonous liar’ for stating the fact that “there…




citizenfreepress.com


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

HDRider said:


> 1. State Department’s Victoria Nuland acknowledged such labs containing dangerous pathogens exist in Ukraine in her testimony to the US Senate (March 8, 2022): “Ukraine has biological research facilities which, in fact we are quite concerned that Russian troops may be seeking to gain control of. We are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach.”
> 
> 2. Pentagon Fact sheet (March 11, 2022) has numerous statements directly & indirectly confirming the existence of such biolabs: “The United States, through BTRP, has invested approximately $200 million in Ukraine since 2005, supporting 46 Ukrainian laboratories, health facilities, and diagnostic sites.” *LINK*
> 
> ...


Obviously, I have no idea what has been happening the last couple decades at those labs. BUT, I do know there were a lot of Soviet bioweapons research facilities in the Ukraine that we got stuck helping to pay to cleanup. Included was at least one batch of anthrax spores that everyone gave up trying to destroy and were just buried in stainless steel containers.

The "biolabs in Ukraine" is all just a distraction, imho.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Russia can not even handle the military in Ukraine. They can't handle the rest of the world without using nukes. They do and they will no longer exist. Putin showed how weak they really are.


At least that is what the media is telling us.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> At least that is what the media is telling us.


Maybe that is why your view on Russia is so one sided. You watch media instead of watching the videos and evidence the people are providing.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

painterswife said:


> Maybe that is why your view on Russia is so one sided. You watch media instead of watching the videos and evidence the people are providing.


You haven't learned the media ALWAYS parrots the leftist lies. They tell you what you want to hear and show you pictures you want to see. Don't believe it. Russia could destroy Ukraine easily without nukes if they wanted to. Putin has chosen to do targeted hits with missiles rather than an all out assault. At least for now. They have not randomly hit cities. They are taking out particular buildings that they believe or have intelligence showing contain operations the Ukraine government needs to operate.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

poppy said:


> You haven't learned the media ALWAYS parrots the leftist lies. They tell you what you want to hear and show you pictures you want to see. Don't believe it. Russia could destroy Ukraine easily without nukes if they wanted to. Putin has chosen to do targeted hits with missiles rather than an all out assault. At least for now. They have not randomly hit cities. They are taking out particular buildings that they believe or have intelligence showing contain operations the Ukraine government needs to operate.


LOL

Sure Russia could destroy them with missiles. They are doing that now because they could not take over Ukraine with manpower and strategy.

Destroying the structures and infrastructure of Ukraine will not give them a win. It will not win them the country and the people. Putin already knows he lost and is now acting like a child and destroying all the toys.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Maybe that is why your view on Russia is so one sided. You watch media instead of watching the videos and evidence the people are providing.


Tell me just one source you have watched from the Russian perspective.

The storyline in the West is the Russian military is incompetent and is stalled. Yet, they have achieved most of their objectives.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> Tell me just one source you have watched from the Russian perspective.
> 
> The storyline in the West is the Russian military is incompetent and is stalled. Yet, they have achieved most of their objectives.


LOL, I have been watching Instagram accounts of Russians. Real people, not government mouthpieces. Funny thing though, Putin is cutting off those real people because they are telling the truth not spreading his lies.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> LOL, I have been watching Instagram accounts of Russians. Real people, not government mouthpieces. Funny thing though, Putin is cutting off those real people because they are telling the truth not spreading his lies.


I have a friend who lives in Russia and he tells me that anyone caught spreading misinformation aka anything other than Putin's narrative is subject to 17 years incarceration.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

painterswife said:


> LOL
> 
> Sure Russia could destroy them with missiles. They are doing that now because they could not take over Ukraine with manpower and strategy.
> 
> Destroying the structures and infrastructure of Ukraine will not give them a win. It will not win them the country and the people. Putin already knows he lost and is now acting like a child and destroying all the toys.



Every military in the world's mission is to kill people and blow things up. That is what they are trained to do. Well, I might make an exception for our military right now. We spend a lot of time training on how important gender identity is and how to not offend anyone. They are not ambassadors of goodwill. The military doesn't generally show up until the ambassadors have failed. Putin will not be popular among the Ukraine people and he knew that going in.. That is not his purpose. He wants a new government in Ukraine that will distance itself from the west and align with Russian interests and security.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Hiro said:


> I do know there were a lot of Soviet bioweapons research facilities in the Ukraine that we got stuck helping to pay to cleanup.


Why does Brandon not explain it that way?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

poppy said:


> Every military in the world's mission is to kill people and blow things up. That is what they are trained to do. Well, I might make an exception for our military right now. We spend a lot of time training on how important gender identity is and how to not offend anyone. They are not ambassadors of goodwill. The military doesn't generally show up until the ambassadors have failed. Putin will not be popular among the Ukraine people and he knew that going in.. That is not his purpose. He wants a new government in Ukraine that will distance itself from the west and align with Russian interests and security.


Nah. Their purpose is to protect. Force is a tool. In fact the military is a tool.

