(09-12-2022 12:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 12:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 12:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 12:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 12:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Russia, interestingly, was not a colonial power.

Russia has always sought to buffer the interior of the country from Europe. That is the foreign policy the country has always had. The goal is to put as many people and miles between the Russian heartland and Europe as humanly possible.

As for Hitler and Stalin, they are footnotes in the wider point.

Russians are not European in their mindset. They are deeply and pathologically distrustful of Europe. Stalin said, "Russia saved Europe, and they hated us for it."

They see every step East of NATO as an existential threat. The truth is, this is nothing new. NATO is just the latest iteration of Tutons, Poles, Hapsburgs, French, Swedes, etc. to come down the pipe in a country with a memory longer than 250 years.

Except there had been no major European war since the creation of NATO over 70 years ago. For all the bluster over fear of NATO---it wasnt NATO that invaded Russia. It wasnt Ukraine that invaded Russia. It wasnt Georgia that invaded Russia. Best I can tell---nobody has any interest in invading Russia---and I cant think of a single time in the nuclear age a nuclear armed European nation was invaded. Nobody was going to invade a nuclear armed Russia. What would be the point?

There hadn't been a true conflagration in Europe involving all the major powers since the Napoleonic wars before the first world war.

This is the short American memory thing I'm talking about.

And, each time Russia was involved it suffered horribly. We don't even know how many Russian civilians died during Napoleons invasion but we know it was likely in the hundreds of thousands.

I think you have a point in that the thought may no longer be compatible with the modern world we live in with nuclear weapons. But, you can't ignore the thought process of your opponent--certainly not if you intend to negotiate a resolution.

Finally, as I said, the Russians are not really European. Much of Europe certainly doesn't see them as such--and never has.

If the idea behind the Ukrainian invasion was to increase the strategic security of the Russian frontier from the west---its been a dismal failure. Rather than increase security----its done just the opposite. The Russian aggression has moved NATO lines forward directly onto their huge northern border Nordic border and increased the total number of NATO forces the Russians faced. Their large border with Ukraine is no longer shared with a relatively friendly nation armed with old relatively low-tech 1980's Soviet era weapons. Now they share a Ukrainian border with a mortal enemy with a large well trained standing army armed with many technologically advanced western weapons. And worse yet---Russians have degraded their own military capabilities due to the losses suffered in creating a dangerous enemy on their border.

I honestly think Russia could have obtained most everything they wanted before the invasion. The West would have agreed to most of Putins demands. He had his forces arrayed, it was too late for the West to do much (even if they wanted to), the West was certain Ukraine would be overwhelmed in days, and the West had no appetite for a war. I think the West would have agreed to give all of Crimea and Donbas to Russia. But now---after the level of death and destruction in Ukraine----I dont think anyone could sell Ukraine on giving up territory and being a demilitarized neutral nation.

Best case for Russia at this point is the Minsk agreement is thrown out and they hammer out something new that is negotiated more as equals than the old Minsk agreement they were able to shove down the Ukrainians throats in 2014....otherwise this war potentially could go on for years.

We didn't though. We didn't agree to anything. We dared him to act; and he did.

I think it would be naive to think that this wasn't the goal. Russia has been forced into the existential crisis.

Thats an odd way to look at it. Prior to the war NATO nations and delegation sent leader after leader to Putin begging him to negotiate. Instead, Putin made wildly unreasonable "non-negotiable" demands such as a completely demilitarized Ukraine and NATO returning to its 1997 borders. Heck---even now---Putin is still refusing to seriously negotiate a peaceful settlement.

Furthermore---we were warning the Ukrainians that Putin had already decided to invade in the fall of 2021. A it turns out, we apparently had some really good inside intelligence on that. So---I think the idea that NATO somehow tricked Putin into invading Ukraine is wildly off base. There is no existential crisis. Never was. After there was little fallout from the Crimean grab in 2014---Putin realized he could probably grab the whole country of Ukraine in 2022----and beyond a few sanctions---he be fine. After all---NATO still needed his gas and oil. He never envisioned the Ukrainians could actually stop his army (especially considering how easily his forces had brushed the Ukrainian Army aside in 2014). That was his only real mistake.

