# Alternate View of What is Happening in Ukraine



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

_The Ukrainian Air Force, what is left of it, is now flying on Helen Keller terms. It seems that Ukraine combat aircraft rely on ground controlled radar to conduct air to air intercepts. Guess what the Russians obliterated in the first hours of their invasion on Wednesday? If you said, “ground controlled radar” you are a winner.

Without that radar the Russians have air superiority. They have castrated the Ukrainians ability to provide close air support and disrupt Russian air cover. They are flying blind (if they are flying and can find an operational air field.) Then there are the lines of communication for the Ukrainian Army. Critical military fuel dumps are on fire and the ability of the Ukrainian Army to keep their tanks and trucks running is slipping away._

_more_


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bongino said he wanted to hear alternate views, but he really didn't.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

He’s just one more in a long line of people Kissing Putin’s %#*


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Kiamichi Kid said:


> He’s just one more in a long line of people Kissing Putin’s %#*


Or people who realize Ukraine doesn't have a chance and never did. Too many people are treating this like a sporting event, ignoring that not only is Ukraine going to lose, but they will lose many lives.

Did you remember this?

Thirteen Ukrainian soldiers refused to surrender* Snake Island*, a strategic position. Although outmatched, they told Russia what they really thought of them. Those soldiers died, but they will not be forgotten.​​Did you believe it and do you still?


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> Or people who realize Ukraine doesn't have a chance and never did. Too many people are treating this like a sporting event, ignoring that not only is Ukraine going to lose, but they will lose many lives.
> 
> Did you remember this?
> 
> Thirteen Ukrainian soldiers refused to surrender* Snake Island*, a strategic position. Although outmatched, they told Russia what they really thought of them. Those soldiers died, but they will not be forgotten.​​Did you believe it and do you still?


The only people that I see treating it like a sporting event are those Kissing Putin’s grits and being his Cheerleaders… 
Whether or not the Ukrainian people can win has absolutely no bearing on the fact that this is an Invasion of a Sovereign Nation and is Illegal under International Law.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Zelensky asked for “assistance with military implements and weapons” during a Friday phone call with Bennett, the Kan public broadcaster reported.

The request did not include any details on specific weapons or equipment, but was more of a general appeal for military help, the unsourced report said.


Israel responded with “diplomatic politeness,” and it appeared that the request was not on the table, the report said.

Israel has friendly relations with both Kyiv and Moscow, and has been walking a diplomatic tightrope between the two countries during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.









Bennett declined Zelensky’s request for military aid, report says


Israeli leader demurred when Ukrainian president asked for weapons help during Friday phone call, broadcaster says, as Jerusalem seeks to balance its ties with Moscow and Kyiv




www.timesofisrael.com


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Kiamichi Kid said:


> The only people that I see treating it like a sporting event are those Kissing Putin’s grits and being his Cheerleaders…
> Whether or not the Ukrainian people can win has absolutely no bearing on the fact that this is an Invasion of a Sovereign Nation and is Illegal under International Law.


I haven't seen anyone cheering for Putin. I have seen some people, me included, that believe the EU, NATO, and the US misled Ukraine and used them as a pawn. And now it is the Ukrainians who will die.

For what they did, the ONLY honorable thing to do is join the fight.

I am against the US getting involved in the war, but I am even more against the US manipulating another country the way the US manipulated Ukraine.

There can be something *a little distasteful about Western onlookers (myself included) cheering on Ukrainians for a cause that our countries are not willing to join*, a stance that risks *raising the price of a peace that will be paid only with Ukrainian blood*. Nevertheless, it is possible to recognize this, to be inspired by what Zelensky represents, and then to be shamed by his example.​​*Here is a nation and a leader willing to sacrifice so much for the principle of independence and the right to join the Western world. And yet, much of the West is jaded and cynical, apparently devoid of any such mission, cause, or sense of idealism anymore. What is it that the West believes in now?*​​*The Atlantic*​


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The US has been telling Ukraine this would happen for months. So no they did not use anyone as a pawn.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

With regards to the geopolitical history here, you are uninformed.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

Who has the moral high ground vs who you want to win vs who you think will win.

Not to mention, what is the definition of "win".

No wonder we cannot discuss this, without talking past each other. We are often discussing different things.

I still think the U.S. is complicit in this mess. We had to put our finger in Putin's eye, knowing full well we were putting Ukraine in the crosshairs.

Not defending Putin's actions....not for a second. But actions have consequences. And here we are....

I am sure my view is over-simplifying things. But I don't know enough to avoid that!


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

The US convinced Ukraine to dispose of their nuclear weapons when the Soviet Union dissolved. The implication was that we would protect them. Push comes to shove and we left them twisting in the wind.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

tarbe said:


> Who has the moral high ground vs who you want to win vs who you think will win.
> 
> Not to mention, what is the definition of "win".
> 
> ...


Sometimes simplification is the best way to prevent BS confusion.

I have read and heard from supporters of Putin. They are out there.
There are no good guys as a collective. There are bad guys and victims.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Putin's Failure
_"...the Kremlin’s plan consisted of an airborne/airmobile/Spetsnaz descent on Kyiv, the mission of which was to establish an airhead in the capital and capture the Ukrainian government until relieved by mechanized forces racing in from the north. An airmobile assault was attempted at Gostomel to Kyiv’s immediate north. 
But things went badly wrong. The Russian battalion-sized airmobile force met stiff air defense and was immediately counterattacked by the Ukrainian mobile reserve. Unable to land follow-on forces, the paratroopers could not withstand heavy weapons and were scattered or wiped out. Equally serious for the Russians was the failure of their northern pincer to advance on schedule.

Desperate to “bag” the Ukrainian government, the Russians attempted a large-scale airborne assault for Vasylkiv Airfield to the south of Kyiv to establish a blocking position to catch withdrawing units. But this failed, with two C-17 counterpart IL-76s loaded with paratroops destroyed, and with them, two infantry companies of the Kremlin’s finest. Crucially the Russian mechanized elements trickling into Kyiv proved too weak to break through the city defense.

When it was clear Zelensky, and hence the Ukrainian government, could not be bagged and was quite capable of retreating in good order to fallback positions in the West, it was obvious that Putin could not conclude the campaign with the political time and the military forces at hand...."
_


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

painterswife said:


> The US has been telling Ukraine this would happen for months. So no they did not use anyone as a pawn.


This goes back decades, not months.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> Putin's Failure
> _"...the Kremlin’s plan consisted of an airborne/airmobile/Spetsnaz descent on Kyiv, the mission of which was to establish an airhead in the capital and capture the Ukrainian government until relieved by mechanized forces racing in from the north. An airmobile assault was attempted at Gostomel to Kyiv’s immediate north.
> But things went badly wrong. The Russian battalion-sized airmobile force met stiff air defense and was immediately counterattacked by the Ukrainian mobile reserve. Unable to land follow-on forces, the paratroopers could not withstand heavy weapons and were scattered or wiped out. Equally serious for the Russians was the failure of their northern pincer to advance on schedule.
> 
> ...


You have to think all that is going to cause Putin to escalate


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> This goes back decades, not months.


I understand your disgust of how Ukraine got left high and dry.

The main reason we pushed for Ukraine to put the nukes in Russia's hands is that it made one less nuclear power. I still think that makes sense.

That said, the break up of the USSR required a level of trust. That trust in hindsight was proven misplaced.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> I understand your disgust of how Ukraine got left high and dry.
> 
> The main reason we pushed for Ukraine to put the nukes in Russia's hands is that it made one less nuclear power. I still think that makes sense.
> 
> That said, the break up of the USSR required a level of trust. That trust in hindsight was proven misplaced.


What's funny is Trump got blamed for trying to coerce the President of Ukraine when it was actually GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, Obama, and Biden who actually did manipulate Ukraine to try to isolate Russia. Ukraine was used by our national security agencies with no concern for the Ukrainian people. 

This goes all the way back to GHW Bush, Dick Cheney, and James Baker. The below article does a good job of tracking much of US foreign policy relating to Ukraine from Bush 1 to today.

T*he fight over Ukraine’s fate started even before it had pulled out of the Soviet Union* — and, behind closed doors, divided the administration of George HW Bush. As the Soviet Union was crumbling in 1991, US defence secretary *Dick Cheney advised his boss that Washington should do everything possible to accelerate that collapse. The US secretary of state, Bush’s old friend and tennis doubles partner James Baker, disagreed vehemently.*​...​The then US ambassador in Moscow, Robert Strauss, advised Washington that this result was devastating for Russians — “the *most revolutionary event of 1991 for Russia* may not be the collapse of Communism, but t*he loss of something Russians of all political stripes think of as part of their own body politic, and near to the heart at that: Ukraine.”*​​Financial Times​


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> What's funny is Trump got blamed for trying to coerce the President of Ukraine when it was actually GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, Obama, and Biden who actually did manipulate Ukraine to try to isolate Russia. Ukraine was used by our national security agencies with no concern for the Ukrainian people.
> 
> This goes all the way back to GHW Bush, Dick Cheney, and James Baker. The below article does a good job of tracking much of US foreign policy relating to Ukraine from Bush 1 to today.
> 
> T*he fight over Ukraine’s fate started even before it had pulled out of the Soviet Union* — and, behind closed doors, divided the administration of George HW Bush. As the Soviet Union was crumbling in 1991, US defence secretary *Dick Cheney advised his boss that Washington should do everything possible to accelerate that collapse. The US secretary of state, Bush’s old friend and tennis doubles partner James Baker, disagreed vehemently.*​...​The then US ambassador in Moscow, Robert Strauss, advised Washington that this result was devastating for Russians — “the *most revolutionary event of 1991 for Russia* may not be the collapse of Communism, but t*he loss of something Russians of all political stripes think of as part of their own body politic, and near to the heart at that: Ukraine.”*​​Financial Times​


How many times has Trump been right, and the story stood on its head to demonize him?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Bongino said he wanted to hear alternate views, but he really didn't.


Please expand on that. I watched your clip and what I heard was Bongino telling the guest that he knew he held an alternate view and that he’d like to hear it. The guest then provided his view, while Bongino respectfully listened, then Bongino stated that he disagreed.

Where exactly do you get “_Bongino said he wanted to hear alternate views, but he really didn't._”?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Bongino said he wanted to hear alternate views, but he really didn't.


I don’t think I’ve heard anyone saying that Ukraine could win, or could even hold out for very long. On the other hand, I’ve seen a lot of opinion of surprise that Ukraine is fighting back as well as it has, and that Russia’s fighting force has been proving to be much less effective than we all thought they would be.

The guest in your clip (that you somehow claim the host, Bongino, “_didn’t want to hear_”) relied heavily on self-contradiction. First, he bases his premise on the supposition that Russia hasn’t advanced more aggressively than they have because Putin wants to minimize damage and violence, then argues the inevitability of a quick Russian victory by positing a strategy where Russia is going to encircle the cities and launch rocket barrages (_with weapons that can destroy an area the size of Central Park in one volley_) and level the cities.

I don’t think Putin will try anything like that unless he gets completely desperate (which is not out of the question). He’s seeing the world sentiment developing, and has to know that heavy collateral damage will not favor his having to take his time.

I would not be surprised to find out that Xi has even told Putin that he has to have this puzzle solved quickly- maybe another week or two at most. Xi is using this as the cartoon short before his main feature in Taiwan, and he won’t tolerate Putin screwing it up any more than he was prepared to let Putin start before Xi’s Olympics closed.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Please expand on that. I watched your clip and what I heard was Bongino telling the guest that he knew he held an alternate view and that he’d like to hear it. The guest then provided his view, while Bongino respectfully listened, then Bongino stated that he disagreed.
> 
> Where exactly do you get “_Bongino said he wanted to hear alternate views, but he really didn't._”?


The way he dismissed him at the end.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I don’t think I’ve heard anyone saying that Ukraine could win, or could even hold out for very long. On the other hand, I’ve seen a lot of opinion of surprise that Ukraine is fighting back as well as it has, and that Russia’s fighting force has been proving to be much less effective than we all thought they would be.
> 
> The guest in your clip (that you somehow claim the host, Bongino, “_didn’t want to hear_”) relied heavily on self-contradiction. First, he bases his premise on the supposition that Russia hasn’t advanced more aggressively than they have because Putin wants to minimize damage and violence, then argues the inevitability of a quick Russian victory by positing a strategy where Russia is going to encircle the cities and launch rocket barrages (_with weapons that can destroy an area the size of Central Park in one volley_) and level the cities.
> 
> ...


I believe Putin had 2 objectives and that matches what the guest said.

Capture all the territory from Crimea at least to and including Donbas region
Sign an agreement with Ukraine that says it will not join NATO or the EU and will remain neutral.
I think if Ukraine was to sign such an agreement, the war would be over.

If Ukraine doesn't sign it, I believe Putin will start directing missiles into Kiev until Ukraine agrees to the terms. 