Putin wanted to take over the country and prove how great he is. He has failed and will continue to.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Nah. Their purpose is to protect. Force is a tool. In fact the military is a tool.
> 
> Putin wanted to take over the country and prove how great he is. He has failed and will continue to.


Putin is a tool too


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

wr said:


> I have a friend who lives in Russia and he tells me that anyone caught spreading misinformation aka anything other than Putin's narrative is subject to 17 years incarceration.


Same thing here we have in the US. Our current government doesn't like people who dissent from government's narrative either.

Report to the Secretary of Homeland Security Domestic Violent Extremism Internal Review Observations, Findings, And Recommendations | PDF (scribd.com)


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> The storyline in the West is the Russian military is incompetent and is stalled. Yet, they have achieved most of their objectives.


Really? Most of their objectives, huh? All of them, even, except achieving dominance of the Ukrainian air and ground forces. That’s kind of an important one if you overall goal is to demand that another country give up its territory and swap its government out for one more to your liking.

But, hey, don’t let logic or reality get in the way of you enjoying your RT feed.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> I am having a hard time believing that Russia's conventional forces are so weak.


Me, too. The puzzle, though, is their lack of air supremacy. I can’t reconcile that with their military being anywhere near as good as we were all led to believe.

Regardless whether Putin’s strategy was to take Ukraine quickly and quietly, or, for some reason, drag it out into a long, grueling meat grinder, either way the first step of any modern, dominant beligerant would be to use your air superiority to gain air supremacy as quickly as possible.

Having air supremacy allows the dominant military to conduct their operations on their schedule, and choose their positions on the battlefield. Air superiority provides leverage, but, until superiority is achieved, you don’t own the battlefield. During the span of time between invasion and air supremacy, when you only have air superiority, you are still losing expensive air assets. But, once supremacy is achieved, your Air Force can go into an almost entirely offensive role.

The land mass here is roughly the size of Texas. With the dominance that Putin has projected for his military, he should have been able to lock down the skies over Ukraine in a matter of a few days, at most.

There is no good reason for Putin to have held back on owning the air, even if he wanted a long ground battle for some other strategic reason. If he hasn’t taken that advantage yet, it can only mean that he either can’t, or someone/something is keeping him from it.


Cue @MoonRiver to tell us how Russia has air supremacy, and hasn’t lost an air asset in weeks… or maybe how there is no air left over Ukraine because Putin took it already… or how Putin doesn’t need air supremacy because he scored a 17 on his first ever 18-hole round of golf, with a putter, enjoys a game, and is only waiting until he can break away to go to Ukraine, himself, and shoot down every remaining Ukrainian aircraft with his slingshot.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> There is no good reason for Putin to have held back on owning the air


I cannot get into Putin's head.

I expect he could own the air and the ground if he wanted to.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Me, too. The puzzle, though, is their lack of air supremacy. I can’t reconcile that with their military being anywhere near as good as we were all led to believe.
> 
> Regardless whether Putin’s strategy was to take Ukraine quickly and quietly, or, for some reason, drag it out into a long, grueling meat grinder, either way the first step of any modern, dominant beligerant would be to use your air superiority to gain air supremacy as quickly as possible.
> 
> ...


The Russians were losing too many planes. And, I imagine, the last thing the Ruskies want is the west to see how inferior they are to other nations' fighter/ground attack aircraft.


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

MoonRiver said:


> What is it that makes the Russian invasion of Ukraine such a big story?


Do you think it is a small and quite un-important story?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Hiro said:


> The Russians were losing too many planes. And, I imagine, the last thing the Ruskies want is the west to see how inferior they are to other nations' fighter/ground attack aircraft.


Ok, but the heavy lifting of achieving air supremacy isn’t even done by vulnerable aircraft. The first step is to take out ground-based air defense systems, and that is usually using guided missile systems, of which Russia supposedly has sophisticated ones, and Ukraine supposedly does not have adequate defense against. The first night, or maybe two, should have been almost entirely missiles and artillery, after which the radar and fixed AA systems are gone.

After that, or parallel to it, high altitude bombing destroys the runways anywhere fighters are known to be stabled. Since the high-altitude bombers require much more sophisticated air defenses (which Ukraine doesn’t have), and Ukraine doesn’t have carriers, those two steps in tandem would eliminate Ukraine’s ability to defend against fighters or launch counter fighters of their own.

Then, if they thought it might take time for the ground forces to reach the now-damaged runways, they would come in with lower altitude fighter-bombers to take out the hangars and grounded fighters.

At that point, the invasion force can move as slowly as they’d like, or as quickly as battlefield conditions allow.

A military as dominant as we were led to believe Russia is would have had missiles pointed at and/or bombers holding over the most important targets before ‘go’, and have done most of the important damage in the first 15 minutes. The next day or two would have had every other installation destroyed and the rest of the fixed wings destroyed or thoroughly grounded between potholes.