(09-12-2022 12:56 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 12:44 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 12:32 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Provide some context regarding recent Ukrainian gains in the east and south.

This is getting quite serious for Putin and the Kremlin. Admission of losses from the Kremlin . Questions now being asked by former hardliners and open calls for Putin's resignation. The latest from New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/09/12/...russia-war

Adding to the smoke if true. A former official in the Ukrainian government.

The Guardian sees the reports of Russian scale back as credible enough to report. Dissension Within the government and growing distrust in Russia. This is huge news of true.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2...6fd168d589

(09-12-2022 01:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 12:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 12:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 12:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 12:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Except there had been no major European war since the creation of NATO over 70 years ago. For all the bluster over fear of NATO---it wasnt NATO that invaded Russia. It wasnt Ukraine that invaded Russia. It wasnt Georgia that invaded Russia. Best I can tell---nobody has any interest in invading Russia---and I cant think of a single time in the nuclear age a nuclear armed European nation was invaded. Nobody was going to invade a nuclear armed Russia. What would be the point?

There hadn't been a true conflagration in Europe involving all the major powers since the Napoleonic wars before the first world war.

This is the short American memory thing I'm talking about.

And, each time Russia was involved it suffered horribly. We don't even know how many Russian civilians died during Napoleons invasion but we know it was likely in the hundreds of thousands.

I think you have a point in that the thought may no longer be compatible with the modern world we live in with nuclear weapons. But, you can't ignore the thought process of your opponent--certainly not if you intend to negotiate a resolution.

Finally, as I said, the Russians are not really European. Much of Europe certainly doesn't see them as such--and never has.

If the idea behind the Ukrainian invasion was to increase the strategic security of the Russian frontier from the west---its been a dismal failure. Rather than increase security----its done just the opposite. The Russian aggression has moved NATO lines forward directly onto their huge northern border Nordic border and increased the total number of NATO forces the Russians faced. Their large border with Ukraine is no longer shared with a relatively friendly nation armed with old relatively low-tech 1980's Soviet era weapons. Now they share a Ukrainian border with a mortal enemy with a large well trained standing army armed with many technologically advanced western weapons. And worse yet---Russians have degraded their own military capabilities due to the losses suffered in creating a dangerous enemy on their border.

I honestly think Russia could have obtained most everything they wanted before the invasion. The West would have agreed to most of Putins demands. He had his forces arrayed, it was too late for the West to do much (even if they wanted to), the West was certain Ukraine would be overwhelmed in days, and the West had no appetite for a war. I think the West would have agreed to give all of Crimea and Donbas to Russia. But now---after the level of death and destruction in Ukraine----I dont think anyone could sell Ukraine on giving up territory and being a demilitarized neutral nation.

Best case for Russia at this point is the Minsk agreement is thrown out and they hammer out something new that is negotiated more as equals than the old Minsk agreement they were able to shove down the Ukrainians throats in 2014....otherwise this war potentially could go on for years.

We didn't though. We didn't agree to anything. We dared him to act; and he did.

I think it would be naive to think that this wasn't the goal. Russia has been forced into the existential crisis.

Thats an odd way to look at it. Prior to the war NATO nations and delegation sent leader after leader to Putin begging him to negotiate. Instead, Putin made wildly unreasonable "non-negotiable" demands such as a completely demilitarized Ukraine and NATO returning to its 1997 borders. Heck---even now---Putin is still refusing to seriously negotiate a peaceful settlement.

Furthermore---we were warning the Ukrainians that Putin had already decided to invade in the fall of 2021. A it turns out, we apparently had some really good inside intelligence on that. So---I think the idea that NATO somehow tricked Putin into invading Ukraine is wildly off base.

You keep saying something looks "odd" but only appear to look skin deep.

NATO has been moving closer and closer since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That's the trigger--not the Ukraine invasion.

Putin talked about that. "They told Gorbachev not one step East; they sure fooled him." "Our mistake was that we trusted you. Your mistake was that you tried to take advantage of it."