Everyone remember that the media/government is the same one that lied about everything to do with Covid and tried to hide the information it didn't want us to know..


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

It has been a wet muddy winter in that area, muddy roads and even muddier fields. Not good for a fast tank war. That slowed them down, then they began to run out of fuel. It always takes longer than anyone thinks it will.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

MoonRiver said:


> I believe Putin had 2 objectives and that matches what the guest said.
> 
> Capture all the territory from Crimea at least to and including Donbas region
> Sign an agreement with Ukraine that says it will not join NATO or the EU and will remain neutral.
> ...


You mean like when Russia and USA agreed to protect Ukraine from attack if it gave up its nuclear weapons? Honestly treaties are only as good as the firepower you have to enforce them. If your neighbor is afraid of damage you might do to him, he wont attack you. Obviously if the Ukraine still had operable nukes, Putin would poop his pants in fear they would level Moscow and make it into another Chernobyl. He only respects POWER. Not an honorable man. Not a genius, just a mob boss type brute.

Just like Hitler, he will take free gifts from the Neville Chamberlains of the world, but wont settle for that, if he wants Ukraine as part of new Russian Empire, then he will take it. He doesnt negotiate honorably.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HermitJohn said:


> You mean like when Russia and USA agreed to protect Ukraine from attack if it gave up its nuclear weapons? Honestly treaties are only as good as the firepower you have to enforce them. If your neighbor is afraid of damage you might do to him, he wont attack you. Obviously if the Ukraine still had operable nukes, Putin would poop his pants in fear they would level Moscow and make it into another Chernobyl. He only respects POWER. Not an honorable man. Not a genius, just a mob boss type brute.
> 
> Just like Hitler, he will take free gifts from the Neville Chamberlains of the world, but wont settle for that, if he wants Ukraine as part of new Russian Empire, then he will take it. He doesnt negotiate honorably.


Ukraine never had operational nukes, exactly. They had nukes, but Russia had the ability to launch them, not Ukraine.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

HDRider said:


> I understand your disgust of how Ukraine got left high and dry.
> 
> The main reason we pushed for Ukraine to put the nukes in Russia's hands is that it made one less nuclear power. I still think that makes sense.
> 
> That said, the break up of the USSR required a level of trust. That trust in hindsight was proven misplaced.


Hmmmm....or it made Ukraine all the more dependent upon the West. 

Just what the Western governments love....a dependent slave.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> The way he dismissed him at the end.


Oh. Then that seems kind of harsh to label as “he said he wanted to hear it, but he didn’t”, but whatever.

In Bongino’s defense, it wasn’t a very well crafted view. As I pointed out in the next post, he excused Russia’s lack of progress as Putin wanting to be gentle with the spiritual home of Russian Orthodoxy, and not damage the cities, but then laid out the strategy that Putin was going to encircle the cities and level them with rockets. The guest didn’t exactly lay out a well thought out position.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Ukraine never had operational nukes, exactly. They had nukes, but Russia had the ability to launch them, not Ukraine.


That’s not true at all. Because of the post-annihilation nature of MAD-strategy nuclear weapon systems, the ability to launch them is normally 100% contained within the launch facility itself. Nuclear launch sites are rarely (if ever) remote launch capable due to the security concern.

In USSR slave-state Ukraine, many/most of the bases and installations were operated by Ukrainian nationals living in Ukraine. Two dude with keys, who happened to work in the silo when the USSR fell, had the ability to launch the missiles in that silo.

When you hear about cold-war era “launch codes”, those were just a version of physical encryption that allowed the silo operators to confirm that a launch command they were receiving was actually coming from someone authorized to command the launch.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Oh. Then that seems kind of harsh to label as “he said he wanted to hear it, but he didn’t”, but whatever.
> 
> In Bongino’s defense, it wasn’t a very well crafted view. As I pointed out in the next post, he excused Russia’s lack of progress as Putin wanting to be gentle with the spiritual home of Russian Orthodoxy, and not damage the cities, but then laid out the strategy that Putin was going to encircle the cities and level them with rockets. The guest didn’t exactly lay out a well thought out position.


I guess I wasn't clear. What he was saying is that Putin doesn't want all of Ukraine. Just the eastern part down to Crimea that is primarily people of Russian background. He wants the rest of Ukraine to be a buffer zone between Poland and Russia. If Ukraine is willing to meet Putin's terms, there is no reason to take Kiev, but if Ukraine refuses, a couple of missiles targetted at Kiev will likely change their mind.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> I believe Putin had 2 objectives and that matches what the guest said.
> 
> Capture all the territory from Crimea at least to and including Donbas region
> Sign an agreement with Ukraine that says it will not join NATO or the EU and will remain neutral.
> ...


And this is also the same Russia that had us running scared for 50+ years, thinking that they were a serious contender to our military during the Cold War. We didn’t discover until we’ll after the end of the Cold War that the Soviet army was a rickshaw running on a shoestring chain.

Maybe that’s what’s actually happening in Ukraine right now. I’m in no way prepared to suggest that Ukraine has this in the bag. I’m just saying that it wouldn’t be the first time that Russia flexed bigger muscles than it actually had.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That’s not true at all. Because of the post-annihilation nature of MAD-strategy nuclear weapon systems, the ability to launch them is normally 100% contained within the launch facility itself. Nuclear launch sites are rarely (if ever) remote launch capable due to the security concern.
> 
> In USSR slave-state Ukraine, many/most of the bases and installations were operated by Ukrainian nationals living in Ukraine. Two dude with keys, who happened to work in the silo when the USSR fell, had the ability to launch the missiles in that silo.
> 
> When you hear about cold-war era “launch codes”, those were just a version of physical encryption that allowed the silo operators to confirm that a launch command they were receiving was actually coming from someone authorized to command the launch.


From the Finacial Times article I quoted earlier.

Meanwhile, the west was shocked to realise, given the amount of Soviet nuclear arsenal on its territory, that the newly independent country had instantly become the world’s third-largest nuclear power — bigger than Britain or France. *Moscow still had command and control over those weapons,* but that did not decrease Baker’s sense of panic that physical possession of so many weapons belonged to a state going through a turbulent transformation. Russia was experiencing its own turbulence, but at least it was populated by the devils Washington knew, so in his view Moscow should inherit all of that arsenal. *Brent Scowcroft, the US national security adviser, tried to convince Baker that nukes divided among Ukrainians and others unable to launch them might be less threatening to the US than the original Soviet force under centralised control.* Baker would not be persuaded. In late 1991 and 1992, he embarked on repeated, urgent diplomatic missions to the crumbling Soviet Union in a fight to ensure that only one nuclear successor state emerged: Russia.​


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> And this is also the same Russia that had us running scared for 50+ years, thinking that they were a serious contender to our military during the Cold War. We didn’t discover until we’ll after the end of the Cold War that the Soviet army was a rickshaw running on a shoestring chain.
> 
> Maybe that’s what’s actually happening in Ukraine right now. I’m in no way prepared to suggest that Ukraine has this in the bag. I’m just saying that it wouldn’t be the first time that Russia flexed bigger muscles than it actually had.


I just read there was a large explosion in Kiev. No other info available yet.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> I guess I wasn't clear. What he was saying is that Putin doesn't want all of Ukraine. Just the eastern part down to Crimea that is primarily people of Russian background. He wants the rest of Ukraine to be a buffer zone between Poland and Russia. If Ukraine is willing to meet Putin's terms, there is no reason to take Kiev, but if Ukraine refuses, a couple of missiles targetted at Kiev will likely change their mind.


Did you link the wrong video, then? The guest never said anything about whether Putin wanted to take over the entire country or just the eastern half. In fact, he said that he thought Putin wanted Zelenskyy to “capitulate”. 

The only mention he made of the east was about his thought that Putin would prefer to keep the fighting in the east where the population is more friendly. That statement was a response to Bongino’s question about how realistic it was for Putin to expect to win hearts and minds while blowing up cities. The guest said that he thought Putin would like to keep the fighting in the east.

The guest didn’t make a point that he thought Putin only wanted Crimea and the two eastern districts. That’s a point that _you_ keep making, but it doesn’t appear to be a prevalent one.

Two demands that have come out of the peace talk today seem relevant here. One in support of your theory, but one very much in evidence against your theory. Apparently Putin has demanded that Ukraine recognize a region called “Crimea”, and that the nation of Ukraine completely disarm. The first demand could lend credence to your theory, but the second shows that Russia wants complete dominance over the entirety of Ukraine.

Here’s that video again in case you posted the wrong one.


MoonRiver said:


> Bongino said he wanted to hear alternate views, but he really didn't.


----------



## geo in mi (Nov 14, 2008)

*“O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!”*

― Francis Scott Key


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

People that went to bed with a dollar's worth of russian money last night woke up with 20 cents worth. I don't thing that Putin has as much control over what he controlled prior to the invasion as he thinks he did. Ukrainians are fighting for their homes and loved ones. Putin's hired soldiers are making an effort to look like they are following orders and nothing more. Putin has the ability in this thing to lose in Ukraine, and in Russia, and all it takes is an inability to walk all over Ukraine in a short time. Not everyone in Russia is a narcissistic ex-KGB boomer. There have to be some bankers right now that aren't happy. There have to be some grunts that aren't extremely willing to die. There have to be some Russian hippies that are as opposed to the war as is possible in Russia. It's not the cold war era anymore. Putin is not getting any friend requests on social media right now. Nuking Kiev is not going to help that situation, not going to help the investors who were willing to go along with this as an investment opportunity. Ukraine doesn't have to win, to win, all they've got to do is hold on for a while, which it appears that they are able to do. I think Putin was largely bluffing, under the assumption that after a little shock and awe the Ukranians would come out of the woods, lay down their guns, and sing the Russian anthem. They are not doing that. Never underestimate an enemy that is willing to die for his cause. An enemy like that doesn't walk out of the woods with his hands in the air like Saddam's soldiers, who really didn't want to be there. Arm chair quarterbacks looking at assets on paper seldom account for the difference resolve makes. I think at this point, from an investment perspective, you might take over some oil fields, but you will have to employ security, because there will be snipers taking potshots for the next ten years, based on the amount of resolve shown to date by people of the Ukraine.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> From the Finacial Times article I quoted earlier.
> 
> Meanwhile, the west was shocked to realise, given the amount of Soviet nuclear arsenal on its territory, that the newly independent country had instantly become the world’s third-largest nuclear power — bigger than Britain or France. *Moscow still had command and control over those weapons,* but that did not decrease Baker’s sense of panic that physical possession of so many weapons belonged to a state going through a turbulent transformation. Russia was experiencing its own turbulence, but at least it was populated by the devils Washington knew, so in his view Moscow should inherit all of that arsenal. *Brent Scowcroft, the US national security adviser, tried to convince Baker that nukes divided among Ukrainians and others unable to launch them might be less threatening to the US than the original Soviet force under centralised control.* Baker would not be persuaded. In late 1991 and 1992, he embarked on repeated, urgent diplomatic missions to the crumbling Soviet Union in a fight to ensure that only one nuclear successor state emerged: Russia.​


According to this article on the history and design of the Russian nuclear arsenal, Russia had designed in a semi-automated launch system, but the automization was in how the launch command could still be transmitted to the silos in the event of a comms breakdown. The launch still occurred at the silo, with silo staff.

They do describe an encryption code system, and maybe that was tied back to a Russian computer somewhere, but that would have presented a serious risk to hacking, even if it was physical cables trenched from Kyiv to Moscow. Either way, Russia could not tell the Ukrainian silos to launch or not launch without having someone physically in the silo.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

barnbilder said:


> People that went to bed with a dollar's worth of russian money last night woke up with 20 cents worth. I don't thing that Putin has as much control over what he controlled prior to the invasion as he thinks he did. Ukrainians are fighting for their homes and loved ones. Putin's hired soldiers are making an effort to look like they are following orders and nothing more. Putin has the ability in this thing to lose in Ukraine, and in Russia, and all it takes is an inability to walk all over Ukraine in a short time. Not everyone in Russia is a narcissistic ex-KGB boomer. There have to be some bankers right now that aren't happy. There have to be some grunts that aren't extremely willing to die. There have to be some Russian hippies that are as opposed to the war as is possible in Russia. It's not the cold war era anymore. Putin is not getting any friend requests on social media right now. Nuking Kiev is not going to help that situation, not going to help the investors who were willing to go along with this as an investment opportunity. Ukraine doesn't have to win, to win, all they've got to do is hold on for a while, which it appears that they are able to do. I think Putin was largely bluffing, under the assumption that after a little shock and awe the Ukranians would come out of the woods, lay down their guns, and sing the Russian anthem. They are not doing that. Never underestimate an enemy that is willing to die for his cause. An enemy like that doesn't walk out of the woods with his hands in the air like Saddam's soldiers, who really didn't want to be there. Arm chair quarterbacks looking at assets on paper seldom account for the difference resolve makes. I think at this point, from an investment perspective, you might take over some oil fields, but you will have to employ security, because there will be snipers taking potshots for the next ten years, based on the amount of resolve shown to date by people of the Ukraine.