I can’t fathom a reason why Putin would choose not to attain air supremacy, and keep coming back to _he couldn’t. _


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Ok, but the heavy lifting of achieving air supremacy isn’t even done by vulnerable aircraft. The first step is to take out ground-based air defense systems, and that is usually using guided missile systems, of which Russia supposedly has sophisticated ones, and Ukraine supposedly does not have adequate defense against. The first night, or maybe two, should have been almost entirely missiles and artillery, after which the radar and fixed AA systems are gone.
> 
> After that, or parallel to it, high altitude bombing destroys the runways anywhere fighters are known to be stabled. Since the high-altitude bombers require much more sophisticated air defenses (which Ukraine doesn’t have), and Ukraine doesn’t have carriers, those two steps in tandem would eliminate Ukraine’s ability to defend against fighters or launch counter fighters of their own.
> 
> ...


There are too many head scratchers from the get go. A week into this operation, the power was still on virtually everywhere. Heck, the timing of this makes it all suspect. Late winter, early spring where tanks get stuck in the mud. That sounds familiar. Let's funnel these tanks and APC's down these roads with next to no infantry support. That is a shooting gallery in todays warfare. Movement is survival/effectivity.


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I can’t fathom a reason why Putin would choose not to attain air supremacy, and keep coming back to _he couldn’t. _


I have read a few things that suggest possible reasons. They mostly relate back to the endemic corruption in Russian society, government and consequently the military as well. In a kleptocracy where oligarchs have built vast fortunes on looting public assets, military training and procurement has been impacted as well.

The most widely known example is the 40 km convoy that couldn't go off-road. It has been suggested that a lot of those vehicles were equipped with substandard Chinese knock-of tires which were more prone to blowouts. Moreover, some analysts suggest that many of these vehicles were not being regularly exercised, and continual sitting without movement led to advanced sunrot that weakened the sidewalls.

It seems that a similar dynamic has been going on with pilot training. Apparently, Russian pilots get about half the annual flying hours that their NATO counterparts do. Additionally, the Russian air force hasn't had very much opportunity to engage in more complex air support missions. Unlike NATO, they haven't had as much experience with real life missions requiring close coordination with other branches, and have become reliant on two plane sorties as their mission of choice. Strafing Chechens or Syrian rebels hasn't been enough to keep air operations at peak capability.

I'm not a military guy, and can't vouch for the veracity of the above analysis, but is sure seemed to make some sense in terms of explaining what has unfolded.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Really? Most of their objectives, huh? All of them, even, except achieving dominance of the Ukrainian air and ground forces. That’s kind of an important one if you overall goal is to demand that another country give up its territory and swap its government out for one more to your liking.
> 
> But, hey, don’t let logic or reality get in the way of you enjoying your RT feed.


*Zelensky concedes ‘Ukraine will not become a member of NATO’*


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Hiro said:


> There are too many head scratchers from the get go. A week into this operation, the power was still on virtually everywhere. Heck, the timing of this makes it all suspect. Late winter, early spring where tanks get stuck in the mud. That sounds familiar. Let's funnel these tanks and APC's down these roads with next to no infantry support. That is a shooting gallery in todays warfare. Movement is survival/effectivity.


You’re right, but maybe it’s not a head scratcher. Maybe the Russian military really is this inept, and not even they realized it. <_scroll past this, Moon, I know it pains you deeply to hear views counter to the Moscow Bob views and coverage from RT_> Russia hasn’t taken on even a remotely challenging adversary since they went bankrupt and had to free their slave states.

Chechnya was basically an Abu Sayyef-like zealous but primitive force where they know, going in, that they’ll always have spot-terrorism and unsophisticated, sporadic insurgency. Georgia was largely a pushover Army that hadn’t had the time and resources to recover from their decades in slavery. The Georgian Army’s standard issue battle rifle was a Bushmaster, for crying out loud. Crimea was relatively easy because of its size and large contingent of pro-Russia residents.

If Putin had been looking to just take the two eastern regions, where there is already an active Russian insurgency, he probably could have pulled off the same cheap bully-win that he did in Crimea. Trying to militarily dominate the entire country, though, seems to have been a tactical overreach, and appears to be showing the limits of the Russian conventional forces.

Applying Occam’s Razor, it doesn’t have to be all that puzzling. Putin is the current dictator of a failed empire that, even at its height, was not nearly as powerful as it projected. Putin is accountable only to a group of very rich men who can only possibly veto him when and if they can assemble an extreme majority against him. The working end of military leadership reports to a “president“ who has been in power for 20 years, and will only leave when he dies or _he_ decides to.

Maybe Putin sandbags his conventional military force a little too heavily with his nuclear force. He thinks he’s stronger than it is because, on paper, it is so. But, like I said earlier, a big military is not necessarily a good military- and that’s not an unexpected result when a Communist dictator is left to build and maintain an imposing military all while keeping a primary focus on personal profit and the profit of a supporting oligarchy.