This has been brewing. There isn't anything "odd" about it.

(09-12-2022 01:08 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 12:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 12:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 12:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  There hadn't been a true conflagration in Europe involving all the major powers since the Napoleonic wars before the first world war.

This is the short American memory thing I'm talking about.

And, each time Russia was involved it suffered horribly. We don't even know how many Russian civilians died during Napoleons invasion but we know it was likely in the hundreds of thousands.

I think you have a point in that the thought may no longer be compatible with the modern world we live in with nuclear weapons. But, you can't ignore the thought process of your opponent--certainly not if you intend to negotiate a resolution.

Finally, as I said, the Russians are not really European. Much of Europe certainly doesn't see them as such--and never has.

If the idea behind the Ukrainian invasion was to increase the strategic security of the Russian frontier from the west---its been a dismal failure. Rather than increase security----its done just the opposite. The Russian aggression has moved NATO lines forward directly onto their huge northern border Nordic border and increased the total number of NATO forces the Russians faced. Their large border with Ukraine is no longer shared with a relatively friendly nation armed with old relatively low-tech 1980's Soviet era weapons. Now they share a Ukrainian border with a mortal enemy with a large well trained standing army armed with many technologically advanced western weapons. And worse yet---Russians have degraded their own military capabilities due to the losses suffered in creating a dangerous enemy on their border.

I honestly think Russia could have obtained most everything they wanted before the invasion. The West would have agreed to most of Putins demands. He had his forces arrayed, it was too late for the West to do much (even if they wanted to), the West was certain Ukraine would be overwhelmed in days, and the West had no appetite for a war. I think the West would have agreed to give all of Crimea and Donbas to Russia. But now---after the level of death and destruction in Ukraine----I dont think anyone could sell Ukraine on giving up territory and being a demilitarized neutral nation.

Best case for Russia at this point is the Minsk agreement is thrown out and they hammer out something new that is negotiated more as equals than the old Minsk agreement they were able to shove down the Ukrainians throats in 2014....otherwise this war potentially could go on for years.

We didn't though. We didn't agree to anything. We dared him to act; and he did.

I think it would be naive to think that this wasn't the goal. Russia has been forced into the existential crisis.

Thats an odd way to look at it. Prior to the war NATO nations and delegation sent leader after leader to Putin begging him to negotiate. Instead, Putin made wildly unreasonable "non-negotiable" demands such as a completely demilitarized Ukraine and NATO returning to its 1997 borders. Heck---even now---Putin is still refusing to seriously negotiate a peaceful settlement.

Furthermore---we were warning the Ukrainians that Putin had already decided to invade in the fall of 2021. A it turns out, we apparently had some really good inside intelligence on that. So---I think the idea that NATO somehow tricked Putin into invading Ukraine is wildly off base.

You keep saying something looks "odd" but only appear to look skin deep.

NATO has been moving closer and closer since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That's the trigger--not the Ukraine invasion.

Putin talked about that. "They told Gorbachev not one step East; they sure fooled him." "Our mistake was that we trusted you. Your mistake was that you tried to take advantage of it."

This has been brewing. There isn't anything "odd" about it.

You act like the NATO armies swept into the eastern European plain like a Barbarian horde. Independent nations ASKED to be members. Independent nations get to decide their own security arrangements. Perhaps Russia's past behavior has something to do with why the former Warsaw Pact nations wanted to be part of NATO. Its looking to me like that was a very prescient decision by their leaders.

(09-12-2022 01:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:08 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 12:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 12:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If the idea behind the Ukrainian invasion was to increase the strategic security of the Russian frontier from the west---its been a dismal failure. Rather than increase security----its done just the opposite. The Russian aggression has moved NATO lines forward directly onto their huge northern border Nordic border and increased the total number of NATO forces the Russians faced. Their large border with Ukraine is no longer shared with a relatively friendly nation armed with old relatively low-tech 1980's Soviet era weapons. Now they share a Ukrainian border with a mortal enemy with a large well trained standing army armed with many technologically advanced western weapons. And worse yet---Russians have degraded their own military capabilities due to the losses suffered in creating a dangerous enemy on their border.