The really scary possibility is the Ukrainians actually winning. I still don’t think that a clear military defeat by the Russians is likely, but that would put Putin’s ego in a place where he had almost no other choice but to launch nukes.

If the Ukrainians really can and do repel his conventional forces, we can only hope that Xi can keep Putin in check at that very tense moment.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Russia depends on the rest of the world. You set off a nuke, you are not going to be popular with the rest of the world. Defense, maybe, but in an imperial quest, nah. It's not 1945 anymore. You nuke Ukraine, nobody is going to want Ukrainian wheat. Europe seems hesitant to decline Russian energy, but that would change their mind. He might win Ukraine, but he would make Russia an island. The Russian people have had too much capitalism, they aren't going to be happy at this point driving around in late model cars and not going to Gap stores. They aren't going to live like Trudeau's Dad's people, and be happy aboot it. China would probably still trade with them, but all deals would heavily favor China at that point. But Vlad might not know this, as a ex-KGB boomer stuck in the cold war.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> I guess I wasn't clear. What he was saying is that Putin doesn't want all of Ukraine. Just the eastern part down to Crimea that is primarily people of Russian background. He wants the rest of Ukraine to be a buffer zone between Poland and Russia. If Ukraine is willing to meet Putin's terms, there is no reason to take Kiev, but if Ukraine refuses, a couple of missiles targetted at Kiev will likely change their mind.


What Putin wants is irrelevant, it’s not his to take!


----------



## newfieannie (Dec 24, 2006)

i'm hoping the lunatic is gonna kill himself like hitler. guess that's too much to hope for though.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Putin has exhibited shrewd behavior in the past acquiring territory with limited or little risk. This is not rational. Something is wrong with him mentally.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

barnbilder said:


> Russia depends on the rest of the world. You set off a nuke, you are not going to be popular with the rest of the world. Defense, maybe, but in an imperial quest, nah. It's not 1945 anymore. You nuke Ukraine, nobody is going to want Ukrainian wheat. Europe seems hesitant to decline Russian energy, but that would change their mind. He might win Ukraine, but he would make Russia an island. The Russian people have had too much capitalism, they aren't going to be happy at this point driving around in late model cars and not going to Gap stores. They aren't going to live like Trudeau's Dad's people, and be happy aboot it. China would probably still trade with them, but all deals would heavily favor China at that point. But Vlad might not know this, as a ex-KGB boomer stuck in the cold war.


You’re right, but the consensus is that Putin is not normal anymore. I don’t know if it’s true or not, but there is scuttlebutt that Putin has a brain tumor. Rubio’s tweat yesterday would lend credence to that idea. Regardless, Putin wasn’t exactly rational to begin with.

I agree, though, that the threat is not really to use the nukes against Ukraine. I think his threat is intended to give pause to NATO, which appears to be more unified than it was before this all started. My comment was just that, if Ukraine were to somehow successfully push his forces off, Putin could be crazy enough to take Ukraine with nukes. Whether or not that makes actual tactical sense is potentially irrelevant to a dictatorial despot with imperialistic goals… who may also be writing the last chapter in his megalomaniacal legacy.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Kiamichi Kid said:


> What Putin wants is irrelevant, it’s not his to take!


If what Putin wanted was irrelevant, there wouldn't be a war going on. Since there is, it pays to know why.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> You’re right, but the consensus is that Putin is not normal anymore. I don’t know if it’s true or not, but there is scuttlebutt that Putin has a brain tumor. Rubio’s tweat yesterday would lend credence to that idea. Regardless, Putin wasn’t exactly rational to begin with.
> 
> I agree, though, that the threat is not really to use the nukes against Ukraine. I think his threat is intended to give pause to NATO, which appears to be more unified than it was before this all started. My comment was just that, if Ukraine were to somehow successfully push his forces off, Putin could be crazy enough to take Ukraine with nukes. Whether or not that makes actual tactical sense is potentially irrelevant to a dictatorial despot with imperialistic goals… who may also be writing the last chapter in his megalomaniacal legacy.


Didn't the government play that same card with Saddam Hussein? Didn't they also play it with Kim Jong-un?


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> If what Putin wanted was irrelevant, there wouldn't be a war going on. Since there is, it pays to know why.


Completely Untrue


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> If what Putin wanted was irrelevant, there wouldn't be a war going on. Since there is, it pays to know why.


You continue to excuse Putin’s Invasion of a Sovereign Nation. “ because somebody did something “….


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> If what Putin wanted was irrelevant, there wouldn't be a war going on. Since there is, it pays to know why.


Sure, it always pays to know what’s in the mind of your adversary, but, still, what Putin wants is irrelevant. Ukraine is not his country. As a Soviet, he thinks it belongs to his country, but his opinion on the matter doesn’t matter.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Didn't the government play that same card with Saddam Hussein? Didn't they also play it with Kim Jong-un?


Play what card? Saying that an insane despot is a despot and insane? Sure, but is that “a card”?

I find it interesting because a lot of people I know, who know a lot more about geo-political affairs than I do, have been saying all along that Putin’s actions leading up to this invasion and post-invasion have been very un-Putinesque. Then, in the last couple days, there have been rumblings from those in the US intel-know that there is something “off” about Putin.

It strikes me as similar to those generations of kids, in georgraphy class, pointing out how South America looks like it broke off of Africa, only to be shooshed by their teachers… until one of the teachers’ teachers discovered that South America had, in fact, broken off of Africa.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Kiamichi Kid said:


> You continue to excuse Putin’s Invasion of a Sovereign Nation. “ because somebody did something “….


That's your perception. I hope Putin is driven out of power and hung. I have not excused anything Putin has done, but I have attempted to explain it from his point of view.

The west is not going to ride to the rescue and Ukraine does not have the trained military to win. Ukraine will lose. The question is "is it better to surrender now and avoid more deaths and destruction or is it better to continue and then still eventually surrender?"


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Play what card? Saying that an insane despot is a despot and insane? Sure, but is that “a card”?
> 
> I find it interesting because a lot of people I know, who know a lot more about geo-political affairs than I do, have been saying all along that Putin’s actions leading up to this invasion and post-invasion have been very un-Putinesque. Then, in the last couple days, there have been rumblings from those in the US intel-know that there is something “off” about Putin.
> 
> It strikes me as similar to those generations of kids, in georgraphy class, pointing out how South America looks like it broke off of Africa, only to be shooshed by their teachers… until one of the teachers’ teachers discovered that South America had, in fact, broken off of Africa.


It reminds me of a government that will lie to its own people to shape public opinion.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Sure, it always pays to know what’s in the mind of your adversary, but, still, what Putin wants is irrelevant. Ukraine is not his country. As a Soviet, he thinks it belongs to his country, but his opinion on the matter doesn’t matter.


Doesn't matter to whom?

Most likely, Ukraine is going to be forced to surrender and accept Putin's terms. tell them it doesn't matter.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Putin has succeeded in bringing NATO together. He has single handed illustrated why NATO needs to exist and expand.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> Doesn't matter to whom?
> 
> Most likely, Ukraine is going to be forced to surrender and accept Putin's terms. tell them it doesn't matter.


I don't think Ukraine is going to surrender.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Hiro said:


> I don't think Ukraine is going to surrender.


I don’t either. I think Putin will claim victory, and may just have it at the statistical level, but the Ukrainian insurgency will maintain stake indefinitely.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> That's your perception. I hope Putin is driven out of power and hung. I have not excused anything Putin has done, but I have attempted to explain it from his point of view.
> 
> The west is not going to ride to the rescue and Ukraine does not have the trained military to win. Ukraine will lose. The question is "is it better to surrender now and avoid more deaths and destruction or is it better to continue and then still eventually surrender?"


Better to live one day as a Lion than a thousand years as a sheep…


GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Sure, it always pays to know what’s in the mind of your adversary, but, still, what Putin wants is irrelevant. Ukraine is not his country. As a Soviet, he thinks it belongs to his country, but his opinion on the matter doesn’t matter.


Agreed


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> That's your perception. I hope Putin is driven out of power and hung. I have not excused anything Putin has done, but I have attempted to explain it from his point of view.
> 
> The west is not going to ride to the rescue and Ukraine does not have the trained military to win. Ukraine will lose. The question is "is it better to surrender now and avoid more deaths and destruction or is it better to continue and then still eventually surrender?"


I think we all understand what Putin’s point of view is; at least his projected one. I also think that is real POV is that of a successor to the Soviet empire, trying to rebuild it in order to ensure his legacy’s place among the pantheon of Lenin and Stalin.

Putin has an argument. It’s just that it is one without merit.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I think we all understand what Putin’s point of view is; at least his projected one. I also think that is real POV is that of a successor to the Soviet empire, trying to rebuild it in order to ensure his legacy’s place among the pantheon of Lenin and Stalin.
> 
> Putin has an argument. It’s just that it is one without merit.


According to whom?


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Nimrod said:


> The US convinced Ukraine to dispose of their nuclear weapons when the Soviet Union dissolved. The implication was that we would protect them. Push comes to shove and we left them twisting in the wind.


If they survive this, I hope they learned their lesson.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

A site with good information.









Ukraine Invasion Updates


This page collects the Critical Threats Project (CTP) and the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) updates on the invasion of Ukraine.




www.criticalthreats.org





A good video - 

Dr. Frederick W. Kagan is a former professor of history with a PhD in Russian and Soviet military history from Yale. He is also a celebrated author and the director of the American Enterprise Institute's Critical Threats Project. In this episode, I (Jordan Peterson) discuss the nature of the conflict that has taken the world by storm over the last 5 days—Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine and the ongoing resistance of its citizens. Dr. Kagan is a wealth of information on military history, geopolitics, Putin's relationship with the USSR (which his father helped defend) and Ukrainian sovereignty, and other aspects of what’s most certainly a moment in human history that won’t be forgotten soon.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> I have attempted to explain it from his point of view.


Do you really think you can get into the mind of a Putin? Why would you want to try? Why would anyone excuse his action regardless of what Putin's point of view is? I know you don't think you are excusing him, but you are trying to give rational explanations for Putin. There are no rational explanations for what Putin is doing.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> According to whom?


Seriously? The potential for merit in Putin’s goal, to rebuild the Soviet empire and enslave satellite states for the financial profit of himself and his supporting oligarchs, is debatable?


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

HDRider said:


> Do you really think you can get into the mind of a Putin? Why would you want to try? Why would anyone excuse his action regardless of what Putin's point of view is? I know you don't think you are excusing him, but you are trying to give rational explanations for Putin. * There are no rational explanations for what Putin is doing.*


That is just it. Putin is acting irrationally and he never has before. The Russians cannot take and hold Ukraine.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> Do you really think you can get into the mind of a Putin? Why would you want to try? Why would anyone excuse his action regardless of what Putin's point of view is? I know you don't think you are excusing him, but you are trying to give rational explanations for Putin. There are no rational explanations for what Putin is doing.


I don't get into Putin's mind, I did a lot of research and found out what really smart people who know Russia and Putin were saying. The mindset of the Russian people is different from those in the West. 

I have not posted a single word of support for Putin or excused him in any way. What I have done is laid out the case that the US has baited him several times over the years. There is a very good possibility that this administration baited Putin again by saying it was up to Ukraine to become a member of NATO. There is even the possibility this was done so they would have a scapegoat for high gas prices, high food prices, inflation, and stagnant wages.

I am surprised most of you aren't more skeptical about what the government and the media is telling us and showing us. I earlier brought up the 13 Ukrainian soldiers who told the Russian commander to have xxx with himself were actually captured, not killed. Not one person commented, but I bet many people believed the lie.

Read this.

*Biden’s CIA Director Doesn’t Believe Biden’s Story about Ukraine*

If you’ve followed the diplomacy over Ukraine closely, you may have noticed that the Biden administration has relied heavily on CIA Director William J. (Bill) Burns. In November it dispatched him to Moscow where, according to CNN, he served as a “key intermediary” between the US and Vladimir Putin. In January he flew to Germany to discuss Ukraine with the new government in Berlin. This all makes sense. Burns is the Biden administration’s highest-ranking Russia expert. He’s a fluent Russian speaker who has served twice in the US embassy in Moscow, the second time as ambassador. *Which makes it all the more striking that Burns, in his memoir, flatly contradicts the Biden administration’s narrative about how this crisis came to be*. Remarkably, one of the most trenchant critics of official US discourse on Russia and Ukraine is the sitting director of the CIA. ​​more​


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Seriously? The potential for merit in Putin’s goal, to rebuild the Soviet empire and enslave satellite states for the financial profit of himself and his supporting oligarchs, is debatable?


My point is who decides if it has merit? You? Russia and Russians have different beliefs and culture than people in Western countries. Because we may think his reasons are meritless doesn't mean people in different cultures will agree with us. 