We’ve seen that Putin’s big convoy was assembled from mixed battalions, had grossly inadequate infantry security, and didn’t even have a serviceable logistics support chain alongside it. Maybe Russian military leadership is just that inept. I still find that a little hard to believe, but maybe it is.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> You’re right, but maybe it’s not a head scratcher. Maybe the Russian military really is this inept, and not even they realized it. <_scroll past this, Moon, I know it pains you deeply to hear views counter to the Moscow Bob views and coverage from RT_> Russia hasn’t taken on even a remotely challenging adversary since they went bankrupt and had to free their slave states.
> 
> Chechnya was basically an Abu Sayyef-like zealous but primitive force where they know, going in, that they’ll always have spot-terrorism and unsophisticated, sporadic insurgency. Georgia was largely a pushover Army that hadn’t had the time and resources to recover from their decades in slavery. The Georgian Army’s standard issue battle rifle was a Bushmaster, for crying out loud. Crimea was relatively easy because of its size and large contingent of pro-Russia residents.
> 
> ...


It is possible Putin was misled about a lot of things. But, every single thing he has done in the 20+ years of his rule has been low-risk to his rule and Russia's long term economic prosperity with maximum gains. This is high risk with doubtful gains and long term consequences to Russia's economy and obviously fear of their conventional military forces. Those doubtful gains, though I am repeating myself, cannot be guaranteed by any leveling of Ukrainian cities.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Hiro said:


> It is possible Putin was misled about a lot of things. But, every single thing he has done in the 20+ years of his rule has been low-risk to his rule and Russia's long term economic prosperity with maximum gains. This is high risk with doubtful gains and long term consequences to Russia's economy and obviously fear of their conventional military forces. Those doubtful gains, though I am repeating myself, cannot be guaranteed by any leveling of Ukrainian cities.


I agree with that. Maybe there is something to the early theory that Putin is suffering some terminal illness, and is trying to make some significant historical contribution back to the empire before he goes. That could certainly change his math on risk analysis.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> *Zelensky concedes ‘Ukraine will not become a member of NATO’*


Nice dodge of the “most of their objectives” _except the military ones_, but I get that it would be impossible for you to contain your glee on a headline like that one. Did you read the three paragraph article it contained? The underlying Newsweek article that it drew from?

I haven’t managed to find a complete transcript of the speech, but none of the half dozen or so snips from the two articles indicate that Zelenskyy is _agreeing_ not to join NATO. Quite the opposite, all of the snips appear to be Zelenskyy shaming NATO, saying that he accepts that they’ll never admit Ukraine, and that they don’t need NATO to fight off Russia anyway.

This doesn’t read to me, at all, like Putin prevailed and Ukraine agreed not to join NATO. You?

“_For years we’ve heard the opposite, open doors, however, it is not… Our people understand this, and we are beginning to count on our own strength…
We realized that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO. We understand this, we are adequate people…
Kyiv needs new formats of interaction with the West and separate security guarantees…_”

Those were all the direct quotes I could find. If you happen to find a complete transcript, please post it. I’d be interested to read the whole thing. I doubt, though, that, if you do find it, it will say what you so desperately hope it says, and it will turn into yet another point that you drop down the memory hole.


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

Hiro said:


> Those doubtful gains, though I am repeating myself, cannot be guaranteed by any leveling of Ukrainian cities.


So it is!


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> Tell me just one source you have watched from the Russian perspective.
> 
> The storyline in the West is the Russian military is incompetent and is stalled. Yet, they have achieved most of their objectives.











Here is video from a Russian broadcast, certainly not a ‘western’ point of view: The sign apparently says “Stop the war. Don't believe the propaganda. Here they are lying to you." It was signed in English: "Russians against the war". She could get up to 15 years in jail for this due to a recently passed law forbidding any “unauthorized” (non-state sanctioned) news reporting.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I haven’t managed to find a complete transcript of the speech, but none of the half dozen or so snips from the two articles indicate that Zelenskyy is _agreeing_ not to join NATO


Not sure Zelensky said it. This is as close as I could find. 

_Ihor Shuvukva, foreign policy adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that after that, "what would it look like with a possible neutrality of Ukraine" could be discussed, adding: "Therefore we need strict guarantees so that such a situation does not happen again... We are not the aggressors and we will never be the attackers."_​







Ukraine accepts discussion of neutral status, and Zelensky is ready to meet Putin | tellerreport.com


Ukraine has announced that it does not rule out discussing the country's possible neutrality in negotiations with Russia, Ihor Shuvukva, foreign policy adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, said in statements to the German media network ARD when asked if Ukraine could




www.tellerreport.com


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Not sure Zelensky said it. This is as close as I could find.
> 
> _Ihor Shuvukva, foreign policy adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that after that, "what would it look like with a possible neutrality of Ukraine" could be discussed, adding: "Therefore we need strict guarantees so that such a situation does not happen again... We are not the aggressors and we will never be the attackers."_​
> 
> ...


Thanks. That’s not the same speech or negotiating round, though. The speech to the UK JEF was just in the last day or two, and that foreign policy advisor saying that the topic of neutrality could at least be tabled is from a week ago.