I honestly think Russia could have obtained most everything they wanted before the invasion. The West would have agreed to most of Putins demands. He had his forces arrayed, it was too late for the West to do much (even if they wanted to), the West was certain Ukraine would be overwhelmed in days, and the West had no appetite for a war. I think the West would have agreed to give all of Crimea and Donbas to Russia. But now---after the level of death and destruction in Ukraine----I dont think anyone could sell Ukraine on giving up territory and being a demilitarized neutral nation.

Best case for Russia at this point is the Minsk agreement is thrown out and they hammer out something new that is negotiated more as equals than the old Minsk agreement they were able to shove down the Ukrainians throats in 2014....otherwise this war potentially could go on for years.

We didn't though. We didn't agree to anything. We dared him to act; and he did.

I think it would be naive to think that this wasn't the goal. Russia has been forced into the existential crisis.

Thats an odd way to look at it. Prior to the war NATO nations and delegation sent leader after leader to Putin begging him to negotiate. Instead, Putin made wildly unreasonable "non-negotiable" demands such as a completely demilitarized Ukraine and NATO returning to its 1997 borders. Heck---even now---Putin is still refusing to seriously negotiate a peaceful settlement.

Furthermore---we were warning the Ukrainians that Putin had already decided to invade in the fall of 2021. A it turns out, we apparently had some really good inside intelligence on that. So---I think the idea that NATO somehow tricked Putin into invading Ukraine is wildly off base.

You keep saying something looks "odd" but only appear to look skin deep.

NATO has been moving closer and closer since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That's the trigger--not the Ukraine invasion.

Putin talked about that. "They told Gorbachev not one step East; they sure fooled him." "Our mistake was that we trusted you. Your mistake was that you tried to take advantage of it."

This has been brewing. There isn't anything "odd" about it.

You act like the NATO armies swept into the eastern European plain like a Barbarian horde. Independent nations ASKED to be members. Independent nations get to decide their own security arrangements. That would be like NATO invading Russia and saying its Russia's fault because they entered into an alliance with China. Its not NATO's call who Russia allies itself with.
NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO has never conqureed

That's pretty much how they see it; yes.

Simply shouting, "but we're the good guys--trust us," is not convincing, especially in light of what I have been saying.

The point I am getting at is you have to try to see it from the other side if you hope to negotiate a resolution.

We didnt need to spend billions. All that money is doing is getting channeled to the point where some of it ends up in the back pocket of Liz Cheneys fat ass.

Money has little to do with how well Russia is fairing. We could have sent zero dollars, ensured they had certain weaponry, and kept the price of oil to a minimum, and THAT would have been enough to cause Russia enormous issues.

If history is any indicator, when it comes to logistics, Russia could f*ck up a one car funeral. So its no wonder they continually have issues with a certain number of their troops getting stranded with no fuel or food, and no backup. I think I said this way back at the start of this thread; if this conflict goes on for more than two weeks, Russia is essentially in a quagmire. Because when any of their prior conflicts lasted longer than that, it ends up in a quagmire, because it forces them to be competent at something they arent; logistics.

(09-12-2022 01:18 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:08 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 12:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We didn't though. We didn't agree to anything. We dared him to act; and he did.

I think it would be naive to think that this wasn't the goal. Russia has been forced into the existential crisis.

Thats an odd way to look at it. Prior to the war NATO nations and delegation sent leader after leader to Putin begging him to negotiate. Instead, Putin made wildly unreasonable "non-negotiable" demands such as a completely demilitarized Ukraine and NATO returning to its 1997 borders. Heck---even now---Putin is still refusing to seriously negotiate a peaceful settlement.

Furthermore---we were warning the Ukrainians that Putin had already decided to invade in the fall of 2021. A it turns out, we apparently had some really good inside intelligence on that. So---I think the idea that NATO somehow tricked Putin into invading Ukraine is wildly off base.