You keep assigning motives to Putin that are baseless in fact. To the best of my knowledge, he has never said any such thing or done any such thing.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

What good motive can that lying megalomaniac have? He only does things that benefit him personally.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

painterswife said:


> What good motive can that lying megalomaniac have? He only does things that benefit him personally.


That is what is different this time. There is nothing he can gain from this enterprise. He took Crimea because he already had Crimea, that was there biggest warm sea port that had their biggest "overseas" military base. He took parts of Georgia because he already had parts of Georgia. He may take parts of Ukraine, but he cannot hold them. 

There literally is nothing for Russia to gain from this. I don't think Putin is really in charge or he has gone whacko.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Hiro said:


> That is what is different this time. There is nothing he can gain from this enterprise. He took Crimea because he already had Crimea, that was there biggest warm sea port that had their biggest "overseas" military base. He took parts of Georgia because he already had parts of Georgia. He may take parts of Ukraine, but he cannot hold them.
> 
> There literally is nothing for Russia to gain from this. I don't think Putin is really in charge or he has gone whacko.


Yes, trying to see this from Putins point of view is incomprehensible to me. It is a completely illogical incursion into another country. So much so that he has to lie to the citizens of Russia.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> I don't get into Putin's mind, I did a lot of research and found out what really smart people who know Russia and Putin were saying. The mindset of the Russian people is different from those in the West.
> 
> I have not posted a single word of support for Putin or excused him in any way. What I have done is laid out the case that the US has baited him several times over the years. There is a very good possibility that this administration baited Putin again by saying it was up to Ukraine to become a member of NATO. There is even the possibility this was done so they would have a scapegoat for high gas prices, high food prices, inflation, and stagnant wages.
> 
> ...


Much of my information comes from regular people living in Ukraine , videos of them walking in their streets showing the carnage. Including lots of destroyed Russian military vehicles.(and sometimes bodies)
The whole story of Putin firing only at military targets is BS… I’ve seen videos of rockets falling all over civilian areas. I’ve watched video taken by refugees scrambling to leave the country with their children and pets.
Anyway I always seek out multiple sources of information from people with boots on the ground and a dog in the fight.
As for the troops who told the Russians to GFY , yes I knew what happen before you posted… but you have to understand a few things about “the fog of war” , sometimes inaccurate information gets out by accident… and sometimes it’s put out on purpose to give your people hope and a reason to keep fighting…
It’s not always the biggest army with the best equipment that wins… sometimes it’s the underdog who has nothing left to lose…


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

The Ukraine has a corrupt government. Russia has a corrupt government. The US has a corrupt government. All 3 of them lie on a whim. The press and the internet tell contradicting stories, and no one is sure who to believe. Confusion rules everything these days and no outcome in this mess would surprise me.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

painterswife said:


> Yes, trying to see this from Putins point of view is incomprehensible to me. It is a completely illogical incursion into another country. So much so that he has to lie to the citizens of Russia.


What makes our president lie to this country? Pootin' does not like heavy weapons from other countries on his border. We would feel the same if it were Mexico or Canada. In fact, we had a bit of it involving proposed missiles in Cuba years ago.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> I am surprised most of you aren't more skeptical about what the government and the media is telling us and showing us. I earlier brought up the 13 Ukrainian soldiers who told the Russian commander to have xxx with himself were actually captured, not killed. Not one person commented, but I bet many people believed the lie.


I am skeptical and your point about lying governments and their propaganda ministers is valid. I have read the reports and seen the videos that contradict maybe a dozen of the stories given to us about this war.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)




----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


>


Your thoughts on the Colonel’s view?

I heard him say that Putin wanted to ensure there were no NATO countries on his border, so he’s in the process of taking over a non-NATO country that is on the border of Poland (a NATO country), and that he wants Ukraine to be “neutral” but aligned and friendly to Russia- which isn’t exactly “neutral”.

I also heard him say that the Russians moving to encircle and destroy the Ukrainian military was “the beginning of the end of Ukrainian resistance”, willfully ignoring the inevitable insurgent, guerrilla resistance.

So, all together, I heard the retired colonel saying that he doesn’t know what he thinks is going to happen, but he’s not going to let that stop him from saying what he doesn’t know that he thinks.

Your takeaway?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Your thoughts on the Colonel’s view?
> 
> I heard him say that Putin wanted to ensure there were no NATO countries on his border, so he’s in the process of taking over a non-NATO country that is on the border of Poland (a NATO country), and that he wants Ukraine to be “neutral” but aligned and friendly to Russia- which isn’t exactly “neutral”.
> 
> ...


He agrees with me. Putin had no intention of destroying Ukraine. No benefit to him. He also wanted to minimize deaths, both to his troops and Ukranians. But since Ukraine is still fighting back, Putin will up the ante until Ukraine meets his terms.

In the video, he very clearly said that Putin had said any move by NATO to move into Ukraine, Georgia, or Belarus was unacceptable. Why do you think that NATO stopped Poland from giving the MIGs to Ukraine?


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> He agrees with me. Putin had no intention of destroying Ukraine. No benefit to him. He also wanted to minimize deaths, both to his troops and Ukranians. But since Ukraine is still fighting back, Putin will up the ante until Ukraine meets his terms.
> 
> In the video, he very clearly said that Putin had said any move by NATO to move into Ukraine, Georgia, or Belarus was unacceptable. Why do you think that NATO stopped Poland from giving the MIGs to Ukraine?


 The whole “ Putin wants to minimize deaths” is pure propaganda. You don’t send rockets into civilian neighborhoods when you want to “minimize death ☠ “.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Putin would have liked to have walked in and had them capitulate. He would have liked not to have lots of deaths.
He however does not care if either of those things happens. As long as he gets what he really wants, lives don't really matter.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> He agrees with me. Putin had no intention of destroying Ukraine. No benefit to him. He also wanted to minimize deaths, both to his troops and Ukranians. But since Ukraine is still fighting back, Putin will up the ante until Ukraine meets his terms.
> 
> In the video, he very clearly said that Putin had said any move by NATO to move into Ukraine, Georgia, or Belarus was unacceptable. Why do you think that NATO stopped Poland from giving the MIGs to Ukraine?


I don’t doubt that you agree with him. His line of rhetoric was very much like yours has been: the US and NATO caused this, Putin’s demands are rational, and Ukraine is going to suffer a humiliating defeat. That’s why I asked what your take-away was.

The colonel’s view on this was just as self-contradictory and nonsensical as yours. Of course, left to conventional military vs conventional military, Russia will win, but there is an asymmetric aspect that will surely come into play that trumps any conventional military assessment.

Of course the US and NATO had a hand in this, in so much as Ukraine emerged from Soviet slavery and wants to join the ranks of free western nations. NATO is, however, a _defensive_ alliance, so any threat that Putin infers from the relationship is of his own making.

Of course Putin has stated that he wants a “buffer zone” between him and the NATO nations, but he is invading and taking over the one non-NATO nation between him and NATO, so he’s actually destroying that “buffer”, claiming it for himself, and moving his border of influence that much closer to NATO territory.

Putin’s actions are wrong, both on the moral and the legal level, and rationalizing his actions requires that one either support him, or be willing to talk in circles and twist one’s own logic into something that is self-contradictory.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

MoonRiver said:


> He agrees with me. Putin had no intention of destroying Ukraine. No benefit to him. He also wanted to minimize deaths, both to his troops and Ukranians. But since Ukraine is still fighting back, Putin will up the ante until Ukraine meets his terms.
> 
> In the video, he very clearly said that Putin had said any move by NATO to move into Ukraine, Georgia, or Belarus was unacceptable. Why do you think that NATO stopped Poland from giving the MIGs to Ukraine?


Of course he had every intention of destroying Ukraine. It's completely illogical to invade another country and expect no resistance.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

wr said:


> Of course he had every intention of destroying Ukraine. It's completely illogical to invade another country and expect no resistance.


I believe he wanted Ukraine to continue to exist and function, but with a government favorable to Russia. Severely crippling Ukraine doesn't make sense.

Some of Putin's assumptions were correct: for example, NATO wouldn't intervene and the US would not start pumping more oil. Others, such as the stiff resistance Ukraine put up were serious mistakes. 

A large percentage of the people living in Ukraine has Russian lineage and I think he thought they would be in support of the invasion.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I don’t doubt that you agree with him. His line of rhetoric was very much like yours has been: the US and NATO caused this, Putin’s demands are rational, and Ukraine is going to suffer a humiliating defeat. That’s why I asked what your take-away was.
> 
> The colonel’s view on this was just as self-contradictory and nonsensical as yours. Of course, left to conventional military vs conventional military, Russia will win, but there is an asymmetric aspect that will surely come into play that trumps any conventional military assessment.
> 
> ...


Whether Putin is right or wrong is immaterial at this point in time. He said what he would do and he said it on multiple occasions. Why are people surprised when he does exactly what he said he would do?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Whether Putin is right or wrong is immaterial at this point in time. He said what he would do and he said it on multiple occasions. Why are people surprised when he does exactly what he said he would do?


Who is surprised? I don’t think I’ve seen anyone say they were surprised that Putin invaded. I think most of us expected him to. Hell, I think I probably even have a post around here saying that he would wait right until Xi’s Olympics had wrapped up.

If there is any surprise, it’s that the current US administration and the NATO leadership was so completely ineffective in deterring it. I don’t know that anyone was overly confident that we could stop the invasion, but actually saying, out loud, that we would reserve sanctions until after he invaded, and that we’d tolerate a “minor incursion” caught a lot of off-guard.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> I believe he wanted Ukraine to continue to exist and function, but with a government favorable to Russia. Severely crippling Ukraine doesn't make sense.


Again, that logic makes no sense. You can’t stage a military takeover of a country that has stated its desire to be left alone and independent, and not expect to have to break a bunch of things.

If Putin’s desire was to have Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian parliament step aside, to be replaced with a pro-Russian government, he knew, the second he sent tanks across the border, that he was going to have to blow some stuff up.


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

Kiamichi Kid said:


> Much of my information comes from regular people living in Ukraine , videos of them walking in their streets showing the carnage. Including lots of destroyed Russian military vehicles.(and sometimes bodies)
> The whole story of Putin firing only at military targets is BS… I’ve seen videos of rockets falling all over civilian areas. I’ve watched video taken by refugees scrambling to leave the country with their children and pets.
> Anyway I always seek out multiple sources of information from people with boots on the ground and a dog in the fight.
> As for the troops who told the Russians to GFY , yes I knew what happen before you posted… but you have to understand a few things about “the fog of war” , sometimes inaccurate information gets out by accident… and sometimes it’s put out on purpose to give your people hope and a reason to keep fighting…
> It’s not always the biggest army with the best equipment that wins… sometimes it’s the underdog who has nothing left to lose…


The thing is, who can we believe? 

I have seen pictures, too, but what about this:



















How do we know what is true and what is not?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Pony said:


> How do we know what is true and what is not?


When it comes to the fine details, if you don’t witness them yourself, you can’t know what is true and what is not. No media can or should be trusted very far.

That said, the big, overarching details are confidently known. We know, from history, that Russia held a bunch of slave states in orbit under the banner of the USSR. We know, from history, that the pattern of Putin’s adventurism this century is an analog of Hitler’s in the last. We also know, from history, that there will be a group of apologists who rationalize Putin’s actions, and lead us down the path to capitulation.

Everything else is just the evening “news”.


----------



## fenbenlabas (11 mo ago)

Interesting how the west portrays the east


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

fenbenlabas said:


> Interesting how the west portrays the east


Perhaps you could offer a more accurate portrayal.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> Whether Putin is right or wrong is immaterial at this point in time. He said what he would do and he said it on multiple occasions. Why are people surprised when he does exactly what he said he would do?


I’m not surprised, I’m Pissed Off !!! 🤬
He’s murdering innocent people how friggin’ hard is that for you to understand?


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

fenbenlabas said:


> Interesting how the west portrays the east


Uh huh , ok …


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

delete


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Kiamichi Kid said:


> I’m not surprised, I’m Pissed Off !!! 🤬
> He’s murdering innocent people how friggin’ hard is that for you to understand?


I have never said anything to the contrary. But as I have said several times, it doesn't change anything. Your argument is not with me, but with the US and NATO. Putin made the calculation they would do nothing and he was right.

Biden isn't going to increase gas production.
NATO is not allowing NATO countries to loan MIGs to Ukraine.
No country is willing to send troops to Ukraine
The UN is useless as Russia can veto any action.
*“NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said Tuesday that European Union members will not lend fighter jets to the war in Ukraine, after days of mixed messages from officials across Europe.”*

God knows how clearly Vladimir Putin is seeing anything these days, but i*f Ukrainian pilots are traveling to Poland or Slovakia and then flying into Ukrainian airspace to fight Russian jets or bomb Russian targets… then the Russian military would declare those Polish or Slovakian air bases are now legitimate military targets* – and then the war between NATO and Russia ensues.