Either way, neither that quote, nor anything that has come out of the UK JEF speech quite aligned with the headline that had @MoonRiver so giddy.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

It's part political theater, part mob style hit. A favor, from an old friend. The thug we have leading us is doing a really poor job. So bad in fact, that people on his own side will be willing to allow investigation, in order to distance themselves. Any serious investigation is going to turn up some pretty bad stuff, some of it in Ukraine. Putin is not engaging in a military operation with military objectives. He is headhunting. Doing a cleanup job. He will get some prize for playing his part. But watch, some juicy tidbit on our news will draw us in. Maybe the bio-labs. Our thug will take some action, maybe bombing a third world country somewhere, Putin will immediately stand down. Our guy will be a hero, all his former business associates have been erased, Putin gets some little bone, everybody is happy.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

barnbilder said:


> It's part political theater, part mob style hit. A favor, from an old friend. The thug we have leading us is doing a really poor job. So bad in fact, that people on his own side will be willing to allow investigation, in order to distance themselves. Any serious investigation is going to turn up some pretty bad stuff, some of it in Ukraine. Putin is not engaging in a military operation with military objectives. He is headhunting. Doing a cleanup job. He will get some prize for playing his part. But watch, some juicy tidbit on our news will draw us in. Maybe the bio-labs. Our thug will take some action, maybe bombing a third world country somewhere, Putin will immediately stand down. Our guy will be a hero, all his former business associates have been erased, Putin gets some little bone, everybody is happy.


That makes as much sense as Russian military being as inept as our media says


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

"It is clear that Ukraine is not a member of NATO. We understand that. We have heard for years about an allegedly open door, but we have already heard that cannot enter it. It is true. It must be acknowledged. I am glad that our people are beginning to understand and count on themselves and on partners who are helping us. Ukraine does not currently claim the trigger of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. […] We understand that we are not in the Alliance," he said. 








Zelensky: Ukraine understands it is not NATO member, so it needs reliable security guarantees


Ukraine understands that it is not a member of NATO, so it needs reliable security guarantees and hopes to cooperate with partners who are ready to help the country in the face of Russia's military aggression. — Ukrinform.




www.ukrinform.net


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

barnbilder said:


> Our thug will take some action


Which "thug" do you mean? Can we have a name?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

The Paw said:


> I have read a few things that suggest possible reasons. They mostly relate back to the endemic corruption in Russian society, government and consequently the military as well. In a kleptocracy where oligarchs have built vast fortunes on looting public assets, military training and procurement has been impacted as well.
> 
> The most widely known example is the 40 km convoy that couldn't go off-road. It has been suggested that a lot of those vehicles were equipped with substandard Chinese knock-of tires which were more prone to blowouts. Moreover, some analysts suggest that many of these vehicles were not being regularly exercised, and continual sitting without movement led to advanced sunrot that weakened the sidewalls.
> 
> ...


That’s funny. A friend had sent me an AAR from an English speaking force in Ukraine that showed drone stills of (allegedly) a segment of that convoy with multiples wheels off the vehicles, dead soldiers near the jacks/tires, and the rest grouped on the opposite side of the vehicles for cover. The AAR reported Ukrainian sniper fire fixing the segment in place while it had been conducting “repairs”.


----------



## wdcutrsdaughter (Dec 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> What I want to understand is what is it about this particular war that has people so emotionally involved.


They were told to be.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

po boy said:


> "It is clear that Ukraine is not a member of NATO. We understand that. We have heard for years about an allegedly open door, but we have already heard that cannot enter it. It is true. It must be acknowledged. I am glad that our people are beginning to understand and count on themselves and on partners who are helping us. Ukraine does not currently claim the trigger of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. […] We understand that we are not in the Alliance," he said.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you. That doesn’t appear to be complete, but it’s definitely a much more inclusive edit of the speech than either Sara Carter or Newsweek offered.

Here’s the added content:

“_It is clear that Ukraine is not a member of NATO. We understand that. We have heard for years about an allegedly open door, but we have already heard that cannot enter it. It is true. It must be acknowledged. I am glad that our people are beginning to understand and count on themselves and on partners who are helping us. Ukraine does not currently claim the trigger of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. […] We understand that we are not in the Alliance…

We emphasize the need for new formats of interaction, new determination. If we cannot enter the open door, we must work with communities that will help us, protect us. And we would like to have some reliable guarantees that will work for us, which means they will also work for you…

We say that our skies need to be protected in the same way as the Alliance's skies, but we understand that there is always a 'but.' What will be NATO's response to Allies in Eastern Europe if they are already seeking protection? If, God forbid, Russian missiles and Russian planes arrive in their territory? Russia has attacked our Lviv region. A missile strike 20 kilometers from NATO borders. Russian drones have already fallen on the territory of the Alliance…”_

That certainly reads differently than the headline that had @MoonRiver salivating, “_Zelenskyy concedes, ‘Ukraine will not join NATO’”_

Sorry, Moon. Big sad face, I know.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

HDRider said:


> That makes as much sense as Russian military being as inept as our media says


Our media's job is to sell it and make it believable. It's the only explanation that makes sense, based on what we know of all the players on the board.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

bubba42 said:


> Here is video from a Russian broadcast, certainly not a ‘western’ point of view: The sign apparently says “Stop the war. Don't believe the propaganda. Here they are lying to you." It was signed in English: "Russians against the war". She could get up to 15 years in jail for this due to a recently passed law forbidding any “unauthorized” (non-state sanctioned) news reporting.