You keep saying something looks "odd" but only appear to look skin deep.

NATO has been moving closer and closer since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That's the trigger--not the Ukraine invasion.

Putin talked about that. "They told Gorbachev not one step East; they sure fooled him." "Our mistake was that we trusted you. Your mistake was that you tried to take advantage of it."

This has been brewing. There isn't anything "odd" about it.

You act like the NATO armies swept into the eastern European plain like a Barbarian horde. Independent nations ASKED to be members. Independent nations get to decide their own security arrangements. That would be like NATO invading Russia and saying its Russia's fault because they entered into an alliance with China. Its not NATO's call who Russia allies itself with.
NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO has never conqureed

That's pretty much how they see it; yes.

Simply shouting, "but we're the good guys--trust us," is not convincing, especially in light of what I have been saying.

The point I am getting at is you have to try to see it from the other side if you hope to negotiate a resolution.

The thing is I do get it. I think its totally unreasonable---but I get it. That said---a negotiation is just that---a negotiation. There must be give and take. Russia basically said---Ukraine must demilitarize, give us the territory we want, and NATO must go back to the 1997 borders----or we will do it by force. Russia was not in danger nor was any invasion of Russia imminent or even considered. This "crisis" was manufactured. So ask yourself---why now?

(09-12-2022 01:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  We didnt need to spend billions. All that money is doing is getting channeled to the point where some of it ends up in the back pocket of Liz Cheneys fat ass.

Money has little to do with how well Russia is fairing. We could have sent zero dollars, ensured they had certain weaponry, and kept the price of oil to a minimum, and THAT would have been enough to cause Russia enormous issues.

If history is any indicator, when it comes to logistics, Russia could f*ck up a one car funeral. So its no wonder they continually have issues with a certain number of their troops getting stranded with no fuel or food, and no backup. I think I said this way back at the start of this thread; if this conflict goes on for more than two weeks, Russia is essentially in a quagmire. Because when any of their prior conflicts lasted longer than that, it ends up in a quagmire, because it forces them to be competent at something they arent; logistics.

Are we sending cash to them? I thought most of the packages had values, but were in fact just weapons and ammunition for them.

(09-12-2022 01:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:18 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:08 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats an odd way to look at it. Prior to the war NATO nations and delegation sent leader after leader to Putin begging him to negotiate. Instead, Putin made wildly unreasonable "non-negotiable" demands such as a completely demilitarized Ukraine and NATO returning to its 1997 borders. Heck---even now---Putin is still refusing to seriously negotiate a peaceful settlement.

Furthermore---we were warning the Ukrainians that Putin had already decided to invade in the fall of 2021. A it turns out, we apparently had some really good inside intelligence on that. So---I think the idea that NATO somehow tricked Putin into invading Ukraine is wildly off base.

You keep saying something looks "odd" but only appear to look skin deep.

NATO has been moving closer and closer since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That's the trigger--not the Ukraine invasion.

Putin talked about that. "They told Gorbachev not one step East; they sure fooled him." "Our mistake was that we trusted you. Your mistake was that you tried to take advantage of it."

This has been brewing. There isn't anything "odd" about it.

You act like the NATO armies swept into the eastern European plain like a Barbarian horde. Independent nations ASKED to be members. Independent nations get to decide their own security arrangements. That would be like NATO invading Russia and saying its Russia's fault because they entered into an alliance with China. Its not NATO's call who Russia allies itself with.
NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO has never conqureed

That's pretty much how they see it; yes.

Simply shouting, "but we're the good guys--trust us," is not convincing, especially in light of what I have been saying.

The point I am getting at is you have to try to see it from the other side if you hope to negotiate a resolution.

The thing is I do get it. I think its totally unreasonable---but I get it. That said---a negotiation is just that---a negotiation. There must be give and take. Russia basically said---Ukraine must demilitarize, give us the territory we want, and NATO must go back to the 1997 borders----or we will do it by force. Russia was not in danger nor was any invasion of Russia imminent or even considered. This "crisis" was manufactured. So ask yourself---why now?