NATO Will Not Be Lending Fighter Jets to Ukraine | National Review


NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Tuesday that European Union members will not lend fighter jets to the war in Ukraine.




www.nationalreview.com





I even find myself agreeing with Russell Brand


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

fenbenlabas said:


> Interesting how the west portrays the east


I find it interesting that the netherlands somehow thinks it rates the status of an independent country. I mean, at best, it rates being a province of some other country.

We probably should have let Germany keep it. The maps would be simpler, and we’d have one less inconsequential country to try to remember exists.

Maybe Russia will take it.

I doubt they will want it, but maybe we can talk them into taking it in a package deal with Ukraine. “_If you insist on taking Ukraine, you have to take the netherlands, too._


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

I say: Long live Ukraine!


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> I have never said anything to the contrary. But as I have said several times, it doesn't change anything. Your argument is not with me, but with the US and NATO. Putin made the calculation they would do nothing and he was right.
> 
> Biden isn't going to increase gas production.
> NATO is not allowing NATO countries to loan MIGs to Ukraine.
> ...


You’re like a broken record…


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

painterswife said:


> What good motive can that lying megalomaniac have? He only does things that benefit him personally.



Which one of our leaders are you talking about? Since you said 'he', I am assuming you didn't mean Psaki.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

poppy said:


> Which one of our leaders are you talking about? Since you said 'he', I am assuming you didn't mean Psaki.


That’s funny right there. I don’t care who you are.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

*The West's delusions about this war - and its failure to understand the enemy - will prevent it from saving Ukraine*

Sympathy for the outnumbered and outgunned defenders of Kyiv has led to the exaggeration of Russian setbacks, misunderstanding of Russian strategy, and even baseless claims from amateur psychoanalysts that Putin has lost his mind.​​A more sober analysis shows that Russia may have sought a knockout blow, but always had well-laid plans for follow-on assaults if its initial moves proved insufficient.​​The world has underestimated Putin before and those mistakes have led, in part, to this tragedy in Ukraine.​​We must be clear-eyed now that the war is underway.​​Yet even the professionals at the Pentagon are letting sympathy cloud their judgement.​​







Putin is NOT crazy, the Russian invasion is NOT failing: BILL ROGGIO


ROGGIO: Believing Russia's assault is going poorly may make us feel better but is at odds with the facts. We cannot help Ukraine if we cannot be honest about its predicament.




www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

If you get a chance, you might look up Dr. Frederick Kagan. He is a former professor of history with a PhD in Russian and Soviet military history from Yale. He provides a very thorough and interesting perspective regarding Russia and Ukraine and has shared some, what I consider to be very insightful points about the current conflict. 
He recently did a podcast with Jordan Petersen on Russian history.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Putin just announced that the Russian government would be paying the families of Russian soldiers killed during battle 5 million Rubles.
I'm not sure what the current value of 5 Million Rubles would be but it might work out as a bargain for him.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

GTX63 said:


> Putin just announced that the Russian government would be paying the families of Russian soldiers killed during battle 5 million Rubles.
> I'm not sure what the current value of 5 Million Rubles would be but it might work out as a bargain for him.


It’s about $47,000 USD.

…and, if we’re to believe Putin, he’ll only have to pay for about 3 of them.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

0.0091​5,000,000.0000​45,500.0000​


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Sympathy for the outnumbered and outgunned defenders of Kyiv has led to the exaggeration of Russian setbacks, misunderstanding of Russian strategy, *and even baseless claims from amateur psychoanalysts that Putin has lost his mind.*​​…Yet even the professionals at the Pentagon are letting sympathy cloud their judgement….​​


​Believe it or not, but the Pentagon actually has some professionals on staff; professionals that know what they’re doing.

Our military machine is certainly not without its own mistakes, but the intel about how uncharacteristically unhinged and disorganized the Kremlin is acting right now is coming from people whose entire career has been based around analyzing and predicting Russia and, specifically, Putin’s actions.

Seriously, are you just trolling the internet for stories about how awesome Putin is and how weak and humiliatingly defeated the Ukrainians are?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

po boy said:


> 0.0091​5,000,000.0000​45,500.0000​


That’s hilarious. I punched it into an exchange calculator about about 5 minutes before you did, and the exchange rate was 0.0093.

Nah… Russia isn’t even feeling the world’s sanctions at all.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GTX63 said:


> If you get a chance, you might look up Dr. Frederick Kagan. He is a former professor of history with a PhD in Russian and Soviet military history from Yale. He provides a very thorough and interesting perspective regarding Russia and Ukraine and has shared some, what I consider to be very insightful points about the current conflict.
> He recently did a podcast with Jordan Petersen on Russian history.


Post 59.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> ​Believe it or not, but the Pentagon actually has some professionals on staff; professionals that know what they’re doing.
> 
> Our military machine is certainly not without its own mistakes, but the intel about how uncharacteristically unhinged and disorganized the Kremlin is acting right now is coming from people whose entire career has been based around analyzing and predicting Russia and, specifically, Putin’s actions.
> 
> Seriously, are you just trolling the internet for stories about how awesome Putin is and how weak and humiliatingly defeated the Ukrainians are?


As I pointed out before, that is typical propaganda from our government.

The George HW Bush administration labeled Saddam Hussein as crazy and I think the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations all called Kim Jong-il crazy. John McClain and President Trump, among others, called Kim Jung-Un crazy.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

We live in strange times when insight comes from a vulgar third rate ultra leftist comedian.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> As I pointed out before, that is typical propaganda for our government.
> 
> The George HW Bush administration labeled Saddam Hussein as crazy and I think the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations all called Kim Jong-il crazy. John McClain and President Trump, among others, called Kim Jung-Un crazy.


You pointed out _your opinion_ (an important distinction to make) that the statements about Putin’s apparent state of mind are propaganda, and that is an opinion that neatly dovetails into your overarching theme that “_Russia has legitimate reasons for this, the west made him do this, America is horribly corrupt, and Ukraine is about to suffer a fast and humiliating defeat._”

That view, however, has been supported by a bunch of independent theories that are grossly self-contradictory, though, and you never address those contradictions. You’ve posted theorists, positing their theories as fact, that have predicated their theories on “the fact” that Putin is not targeting civilians or civilian infrastructure- which is demonstrably untrue.

You’ve posted opinions that base their entire premise on the point that Putin doesn’t want to damage any of the civilian infrastructure, but that he’ll win because he’s going to encircle the cities and obliterate them, block by block, with missiles.

You’ve posted opinions about how Putin is just playing the hand forced on him and ensuring a “buffer” between him and the nearest NATO country, while he’s got ACTUAL NATO counties up and down his border, and is taking over the one significant non-NATO country between him and NATO.

You posted one theory that hinged on the idea that “Russia is only taking territory it can hold”, but we’ve seen multiple instances of Russia taking an objective, losing it, taking it again, and in at least one notable example, _losing_ it again. 

Now, you’re saying that the claims about Putin being less than 100% are just “typical DOD propaganda” when the DOD, many, many military scholars, and countless amateur fans of politics and history are all observing the same real-time events and simultaneously coming to the same conclusion; Putin is making obvious mistakes that are very much uncharacteristic for him.

I’m seriously not trying to be rude here, because I do genuinely appreciate and (very much) respect your non-left/non-right, unpredictable, unique take on any given situation, but you are reaching far and deep, and painfully contorting logic to arrive at a Russian apologist take on this situation.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

And I’ll add, just to be clear, though I’ve said all of this before:

1- I think that, militarily, Ukraine is going to lose. Bigly. I am just surprised that they are fighting back as well as they have. I commend the Ukrainian pushback, and pray for their rifles to stay hot as long as possible, even if it’s just as an insurgency.

2- I fully acknowledge that the US has its own corruption issues, but I accept that our level of corruption doesn’t hold a candle to Russia’s.

3- I most decidedly DO NOT want us to go to war with Russia, but I see it as an inevitability as I watch late the 1930s European theater playing out before our eyes. WWIII may already be on, but, if it’s not, the sure fire way to ensure that we do have to fight WWIII is to do nothing today.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> And I’ll add, just to be clear, though I’ve said all of this before:
> 
> 1- I think that, militarily, Ukraine is going to lose. Bigly. I am just surprised that they are fighting back as well as they have. I commend the Ukrainian pushback, and pray for their rifles to stay hot as long as possible, even if it’s just as an insurgency.
> 
> ...


u don't look that old


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

po boy said:


> u don't look that old


Yeah, a fat-thumb auto-correct was in place of a watch.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Yeah, a fat-thumb auto-correct was in place of a watch.


I don't have a fat thumb, my errors come natural to me


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> You pointed out _your opinion_ (an important distinction to make) that the statements about Putin’s apparent state of mind are propaganda, and that is an opinion that neatly dovetails into your overarching theme that “_Russia has legitimate reasons for this, the west made him do this, America is horribly corrupt, and Ukraine is about to suffer a fast and humiliating defeat._”
> 
> That view, however, has been supported by a bunch of independent theories that are grossly self-contradictory, though, and you never address those contradictions. You’ve posted theorists, positing their theories as fact, that have predicated their theories on “the fact” that Putin is not targeting civilians or civilian infrastructure- which is demonstrably untrue.
> 
> ...


I think you are being quite selective about what I have said. For example, my first response to Putin being crazy is that the government was playing the crazy card again. And I have followed that up with several examples.

Whether Putin is crazy or not we don't know, but in the past, both the government and mainstream media have proven to be unreliable sources.

I think the difference in our viewpoints is I don't see this as simply Russia invading Ukraine. I think there are many forces at play that are manipulating not only what is happening, but what we are being told.

We, in the West, are rapidly losing many of our rights. Governments seem to have an agenda based on things the people don't want. I don't know how it all fits together, but I feel sure there is much more to this story,


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> I think you are being quite selective about what I have said. For example, my first response to Putin being crazy is that the government was playing the crazy card again. And I have followed that up with several examples.
> 
> Whether Putin is crazy or not we don't know, but in the past, both the government and mainstream media have proven to be unreliable sources.
> 
> ...


I don’t disagree with a single thing in that post. You’re right that we don’t know that Putin is stumbling, mentally, but he’s giving us some unusually strong evidence that he is. If he’s faking us out with the apparent incompetence and relative ineffectiveness of the Russia army right now, it’s like some 5D chess level fakery, though. The Russian army is exhibiting a level of general buffoonery that we would expect from a newly revolutionized African fascist dictatorship, and that is not the Putin that the world has come to know these last 20 years.

I also acknowledge that there are a lot of forces at play, and that the geopolitical situation is very complicated and nuanced, but there is absolutely NO nuance in the right/wrong judgement call of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. They are a sovereign nation that has been a relatively good neighbor to those around them. There is no excuse for what Russia is doing. Full stop.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

I have sort of tuned out this whole Ukraine fiasco. It makes no sense on so many levels. Should Putin have attacked Ukraine? Absolutely not. Seeing a clip of Hannity saying we should do an air strike on the Russian convoy in Ukraine shows he is insane. Who is financing this invasion? We are every time we buy gas or buy anything petroleum based. Gas here is now right at $4. Russia profits greatly from high oil prices. While Biden was saying how he was punishing Russia financially, he didn't mention how much money Russia was making due to his policies. You and I are financing Russia's invasion, but our president is forcing us to by his policies.


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

MoonRiver said:


> Whether Putin is crazy or not we don't know, but in the past, both the government and mainstream media have proven to be unreliable sources.



"mainstream" is often used in a negative sense.
I do not agree.

And I ask:
Do you prefer "alternative" media that spread fake news and conspiracy theories . just to be different and to appear "clever" somehow?

I don't.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Berwick said:


> "mainstream" is often used in a negative sense.
> I do not agree.
> 
> And I ask:
> ...


Berwick, here in the US our largest media providers are owned by corporations with interests and ties that compromise journalism.
It isn't mainstream media as that would imply a tone of truth and integrity.
It has become up to each citizen to seek out and confirm their news individually. Just to note, alternative news has the bad and the good players so is also subjective; however the smaller independent journalists may not be beholden to politicians, political party, corporations and their money, etc.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Berwick said:


> "mainstream" is often used in a negative sense.
> I do not agree.
> 
> And I ask:
> ...


Maybe it is different here. Our "mainstream" media has a political bias. Most of it is leftist, and the lone one that is not is ridiculed endlessly for its bias, like it alone has one.

Social media compounds the situation by banning or censoring dissenting opinion, and SM decides what is fact.

One has to use many sources to decide what is truly fact.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Berwick said:


> "mainstream" is often used in a negative sense.
> I do not agree.
> 
> And I ask:
> ...


Mainstream is a synonym for negative!

I prefer first hand information, as unfiltered as possible. Or at least, if the person reporting has a bias, that bias is made clear.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Mainstream is a synonym for negative!
> 
> I prefer first hand information, as unfiltered as possible. Or at least, if the person reporting has a bias, that bias is made clear.