It was on Western media because it showed the point of view the West wants us to see. Notice they didn't show the entire broadcast.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Thank you. That doesn’t appear to be complete, but it’s definitely a much more inclusive edit of the speech than either Sara Carter or Newsweek offered.
> 
> Here’s the added content:
> 
> ...


You continue to assign things to me I didn't say or positions I don't hold. 

How many times do I have to post I hope Ukraine wins, but my objective analysis says they can't and won't? The US will not come to the rescue. NATO will not come to the rescue. Any escalation on the part of the West is to bleed Putin, not to save Ukrainian lives.


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

wdcutrsdaughter said:


> They were told to be.


I was NOT told to be.
Anybody with a minimum of empathy will be emotionally involved, without being "told to be."
Can't we do without the usual conspiracy theories - for once?


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> It was on Western media because it showed the point of view the West wants us to see. Notice they didn't show the entire broadcast.


Wow!


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

Berwick said:


> I was NOT told to be.
> Anybody with a minimum of empathy will be emotionally involved, without being "told to be."
> Can't we do without the usual conspiracy theories - for once?


Can't people be allowed to post their thoughts without being accused of spreading conspiracy theories?

Really, @Berwick, you have become so hypercritical of others' posts, perhaps you should consider starting your own website and run it the way you want to run it, rather than coming in here and dictating your demands.

You aren't, by any chance, related to the Canadian PM?


----------



## wdcutrsdaughter (Dec 9, 2012)

Berwick said:


> I was NOT told to be.
> Anybody with a minimum of empathy will be emotionally involved, without being "told to be."
> Can't we do without the usual conspiracy theories - for once?


I didn't meant to offend you, or anyone. 
I don't know what conspiracy you are referring to.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Pony said:


> Can't people be allowed to post their thoughts without being accused of spreading conspiracy theories?
> 
> Really, @Berwick, you have become so hypercritical of others' posts, perhaps you should consider starting your own website and run it the way you want to run it, rather than coming in here and dictating your demands.
> 
> You aren't, by any chance, related to the Canadian PM?


Telling others to leave this site is uncalled for. I have been here for decades and agree that many of your opinions come off as conspiracy theory based. Just sharing my opinion. Are you going to tell me to leave?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Telling others to leave this site is uncalled for. I have been here for decades and agree that many of your opinions come off as conspiracy theory based. Just sharing my opinion. Are you going to tell me to leave?


Meh. Would you pay attention if she told you to leave too? Of course you wouldn't.  I wouldn't either. Some people are chronic about telling other people to leave. Like the boy who cried "Wolf !!!!" or the monkey who complains chronically about Canada, they become ignorable.

(Oh, while I think of it - Speaking of _real_ wolves, B.C.'s big island's west coast sea-wolves have started encroaching on the provincial capitol and surrounding neighbourhoods and killing and eating people's dogs. They must have been watching the TV news through people's windows and saw what the wolf Putin is doing to Ukraine and decided to try to copy him.

Any time somebody (person A) suggests to somebody else (person B) that they should leave it's usually because B said something that needled a nerve with person A because it doesn't fit in with A's personal agenda and sense of superiority. I've been told plenty of times over the years that I should leave when I don't fit in with somebody else's idea of their status quo. I ignore it.

I confess I also have on occasion suggested to some people that they should leave but I know they won't leave. I don't let that bother me since I know that nobody is twisting my arm to read or respond to the posts of people that offend me. I respond because I want to. And if they don't leave it just means I have more opportunities in the future to needle them again if I want to.

To get back on topic, I agree with Berwick that nobody was told that they have to care about Ukraine. Anybody with an ounce of good sense and a modicum of empathy and compassion will automatically be emotionally caught up in Ukraine's travesty without needing to be told that they should feel emotional. Anyone who needs to be told to feel emotional about such a thing is somebody who is a mentally handicapped social misfit that probably likes to pull wings off living flies too.

.


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

Paumon said:


> Anybody with an ounce of good sense and a modicum of empathy and compassion will automatically be emotionally caught up in Ukraine's travesty without needing to be told that they should feel emotional. Anyone who needs to be told to feel emotional about such a thing is somebody who is a mentally handicapped social misfit that probably likes to pull wings off living flies too.


Well said!


----------



## Ziptie (May 16, 2013)

HDRider said:


> I am having a hard time believing that Russia's conventional forces are so weak.


Same here it seems like Putin is taking his time waiting for something. We have known they have some nasty tools in thier shed for awhile. If they wanted this over in a week I think they could of done it. Something is amiss...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1504426844199669762


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

Ziptie said:


> If they wanted this over in a week I think they could of done it.


Maybe they really couldn't?


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Ziptie said:


> Same here it seems like Putin is taking his time waiting for something. We have known they have some nasty tools in thier shed for awhile. If they wanted this over in a week I think they could of done it. Something is amiss...


My guess is that Putin will be floundering around, unable to achieve military objectives, with the Ukrainian underdogs barely eking by, until at least the midterms, possibly until 24.


----------



## robin416 (Dec 29, 2019)

Berwick said:


> Maybe they really couldn't?


Or they have them in reserve if Nato countries get pulled into the war.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

For your viewing pleasure. Here is Laura Logan explaining what has been and is going on. She is what used to be called a journalist. Everything she says is factual and documented in history. People who side with either side in this war are being played. Look at the big picture.

KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM (bitchute.com)


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

poppy said:


> For your viewing pleasure. Here is Laura Logan explaining what has been and is going on. She is what used to be called a journalist. Everything she says is factual and documented in history. People who side with either side in this war are being played. Look at the big picture.
> 
> KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM (bitchute.com)


Good video


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

poppy said:


> For your viewing pleasure. Here is Laura Logan explaining what has been and is going on. She is what used to be called a journalist. Everything she says is factual and documented in history. People who side with either side in this war are being played. Look at the big picture.
> 
> KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM (bitchute.com)


I’m generally a fan of Lara Logan, but that interview was not one of her most flattering moments.

To start with, she launched her main point by saying “…_covering war for 30 years… never seen anything like this… you either have to hate Putin and believe everything evil ever said about him, or love Ukraine, and there’s no in between_.” Right out of the gate, she uses a false premise. I’ve yet to see anyone giving Ukraine a blanket pass on everything they do and have ever done. I’m sure there are some pinheads on Twitterbook who just heard of Ukraine three weeks ago, but any naive opinions they may have gotten from Twitter are far from the dominate narrative.

At 3:00, she starts talking about the Azov battalion unit patch, and the picture that has surfaced of a platoon showing the NATO flag and a swastika flag. She says that the black sun symbol is “_not only used by the Azov battalion, it’s seen throughout their military and on the women they parade in front of the world…_”. To what I’ve been able to find, there’s literally one photo of a female soldier who had that symbol on her body armor. Maybe she’s a member of that battalion? I don’t know.

What about this unit?









This is a USMC Scout Sniper platoon. MANY of the Scout Sniper unit patches, emblems and morale patches feature the SS symbol, and not just “SS”, but THE SS. I have a hoodie I was given from the Marine SS school, and one from the Army Sniper School (“SS”) that feature that exact symbol.

What would be your level of trust in someone’s argument if they showed a couple Scout Sniper patches, and used that to imply that the US military “were Nazis”?

She makes the statement that “western Ukraine sided with the Nazis”. Ok, but, if that’s actually the measure of something, so did all of Russia.. until they didn’t. So did many in the US. You know who else did? Germany. All of it. We consider them an ally now. In the context, that is a pitifully weak point. 

She goes on to say that “the Azov battalion was murdering its way across the eastern half of Ukraine”. By other accounts, the Azov battalion (which is housed in the south eastern part of the country, has been fighting an insurgency, sponsored by Russia, in the eastern part of the country. Neither of us are connected enough to Ukraine to say definitively that the battle is just, but the language Ms. Logan used to describe the fighting in the east was as far from objective as one can get. If someone used that language to describe US operations in Afghanistan, would you be likely to believe their argument?

She makes the same citation as Moon did about the US meddling in Ukraine, but, also like Moon, selectively ignores the earlier Russian meddling- meddling which reached the level of assassination attempt against the sitting president.

I just find it extremely ironic that Ms. Logan is castigating us for accepting a one sided view (that she had to grossly exaggerate to found her point), by giving us an extremely one-sided view of her own. She says that she’s just doing her journalistic duty, trying to maintain objectivity, but resorts to strawmen arguments, selective editing of history, and inflammatory language to sell a subjective view.

…wait. In that case, she sounds exactly like a journalist.


----------



## Ziptie (May 16, 2013)

I don't know about the Nazi thing. I have see several other places reference it. I think this guy makes a few good points... 








Kayfabe in Kiev


The Latest Spectacle in the Globalist War Against All




im1776.com





" I have seen enough of this life to know that in the real world, things are complicated. To humanity’s credit, there are almost always good men on all sides of any conflict. Upon returning once on Convalescent Leave, my old squad leader gave me a string of prayer beads he took from the body of the man who shot me. I wear some of the beads to this day in honor of those two men and what they taught me. I often think about that man and my squad leader and the rest of my buddies and Haji and the war we found ourselves in, be it ever so humble. While I’m glad I survived the encounter with Mr. Nahr, I respect his folk too much to hate him. I like to think he was doing what he thought was right and fighting an enemy seeking dominion over his home. 