Mainstream is a synonym for state-run.

It’s no coincidence that the media bias we have here comes in exactly two flavors, and we have exactly two political parties.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

This is Democracy Now in early 2014 discussing the US interfering in Ukraine in 2014, specifically Victory Nuland, the US ambassador to Ukraine Pyatt, and Biden.


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

GTX63 said:


> Berwick, here in the US our largest media providers are owned by corporations with interests and ties that compromise journalism.
> It isn't mainstream media as that would imply a tone of truth and integrity.
> It has become up to each citizen to seek out and confirm their news individually. Just to note, alternative news has the bad and the good players so is also subjective; however the smaller independent journalists may not be beholden to politicians, political party, corporations and their money, etc.


I cannot give judgement on the US-American press.
I have read some - but not enough of them to give judgement.

When it comes the the German press, then there is one paper that I find more or less trustworthy. There may be exceptions, but on the whole it may be trusted - or could be trusted in the past.

There is a saying: "I do not believe anything until I have read it in the "Frankfurter Allgemeine". 



> The _*Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung*_ (German: [ˈfʁaŋkfʊʁtɐ ʔalɡəˈmaɪnə ˈtsaɪtʊŋ]; _*FAZ*_; "_Frankfurt General Newspaper_") is a centre-right[1][5] conservative-liberal[3][4] and liberal-conservative[1][2] German newspaper founded in 1949. It is published daily in Frankfurt.[6] Its Sunday edition is the _*Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung*_ (pronounced [- ˈzɔntaːksˌtsaɪtʊŋ]; _*FAS*_).
> 
> The paper runs its own correspondent network. Its editorial policy is not determined by a single editor, but cooperatively by four editors. It is the German newspaper with the widest circulation abroad, with its editors claiming the newspaper is delivered to 148 countries.


And:



> Its political orientation is liberal-conservative,[2] occasionally providing a forum to commentators with different opinions. In particular, the _Feuilleton_ and some sections of the Sunday edition cannot be said to be specifically conservative or liberal at all











Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





I wonder whether some here with a knowledge of German know this newspaper?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Mark Steyn - The 4 Horses of the Apocalypse


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

_*The impotence of the EU and NATO is clear to everyone* (Well, OK, not anyone on CNN, or in the US Congress or in the halls of power in the West. But they are not the whole world). In this respect, I recommend watching Riyadh – Abdul Aziz was very good at seeing how the wind blew and one can assume his descendents are too._​​_The 97, or whatever they were, fighter planes that were excitedly announced, are obviously not coming. The no fly zone can’t be “declared”. *The Chechens have picked up a lot of MANPADs that NATO supplied.* All that NATO support will get you is destruction when you fight the war it suckered you into and an extra special Christmas card when you’re defeated and ruined._​​_*We are seeing the collapse of post Cold War triumphalism, “end of history”, “unilateralism” and all the rest of it. Reality is biting, and biting hard.* All you have to do is watch CNN’s parade of talking heads and “experts” speculating about how crazy Putin is: they don’t understand, therefore he must be nuts. For the West, as it has been, it’s over. *The confusion, the bull****, the boasting, the hysteria, the bans: the West has nothing left in the locker. Pour Russian vodka down the toilet, fire a singer and director, change the name of a drink or a salad, ban cats or trees, sanction a Russian plutocrat and steal his yacht, wear a blue and yellow t-shirt. Pathetic. And don’t, under any circumstances, allow a Russian outlet to tempt the sheeple with “disinformation”. Just like the USSR but stupider. And who thought stupider was even possible?*_​​







Ukraine Update--The Russian Offensive


Rob Schmitt on Newsmax on the Russian invasion of Ukraine (The following is from Patrick Armstrong. He was an analyst in the Canadian Department of National Defence specialising in the USSR/Russia. He served as a Counsellor in the Canadian Embassy in Moscow 1993-1996. ) TACTICS, STRATEGY AND...




www.thegatewaypundit.com


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> _The Ukrainian Air Force, what is left of it, is now flying on Helen Keller terms. It seems that Ukraine combat aircraft rely on ground controlled radar to conduct air to air intercepts. Guess what the Russians obliterated in the first hours of their invasion on Wednesday? If you said, “ground controlled radar” you are a winner.
> 
> Without that radar the Russians have air superiority. They have castrated the Ukrainians ability to provide close air support and disrupt Russian air cover. They are flying blind (if they are flying and can find an operational air field.) Then there are the lines of communication for the Ukrainian Army. Critical military fuel dumps are on fire and the ability of the Ukrainian Army to keep their tanks and trucks running is slipping away._
> 
> _more_


Kind of tough to make assumptions if the information one receives is “filtered” by government: 

“…Russia parliament on Friday, March 4, 2022 passed a law that makes publishing “fake” news a crime, according to a release from the government of Russia.

The new law, which is expected to be signed by Vladimir Putin on Saturday, March 5, 2022, requires journalists to verify their reports on the invasion of Ukraine with official government sources.

The law prohibits the words “war, “invasion,” and “attacks” from being used in published articles…” I had heard elsewhere violators can face up to 15 years in prison, though uncertain of the accuracy of this. 









Russia Passes Law that Declares Unauthorized News a Crime, Blocks Access to Apple and Google App Stores, Facebook, Twitter


Swan Lake, Tchaikovsky - Dance of the Little Swans broadcast as Russian TV station 'Dozhd' (TV Rain) declared “no war” and went off the air, similar to the broadcast of Swan Lake by Soviet state TV around the time of the failed coup attempt by communist hardliners to take control of the country from




www.arlingtoncardinal.com




.

If this story is true, then there would be a great deal of conjecture regarding Putin’s/Russia’s military status vis-a-vis Ukraine. What do we know as fact? It is taking the Russian military a great deal longer than projected to “re-incorporate” a “Russian state” that “welcomes” his government’s return. Regarding the above article: I have been to several countries that specifically prohibit western news. This facilitates population control. We see it frequently attempted on the North American continent by various political parties.


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

bubba42 said:


> If this story is true,


This story is certainly true.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

(Reuters) - Several Russian banks said on Sunday they would soon start issuing cards using the Chinese UnionPay card operator's system coupled with Russia's own Mir network, after Visa and MasterCard said they were suspending operations in Russia.

Announcements regarding the switch to UnionPay came on Sunday from Sberbank, Russia's biggest lender, as well as Alfa Bank and Tinkoff.


https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2022-03-06/russian-banks-rush-to-switch-to-chinese-card-system


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

poppy said:


> I have sort of tuned out this whole Ukraine fiasco. It makes no sense on so many levels. Should Putin have attacked Ukraine? Absolutely not. Seeing a clip of Hannity saying we should do an air strike on the Russian convoy in Ukraine shows he is insane. Who is financing this invasion? We are every time we buy gas or buy anything petroleum based. Gas here is now right at $4. Russia profits greatly from high oil prices. While Biden was saying how he was punishing Russia financially, he didn't mention how much money Russia was making due to his policies. You and I are financing Russia's invasion, but our president is forcing us to by his policies.


I am troubled by both (all?) sides in this conflict.

A recent article by Josh Hammer really helped to gel up what was rattling in my addled, confused brain:


"At the time of Ukraine's 2014 color revolution (itself clandestinely abetted by liberal NGO types), which deposed the pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, the nation ranked as one of the absolute most corrupt nations in the world. There are neo-Nazi paramilitary units, such as the Azov Battalion, active in Ukraine. Ukraine, lest amnesic Westerners forget, is also the country of Hunter Biden and Burisma. Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk was, for years, a massive donor to the Clinton Foundation. And Zelensky himself, of course, was at the center of President Donald Trump's first (entirely bogus) impeachment. It seems there is something fundamentally rotten about modern Ukraine that no enterprising investigative journalist has yet uncovered.

....

Americans must remain clear-eyed about the current morass. Putin is in the wrong for launching this conflict and setting off such a horrific humanitarian nightmare. He should certainly be punished for that. But Putin is not Hitler, and this is not the beginning of World War III. Temper your emotions and your hot takes, accordingly. "











Clarity on Russia, Ukraine and the American National Interest


More so than perhaps any story in my adult lifetime, there is now an astonishing amount of disinformation pertaining to Vladimir Putin's war of aggression in Ukraine. Russian disinformation and




townhall.com


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Pony said:


> I am troubled by both (all?) sides in this conflict.
> 
> A recent article by Josh Hammer really helped to gel up what was rattling in my addled, confused brain:
> 
> ...



That expresses my views well. I feel sorry for people in both countries who want freedom but the leaders of both countries are corrupt to the point it makes no difference which side rules them. The US is in about the same situation. Ditto Canada, the UK, Australia, all Muslim countries, and many more. It is worldwide.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

I have a brilliant plan to end the Ukraine war. It came to me when I read that Microsoft has suspended business with Russia.

Apply the same sanctions that have been applied to Russia, to CHINA! Now that Microsoft has signaled big tech is on board, let's boycott anything China and see how long before they abandon Russia. Without China providing a market for Russian oil as well as providing financial support, Russia quickly runs out of money.

Of course, this will never happen, because the West is not serious about trying to save Ukraine.


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> I have a brilliant plan to end the Ukraine war. It came to me when I read that Microsoft has suspended business with Russia.
> 
> Apply the same sanctions that have been applied to Russia, to CHINA! Now that Microsoft has signaled big tech is on board, let's boycott anything China and see how long before they abandon Russia. Without China providing a market for Russian oil as well as providing financial support, Russia quickly runs out of money.
> 
> Of course, this will never happen, because the West is not serious about trying to save Ukraine.


Agreed, but it would be painful to the west -


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> I have a brilliant plan to end the Ukraine war. It came to me when I read that Microsoft has suspended business with Russia.
> 
> Apply the same sanctions that have been applied to Russia, to CHINA! Now that Microsoft has signaled big tech is on board, let's boycott anything China and see how long before they abandon Russia. Without China providing a market for Russian oil as well as providing financial support, Russia quickly runs out of money.
> 
> Of course, this will never happen, because the West is not serious about trying to save Ukraine.


It's all smoke and mirrors. Ask yourself, if Biden is sanctioning Russia, why is he still working with Russia to restart the Iranian deal? One would think he would cease all dealings with Russia and, if Russia is so upset about the sanctions, they would tell Biden to pound sand.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

poppy said:


> It's all smoke and mirrors. Ask yourself, if Biden is sanctioning Russia, why is he still working with Russia to restart the Iranian deal? One would think he would cease all dealings with Russia and, if Russia is so upset about the sanctions, they would tell Biden to pound sand.


I was being sarcastic. For some reason, the West wants to prolong the war as long as possible.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

bubba42 said:


> Agreed, but it would be painful to the west -


Which shows how unserious the West is.


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> Which shows how unserious the West is.


While I do not believe that was the case when I joined the military 30 years ago, I do happen to agree with you now… and am saddened/disappointed by that fact (“unserious West”) now.


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

MoonRiver said:


> I have a brilliant plan to end the Ukraine war. It came to me when I read that Microsoft has suspended business with Russia.
> 
> Apply the same sanctions that have been applied to Russia, to CHINA! Now that Microsoft has signaled big tech is on board, let's boycott anything China and see how long before they abandon Russia. Without China providing a market for Russian oil as well as providing financial support, Russia quickly runs out of money.
> 
> Of course, this will never happen, because the West is not serious about trying to save Ukraine.


Only problem with this is that we are also buying Russian oil. Aside from the taxpayer dollars Biden is pumping into Ukraine, we are buying billions of dollars of oil daily - from Russia.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has spoken out in favor of China mediating in the Ukraine crisis, said a South China Morning Post report on Saturday. "There is no alternative… It has to be China, I trust in that," Borrell was quoted. 




__





China to handle Ukraine crisis autonomously, despite presumptive mediation requests by West - Global Times







www.globaltimes.cn


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has spoken out in favor of China mediating in the Ukraine crisis, said a South China Morning Post report on Saturday. "There is no alternative… It has to be China, I trust in that," Borrell was quoted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The EU, NATO, the US are doing everything they can to deny any responsibility and pass the buck to someone else. Sure, get China to do it.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> The EU, NATO, the US are doing everything they can to deny any responsibility and pass the buck to someone else. Sure, get China to do it.


It is a bitter pill to swallow that your own government just looks at you as chattel, but once digested it puts a lot of things into perspective.


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

Hiro said:


> It is a bitter pill to swallow that your own government just looks at you as chattel, but once digested it puts a lot of things into perspective.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> The EU, NATO, the US are doing everything they can to deny any responsibility and pass the buck to someone else. Sure, get China to do it.


China is doing everything right to maximize their power and influence over the Ukraine thing


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> China is doing everything right to maximize their power and influence over the Ukraine thing


The challenge is to get China to take action to stop Putin without the US making any concessions to China.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> The challenge is to get China to take action to stop Putin without the US making any concessions to China.