Likewise, I’ve known people from Russia and the Ukraine. The Russians, in their patience, tried to teach me a bit of their language. The Ukrainian was a buddy who was big into permaculture and was eager to share tips on growing things. From what I remember of them and what I have seen and read of their respective homes, it was very clear to me they were from worlds that are in many ways different than my own, and to see the ham-fisted manner in which this current farce is paraded about robs all in it of their dignity. If anything, I can sympathize with both. I can only imagine how difficult it must have been to have gone from decades under the boot heel of Communism only to see it collapse into chaos, and then attempt the Herculean task of trying to rebuild your nation into something strong enough to stand on its own among the Great Powers of the world. Likewise, I imagine it must be difficult to be from the Ukraine, perpetually at the mercy of forces greater than your own and surrounded by those who would seek to absorb you into their ledger as just another asset. My own people fought for the South in our Civil War and lost, so I like to think I can appreciate the desire to be free of a Leviathan with all too great a reach. From where I stand, all sides seem to have cause and are worthy of respect, and I am ashamed at how we are so easily made to play the voyeur or interloper and render absolute judgment over the affairs of strangers and interfere in things we don’t really understand. 

In considering the peoples of the Ukraine and Russia, and seeing the way their very real historical, cultural, and political issues with tangled roots going back God-knows-how-long are being reduced to a damn Cape**** movie and exacerbated until there is blood in the gutters for fun and profit is almost as embarrassing as the fact this madness was birthed by a class of criminals operating in offices established in our names. They have been trying to loot Russia since the fall of Communism and have made a corrupt playground out of the Ukraine in the age-old American game of “poke the dog until it bites and then shoot it,” in much the same way we’ve seen play out over the years from ‘Arab Spring’ to the myriad Color Revolutions they’ve sponsored in Eastern Bloc nations. ""


----------



## Ziptie (May 16, 2013)

Poking around the web and trying to figure out the world. Ran into this summery about what might be going on and thought some of you would find his analysis interesting. 









Anaconda warfare - Didactic Mind


There has been a great deal of speculation over the past three weeks of the Russian campaign as to why they’ve been doing certain things. If you listen to the whorenalists and the presstitutes – I don’t recommend doing so, mostly for the sake of your own mental and digestive health – then you...



didacticmind.com





"Now, look at how the Russians have behaved in the field.
Every time that the Ukies have signalled they want to negotiate, the Russkies have suspended hostilities, observed cease-fires, allowed civilians to evacuate, opened humanitarian corridors, and handed out supplies and food to areas that they have subjugated and cleansed.
And every time the Ukies have shown themselves to be deceptive or intransigent, the Russians have ramped the pressure right back up.
Their entire method of fighting is to encircle their enemy – a tactic that they have been using since, probably, Kursk and Stalingrad, if not earlier – and strangle him to death, slowly at first, and then harder.
I call this _anaconda warfare_ – death by strangulation. The Russians call it котёльная война – cauldron war.
Their philosophy involves creating “cauldrons” of complete encirclement and envelopment, from which there is no escape. They then simply bomb and shoot and shell the poor bastards trapped within the cauldron – котёль – until they surrender or die.
.....
At this point, negotiations come into play. If the Ukrainians agree to become an armed neutral state, committed to defending only their own territory, and forever forswear, at the Constitutional and electoral level, joining NATO, and agree to recognise the LDNR republics, at some level at least, then this is probably good enough for the Russians.
But the Ukies have stubbornly refused to do anything of the sort. They will not budge on their refusal to recognise the LDNR – never mind that the LDNR forces now control the majority of the Lugansk and Donetsk regions themselves. The reason why is very simple – Lugansk and Donetsk, along with Mariupol’, account for most of Ukraine’s coal and much of its heavy industry. Without those areas, Ukraine is economically _SCREWED_ – well, even more than it normally is.
Nor will they accept demilitarised status, at least not yet. Which means that the Russians will simply increase the temperature of their various cauldrons around Kiev, Kharkov, Chernigov, Mariupol’, Zaporozhye, and Nikolayev.
At that point, if the Ukies continue to refuse, and the Russians cannot make them see sense, they will likely simply smash down the remaining defenders in those cities, move straight up the Dniepr, and storm Kiev. Then, they will partition Ukraine. And that, in all honesty, would probably be the best possible outcome for all concerned.
A partitioned Ukraine would provide Russia with the “Novorossiya” friendly buffer state east of the Dnieper that it needs. Western Ukraine, though, would be _DESTROYED_. Economically speaking, most of Ukraine’s real resources are in the east, south, and north – the west has very little of real value.
In the end, “Ukraine” may well become a land-locked Banderastani hell-hole, while the Russians secure control over the Azov coast and create two client buffer states from the LDNR, while also absorbing Kharkov and much of the northeast back into itself.
And, honestly, if the Ukie leadership refuse to see sense and stop the killing, then they will get exactly what they deserve.
In all of this, let us spare a thought and a prayer for the Ukrainian people, who have suffered horribly historically, and continue to do so now. They voted for the people who created this war, but they are no more than puppets – as I wrote earlier, that is the great tragedy of Ukraine, and continues to be so to this day."


----------