China does not care about either of those things. If anything, China will keep Putin going, and draw every possible concession from the US. You can bet China loves seeing us go back to Iran and Venezuela like a junkie jonesing for a fix.

China's big thing is diminishing the dollar as the global trade currency.

China thinks it has the governance system for a global government. They will take ground on this skirmish by enhancing their global prestige. They have bought influence everywhere, now they have a real chance to wield it.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> China does not care about either of those things. If anything, China will keep Putin going, and draw every possible concession from the US. You can bet China loves seeing us go back to Iran and Venezuela like a junkie jonesing for a fix.
> 
> China's big thing is diminishing the dollar as the global trade currency.
> 
> China thinks it has the governance system for a global government. They will take ground on this skirmish by enhancing their global prestige. They have bought influence everywhere, now they have a real chance to wield it.


China's economy is in bad shape. That can be exploited.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> China's economy is in bad shape. That can be exploited.


That gives them all the more incentive. China is going to be the winner in this.

The US is not going to exploit anything when it comes to China. China owns everything in the US. China owns our media, our universities and our politicians.


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

MoonRiver said:


> The challenge is to get China to take action to stop Putin without the US making any concessions to China.


The thing is, I think they're in cahoots.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Russia's demands to end the war are exactly what I said they would be. 

In an interview with Reuters on Monday, Peskov said Moscow could "end war immediately" if Ukraine agreed to sign a neutrality agreement that would bar it from entering NATO, recognized Crimea as Russian, recognized the regions of Luhansk and Donetsk as independent, and ceased all military action.​​Russia says it will end Ukraine war on these four conditions​


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Russia's demands to end the war are exactly what I said they would be.
> 
> In an interview with Reuters on Monday, Peskov said Moscow could "end war immediately" if Ukraine agreed to sign a neutrality agreement that would bar it from entering NATO, recognized Crimea as Russian, recognized the regions of Luhansk and Donetsk as independent, and ceased all military action.​​Russia says it will end Ukraine war on these four conditions​


“See? I was right!”
_Neville Chamberlain, 14 March 1939_

“Oh, bugger all!”
_Neville Chamberlain, 15 March 1939_


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> Russia's demands to end the war are exactly what I said they would be.
> 
> In an interview with Reuters on Monday, Peskov said Moscow could "end war immediately" if Ukraine agreed to sign a neutrality agreement that would bar it from entering NATO, recognized Crimea as Russian, recognized the regions of Luhansk and Donetsk as independent, and ceased all military action.​​Russia says it will end Ukraine war on these four conditions​


So, you make demands that you know are not going to be met after nearly 2 weeks of an invasion that has shown your conventional military is not a threat to any nation prepared. There still is no rational reason for this that I have heard. I am sticking with Putin has lost it or he really isn't in charge. The latter is what I am leaning toward heavily.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

So, Russia doesn't want NATO (aka USA) on its doorstep, especially after Obama and the CIA already overthrew the Ukraine government once. Russia wants ownership of the Crimea, an area they have owned for centuries ever since they drove the Ottomans and their slave trade out of Europe. (Thanks Khrushchev for giving it to Ukraine). They don't want areas of Ukraine with majority ethnic Russian populations facing ethnic cleansing. (another Obama/CIA initiative). Really.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Vjk said:


> So, Russia doesn't want NATO (aka USA) on its doorstep, especially after Obama and the CIA already overthrew the Ukraine government once. Russia wants ownership of the Crimea, an area they have owned for centuries ever since they drove the Ottomans and their slave trade out of Europe. (Thanks Khrushchev for giving it to Ukraine). They don't want areas of Ukraine with majority ethnic Russian populations facing ethnic cleansing. (another Obama/CIA initiative). Really.


NATO is on their doorstep and has been for some time. "Russia" has never owned Crimea other than the brief existence of the USSR. There is no excuse or rational reason for what is going in the Ukraine that I have heard yet, including oil/gas fields in the Black Sea. And, that is what damages my calm.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. you are batting 0.0000


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Vjk said:


> Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. you are batting 0.0000


That is a convincing argument.


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

I heard today that Ukraine was blocking water from Crimea, and that the Crimeans were suffering heavy livestock and other losses.

Anyone here have data on that?

TIA.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Hiro said:


> So, you make demands that you know are not going to be met after nearly 2 weeks of an invasion that has shown your conventional military is not a threat to any nation prepared. There still is no rational reason for this that I have heard. I am sticking with Putin has lost it or he really isn't in charge. The latter is what I am leaning toward heavily.


I didn't make them up. Those demands were clear well before the war even started. The Russian army has accomplished what they intended to for those objectives to be a reality. Almost all Ukrainian military installations have been destroyed. Russia controls the electric power stations throughout the east and south. Russia controls the Luhansk and Donetsk regions. Russia controls most of the seaports.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> “See? I was right!”
> _Neville Chamberlain, 14 March 1939_
> 
> “Oh, bugger all!”
> _Neville Chamberlain, 15 March 1939_


I made an unemotional assessment based on the facts.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1500008536100663297


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Did the US want to turn Ukraine into a killing field?

Russia fighting in Ukraine was either intentionally staged by the US, or our bumbling exceeds even my ability to fathom its depths.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

In the simulation we mapped out, not only does NATO get sucked in unintentionally, but Russia releases nuclear weapons in its desperation. 

How did we just kill a billion people?”

Over just three days, as I have done countless times over the last several years, a group of past and present senior U.S. government officials from both sides of the aisle gathered to wage a NATO-Russia war in a simulation at the end of 2019. In the course of what we called the NATO-Russia War of 2019, we estimated one billion people died. And if we aren’t careful, what happened in a simulation could happen if a NATO-Russia war erupts over Ukraine.









NATO Intervention In Ukraine Could Spark Nuclear War. Here's How


In the simulation we mapped out, not only does NATO get sucked in unintentionally, but Russia releases nuclear weapons in its desperation.




thefederalist.com


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> I didn't make them up. Those demands were clear well before the war even started. The Russian army has accomplished what they intended to for those objectives to be a reality. Almost all Ukrainian military installations have been destroyed. Russia controls the electric power stations throughout the east and south. Russia controls the Luhansk and Donetsk regions. Russia controls most of the seaports.


I worded that badly. I wasn't accusing you of making them up, rather Russia being utterly unrealistic and making demands that they knew wouldn't be met.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> I made an unemotional assessment based on the facts.


So was Neville Chamberlain. As did Hitler, and you see what that got us.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

We'll see if Xi is still on board with this after one of his largest banks gets margin called for shorting nickel. This is going to keep spreading:

Bad time to be short nickel.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Vjk said:


> Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. you are batting 0.0000


@Hiro is right. Stamping your feet and crying “wrong wrong wrong” doesn’t make it so.

Even under the Soviet Union, Crimea spent most of its time as part of Ukraine (making no difference to Russia, since the rest of the Union were just slave states to them). Its time as part of the Russian (pre-Communist) empire was less than 200 years, and it’s time as part of Communist Russia was just a couple decades.

After their bankruptcy, when the Communists had to release most of their slave states, Crimea remained with Ukraine and was recognized as such by Boris Yeltsin. It’s been there for 30 years.

If your argument really is where it spent the most of its history, it either belongs to Italy or Turkey, not Russia- of course, so then would the rest of Ukraine, and all the meaningful parts of Russia.

Putin took Crimea for one reason alone: they didn’t play their oil claims in a way that allowed Putin his due kickbacks. Ukraine was going to allow western interests to develop its claim to oil zones in the Black Sea, so Putin took it from them- and the west allowed it to happen.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> So was Neville Chamberlain. As did Hitler, and you see what that got us.


As I understand it, Ukraine is about ready to agree to most if not all the terms. 

Russian officials put out four demands for Ukraine, many of which aren't surprising because they've been on Russia's wish list for years. To end the war, Ukraine must not pursue NATO or European Union membership, acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory and recognize the Lugansk and Donetsk regions as independent states.​​*Along with "cooling down" to the idea of joining NATO,* *Zelensky told ABC News that there's room for negotiating on the occupied territories and unrecognized republics. While Russia's pushed for international recognition of Crimea as part of Russia since its annexation in 2014, very few have gotten on board.*​​*"They will recognize [Crimea] sooner or later. There is no way around it. But we are ready for the process to take a long time," Sergey Aksyonov, the head of Crimea, told TASS in December.*​​Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is open to compromise with Russia on some of their demands to end the war but some items are likely to be non-negotiable. Zelensky holds a joint press conference with the German chancellor in Kyiv on February 14.​​







Where Zelensky is open to "compromise" on Russia's 4 demands to end war


Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said he's open to negotiating, but he has to consider the lives of the people who elected him.




www.newsweek.com


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Hiro said:


> I worded that badly. I wasn't accusing you of making them up, rather Russia being utterly unrealistic and making demands that they knew wouldn't be met.


You might want to rethink that. Russia already has 2 of their demands de facto. Ukraine will soon have to give up and they have come to the realization that NATO was using them. That makes all 4 demands seem likely to happen and happen soon.

There might be some variation in the agreement, but I don't think it will be substantially different. Ukraine has little leverage.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> As I understand it, Ukraine is about ready to agree to most if not all the terms.
> 
> Russian officials put out four demands for Ukraine, many of which aren't surprising because they've been on Russia's wish list for years. To end the war, Ukraine must not pursue NATO or European Union membership, acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory and recognize the Lugansk and Donetsk regions as independent states.​​*Along with "cooling down" to the idea of joining NATO,* *Zelensky told ABC News that there's room for negotiating on the occupied territories and unrecognized republics. While Russia's pushed for international recognition of Crimea as part of Russia since its annexation in 2014, very few have gotten on board.*​​*"They will recognize [Crimea] sooner or later. There is no way around it. But we are ready for the process to take a long time," Sergey Aksyonov, the head of Crimea, told TASS in December.*​​Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is open to compromise with Russia on some of their demands to end the war but some items are likely to be non-negotiable. Zelensky holds a joint press conference with the German chancellor in Kyiv on February 14.​​
> 
> ...


And Czechoslovakia “agreed” to Hitler’s terms… after begging and pleading with the Allies to help them against the international bully trying to steal their land, even going so far as to warn us that the bully was going to go on strong-arming and stealing territory that didn’t belong to them.

That is EXACTLY what Zelenskyy has been doing, if you’re paying attention, and Ukraine absolutely would NOT even be entertaining the demands of Russia if it weren’t for all of the spineless Putin apologists and appeasementists in the west.

Your position on this issue has been consistent. I’ll give you that. Unfortunately, it’s 100% consistently in line with the limp-wrists that brought us WWII. You’ll trade an ounce of security, today, for total-war next Tuesday, and tell us all how great a deal it is, and how right you were… until Tuesday evening.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> You might want to rethink that. Russia already has 2 of their demands de facto. Ukraine will soon have to give up and they have come to the realization that NATO was using them. That makes all 4 demands seem likely to happen and happen soon.
> 
> There might be some variation in the agreement, but I don't think it will be substantially different. Ukraine has little leverage.


I don't comprehend the "NATO was using them." statement. Having a current Ukrainian government getting shelled and invaded agreeing that Crimea is part of Russia and two provinces are independent and agreeing not to join an alliance in the future and demilitarizing lasts as long as that government is in power. These demands are a distraction or a way for Putin to save face. This still makes no sense. Russia and Ukraine will be permanently estranged and I still don't understand what Russia gets from that even if they take a few more pieces and parts.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> And Czechoslovakia “agreed” to Hitler’s terms… after begging and pleading with the Allies to help them against the international bully trying to steal their land, even going so far as to warn us that the bully was going to go on strong-arming and stealing territory that didn’t belong to them.
> 
> That is EXACTLY what Zelenskyy has been doing, if you’re paying attention, and Ukraine absolutely would NOT even be entertaining the demands of Russia if it weren’t for all of the spineless Putin apologists and appeasementists in the west.
> 
> Your position on this issue has been consistent. I’ll give you that. Unfortunately, it’s 100% consistently in line with the limp-wrists that brought us WWII. You’ll trade an ounce of security, today, for total-war next Tuesday, and tell us all how great a deal it is, and how right you were… until Tuesday evening.


You have no idea what my personal position is. All I have shared is my analysis.

The West and especially NATO and the US talk a good game but are extremely risk-averse.

I knew the US and NATO would not commit troops or even pilots, so the fact that Russia would win was obvious. This isn't being a Putin apologist, it is simply recognizing the West is timid and weak.

I thought the smart thing to do was initiate an immediate surrender and hopefully avoid additional death and destruction. In this situation, I think the smart move was to survive to fight again another day and preserve as much of Ukraine as possible. Putin's days are numbered.

I


----------



## Ziptie (May 16, 2013)

Don't believe Putin is crazy or having mental problems. If you read his declaration of war he had a well thought out argument of why he is doing what he is doing (not say that he is correct). 
You can read it here if interested Full text: Putin's declaration of war on Ukraine | The Spectator.

Some of the interviews that I have seen said even the Russian generals were surprised when he said go. I think that is why they have had such a slow start because they didn't believe it was going to happen. I believe Putin might have got a hold of some intel that changed everything thing. I am not sure what it is and why he would not release it to the world. 

The propaganda is so thick I don't think you could cut it with a knife maybe a diamond bladed chain saw (do they make such a thing?). Ukraine is losing and they are trying to pump out the propaganda for people to help them because that is the only way they can win (once again not saying that I am supporting Russia). 

How can you tell who is winning or losing? The seems that the both sides are using the same equipment, uniforms, and weapons'. Apparently they have to to markings on the side of the vehicles so they know what belongs to who. 

I do know that the more sanctions that we put on Russia, that hurts the Russian people, the more it proves Putin's point to the Russian people of the "evil west" and pushes Russia more into bed with China. 

I think their is no good solution to this mess. No one is going to win here. We are to the point of what is the least worst outcome for the world.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Ziptie said:


> I think their is no good solution to this mess. No one is going to win here. We are to the point of what is the least worst outcome for the world.


That statement sums it up for me. Putin has been shrewd and gained a lot, while risking little for him and even the nation he leads, during his rule. I just don't see why he has risked a whole heck of a lot for a prize that I cannot understand how he hopes to keep. 

I am sticking with my theory, he has lost his marbles or someone/some group is really in charge in Russia and not him. The timing of this is not lost on me.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Vjk said:


> So, Russia doesn't want NATO (aka USA) on its doorstep, especially after Obama and the CIA already overthrew the Ukraine government once. Russia wants ownership of the Crimea, an area they have owned for centuries ever since they drove the Ottomans and their slave trade out of Europe. (Thanks Khrushchev for giving it to Ukraine). They don't want areas of Ukraine with majority ethnic Russian populations facing ethnic cleansing. (another Obama/CIA initiative). Really.



Norway, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, all share borders with Russia. No problems. So doorstep issues is false. Or are they next ?

Taking over Ukraine actually greatly increases the countries that will be next to Russia controlled areas. 

Russian ethnics have not faced ethnic cleansing of any note in any of the Ukraine areas. So thats a lousy excuse. Russia could always come in at the time of such problems. Absolutely no good reason to do so preemptively.

Russia wants to control the oil in Crimea, so they need to control the area. Ports and industrial interests also. They sure do not want Ukraine to have the money.

Putin wants the MONEY and resulting power.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> You have no idea what my personal position is. All I have shared is my analysis.
> 
> The West and especially NATO and the US talk a good game but are extremely risk-averse.
> 
> ...


You can’t say that I have no idea what your position is, and then articulate a position that is exactly what I’ve been saying your position is.

_Let Putin have what he wants, keep as much of Ukraine as he would let you keep, and hope that’s all he takes and you can “fight another day”._

Look, Moon, I can’t say if you’re right or wrong on this (or even if there is a right to be found), but what I can say is that history says you’re wrong on this. The adage about being doomed to repeat history is thrown around a lot, but I don’t recall, in my lifetime, a case where a consequential event such as this has so closely paralleled such an ominously black-and-white teachable moment from history. You’re channeling Neville Chamberlain from 1938.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Hiro said:


> That statement sums it up for me. Putin has been shrewd and gained a lot, while risking little for him and even the nation he leads, during his rule. I just don't see why he has risked a whole heck of a lot for a prize that I cannot understand how he hopes to keep.
> 
> I am sticking with my theory, he has lost his marbles or someone/some group is really in charge in Russia and not him. The timing of this is not lost on me.


This was published on or about Dec 17, 2021, in The Guardian

Russia has put forward a highly contentious list of security guarantees it says it wants the west to agree to in order to lower tensions in Europe and defuse the crisis over Ukraine, including many elements that have already been ruled out.​​The demands include a ban on Ukraine entering Nato and a limit to the deployment of troops and weapons to Nato’s eastern flank, in effect returning Nato forces to where they were stationed in 1997, before an eastward expansion.​​The eight-point draft treaty was released by Russia’s foreign ministry as its forces massed within striking distance of Ukraine’s borders. *Moscow said ignoring its interests would lead to a “military response” similar to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.*​​







Russia issues list of demands it says must be met to lower tensions in Europe


Contentious security guarantees Moscow is seeking include a ban on Ukraine from entering Nato




www.theguardian.com


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> This was published on or about Dec 17, 2021, in The Guardian
> 
> Russia has put forward a highly contentious list of security guarantees it says it wants the west to agree to in order to lower tensions in Europe and defuse the crisis over Ukraine, including many elements that have already been ruled out.​​The demands include a ban on Ukraine entering Nato and a limit to the deployment of troops and weapons to Nato’s eastern flank, in effect returning Nato forces to where they were stationed in 1997, before an eastward expansion.​​The eight-point draft treaty was released by Russia’s foreign ministry as its forces massed within striking distance of Ukraine’s borders. *Moscow said ignoring its interests would lead to a “military response” similar to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.*​​
> 
> ...


I have heard those talking points for some time. But, that is all they ever were. Most of NATO has disarmed itself over the last twenty years. Germany has disarmed itself and become a slave state to Russia knowingly and intentionally. Russia is not threatened by a disarmed defensive alliance of soy boys, especially given their dependence on Russia for energy and their nuclear arsenal. There is something else at the heart of this.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> You can’t say that I have no idea what your position is, and then articulate a position that is exactly what I’ve been saying your position is.
> 
> _Let Putin have what he wants, keep as much of Ukraine as he would let you keep, and hope that’s all he takes and you can “fight another day”._
> 
> Look, Moon, I can’t say if you’re right or wrong on this (or even if there is a right to be found), but what I can say is that history says you’re wrong on this. The adage about being doomed to repeat history is thrown around a lot, but I don’t recall, in my lifetime, a case where a consequential event such as this has so closely paralleled such an ominously black-and-white teachable moment from history. You’re channeling Neville Chamberlain from 1938.


My personal opinion is that when Putin issued his demands in December 2021 and was already putting troops on the Ukraine border, NATO should have immediately put troops on the Western border of Ukraine and told Putin in no uncertain terms to stand down. I would have coupled that with a serious diplomatic effort to work out an agreement between NATO and Russia to provide a demilitarized zone between Russia and NATO countries minimizing the risk of future conflict.

Of course, we should never have allowed the problem to go unresolved for so many years. and the US should not have interfered in internal Ukraine politics.

With the current administration, my plan would never have been put into effect, so there was no reason for me to post it. What I have posted is what I thought would happen, knowing the US and NATO would fold.


----------



## Ziptie (May 16, 2013)

See the problem is Hiro is you not thinking like a Russian. They are a very paranoid people, they own a lot of land (and resources) and don't have that big of population. 
All those other countries that were mentioned above we said in the start that we would not allow them into NATO and from what I understand over time we have ignored Russia's protests of it happening time and time again. This goes all the way back to 2004.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Ziptie said:


> See the problem is Hiro is you not thinking like a Russian. They are a very paranoid people, they own a lot of land (and resources) and don't have that big of population.
> All those other countries that were mentioned above we said in the start that we would not allow them into NATO and from what I understand over time we have ignored Russia's protests of it happening time and time again. This goes all the way back to 2004.


I would agree with that assessment if they were looking east towards China. That doesn't jive with a pacified western flank that is more worried about "climate change."


----------



## Ziptie (May 16, 2013)

Wouldn't you say all these country's being allowed into NATO is a type of expansion? It is select club and if you don't follow their values you aren't allowed in.

What are the requirements to join NATO?


*New members must be making progress toward a market economy*. Their military forces must be under firm civilian control. They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders. They must be working toward compatibility with NATO forces.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Hiro said:


> NATO is on their doorstep and has been for some time. "Russia" has never owned Crimea other than the brief existence of the USSR. There is no excuse or rational reason for what is going in the Ukraine that I have heard yet, including oil/gas fields in the Black Sea. And, that is what damages my calm.


Swamp critters on both sides of the aisle have been pushing us into a war with Russia for some time.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Ziptie said:


> Wouldn't you say all these country's being allowed into NATO is a type of expansion? It is select club and if you don't follow their values you aren't allowed in.
> 
> What are the requirements to join NATO?
> 
> ...


NATO has expanded. But, I still don't buy Russia/Putin has felt threatened. I still don't buy that they felt Ukraine was a threat. I still don't think this invasion of Ukraine makes sense for Russia's/Putin's long term interests. Something else is behind this and still am not convinced and haven't seen/heard/read what it might be that my little pea brain can process.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

I don't understand Putin's reasoning either, but there are lots of things we don't know about I am sure. Don't know if the stories are true, but some are saying the US has several bio labs operating in Ukraine. Wuhan proved we do or finance things overseas that are illegal to do here. I think a lot of it has to do with oil. Russia depends on oil revenue greatly. I also think Putin is trying to preserve the ethnic Russian population, including those in other countries. Muslims now make up 25% of Russia's population and 40% of their military and Muslims are having more babies than the Russians, so those numbers will increase. Whatever the reasons, banning Russian oil and everything else this administration is doing will hurt us financially. Inflation was already very high and if this drags on, we ain't seen nothing yet.


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

Ziptie said:


> Don't believe Putin is crazy or having mental problems. If you read his declaration of war he had a well thought out argument of why he is doing what he is doing (not say that he is correct).
> You can read it here if interested Full text: Putin's declaration of war on Ukraine | The Spectator.


I think one can be quite mad and crazy - and still argue so that it looks logical.
But whatever he may have said: Putin is now cleary a war criminal and should not be admired in any way.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

What's the sense in having all that military power if you don't flex it once in a while? At the same time providing profit opportunities for those 1%'s in-the-know.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

For the same primary reason as I own guns. 
To dissuade others from forcing me to defend myself.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

An 11-year-old Ukrainian boy took a 700-mile train journey to Slovakia alone with just a bag and his passport




__





An 11-year-old Ukrainian boy took a 700-mile train journey to Slovakia alone with just a bag and his passport






www.msn.com


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I guess we nixxed the Polish jets to Ukraine


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> I guess we nixxed the Polish jets to Ukraine


It made the Biden administration look incompetent once again. Whether we should have supported the plan to give Migs to Ukraine is one thing, but having the Sec of State publicly push for it and the pentagon saying No shows just how incompetent Biden is. Every day the likelihood of China taking over Taiwan increases.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Tiawan is about half the size of Indiana, meaning you can ride your Griswold station wagon from one side to the other in a couple of hours, give or take the terrain, mountains, pot holes, road construction, detours, rest stops and tourist traps.
China is about the same size in mass as the United States but with over a billion people.
The Taiwanese people have no gun rights, and throwing free AKs to them for self defense wouldn't mean much.
By no stretch, no matter who says so, would an invasion of Taiwan by the Chinese army compare to what is happening in Ukraine.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> By no stretch, no matter who says so, would an invasion of Taiwan by the Chinese army compare to what is happening in Ukraine.


Right. China invading Taiwan would send global trade into a tailspin. Everything would be upside down


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

BTW, another 'conspiracy theory' has been confirmed. A female government official testifying before a Senate committee responding to a question by Marco Rubio admitted there are bio labs in Ukraine. Guess who is funding them.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

poppy said:


> BTW, another 'conspiracy theory' has been confirmed. A female government official testifying before a Senate committee responding to a question by Marco Rubio admitted there are bio labs in Ukraine. Guess who is funding them.


MSM sure is not putting the story out.

Asked by Sen. Marco Rubio if there were chemical or biological laboratories in Ukraine, Nuland clearly struggles to choose her words and gives the answer she was probably not supposed to give. 



“Ukraine has biological research facilities which, in fact, we are now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces, may be seeking to gain control of,” Nuland said. “So, 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.” 



Rubio was quick to try and clean things up. 

“I’m sure you’re aware that the Russian propaganda groups are already putting out there all kinds of information about how they’ve uncovered a plot by the Ukrainians to release biological weapons in the country with NATO’s coordination,” Rubio said. “If there’s a biological or chemical weapon incident or attack inside of Ukraine, is there any doubt in your mind that 100% it would be the Russians that would be behind it?” 

Nuland responds: “There is no doubt in my mind senator, and it is classic Russian technique to blame on the other guy what they are planning to do themselves.” 

Interesting, Nuland’s foreknowledge of who is to blame for events that have not yet happened are impeccable.








Undersecretary Nuland admits to biolabs in Ukraine


Of course, the American bureaucratic state and the propaganda media slapped the “false” label on those reports. Well, on Tuesday, as John Miller put As the Russia-Ukraine conflict began, some reports came out about U.S.-backed biolabs in Ukraine. Of course, the American bureaucratic state...




thelibertyloft.com


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1501313109520175104


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

I watched the long version of this video yesterday, but this short version makes the point.


----------