I can tell you exactly "why now."

Russia is facing a complete demographic collapse. Its now or never. In 10 years they wont even be able to defend themselves. There is culpability in pushing right up to the wounded animal's front door and then clutching pearls when they react.

You simply can't say they weren't in some danger. If they weren't, why would we continue to run up against them? Why did we continue to make "defense against Russia" the main goal. If they are no longer the enemy, why do we need an alliance against them?

This is the treasury of virtue in action. We have no ability to self-reflect and we cannot conceive of a situation wherein we are not the good guys--as you said "its defensive!"

(09-12-2022 01:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:18 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:08 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  You keep saying something looks "odd" but only appear to look skin deep.

NATO has been moving closer and closer since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That's the trigger--not the Ukraine invasion.

Putin talked about that. "They told Gorbachev not one step East; they sure fooled him." "Our mistake was that we trusted you. Your mistake was that you tried to take advantage of it."

This has been brewing. There isn't anything "odd" about it.

You act like the NATO armies swept into the eastern European plain like a Barbarian horde. Independent nations ASKED to be members. Independent nations get to decide their own security arrangements. That would be like NATO invading Russia and saying its Russia's fault because they entered into an alliance with China. Its not NATO's call who Russia allies itself with.
NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO has never conqureed

That's pretty much how they see it; yes.

Simply shouting, "but we're the good guys--trust us," is not convincing, especially in light of what I have been saying.

The point I am getting at is you have to try to see it from the other side if you hope to negotiate a resolution.

The thing is I do get it. I think its totally unreasonable---but I get it. That said---a negotiation is just that---a negotiation. There must be give and take. Russia basically said---Ukraine must demilitarize, give us the territory we want, and NATO must go back to the 1997 borders----or we will do it by force. Russia was not in danger nor was any invasion of Russia imminent or even considered. This "crisis" was manufactured. So ask yourself---why now?

I can tell you exactly "why now."

Russia is facing a complete demographic collapse. Its now or never. In 10 years they wont even be able to defend themselves. There is culpability in pushing right up to the wounded animal's front door and then clutching pearls when they react.

You simply can't say they weren't in some danger. If they weren't, why would we continue to run up against them? Why did we continue to make "defense against Russia" the main goal. If they are no longer the enemy, why do we need an alliance against them?

This is the treasury of virtue in action. We have no ability to self-reflect and we cannot conceive of a situation wherein we are not the good guys--as you said "its defensive!"

Again odd. You suggest we should accept blame as we have failed to "self reflect"---yet you have no requirement for the Russians to do the same--they need only act as "wounded animals" (despite the fact they were not "wounded" at all). In virtually all law---the one who resorts to aggressive violence must prove immediate threat to claim self defense. There was no immediate threat. Its that simple. As for demographic collapse----thats not a exclusively Russian trait. That same demographic collapse is happening in the European NATO countries as well---so while I get the theory---the strategic balance actually isnt changing. If NATO wanted to invade Russia---we would have done it when the Russian military all but collapsed in the late 1990 and early 2000's. There was never any interest in invading Russia----the Europeans simply dont want to BE invaded.

(09-12-2022 01:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:18 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You act like the NATO armies swept into the eastern European plain like a Barbarian horde. Independent nations ASKED to be members. Independent nations get to decide their own security arrangements. That would be like NATO invading Russia and saying its Russia's fault because they entered into an alliance with China. Its not NATO's call who Russia allies itself with.
NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO has never conqureed

That's pretty much how they see it; yes.

Simply shouting, "but we're the good guys--trust us," is not convincing, especially in light of what I have been saying.

The point I am getting at is you have to try to see it from the other side if you hope to negotiate a resolution.

The thing is I do get it. I think its totally unreasonable---but I get it. That said---a negotiation is just that---a negotiation. There must be give and take. Russia basically said---Ukraine must demilitarize, give us the territory we want, and NATO must go back to the 1997 borders----or we will do it by force. Russia was not in danger nor was any invasion of Russia imminent or even considered. This "crisis" was manufactured. So ask yourself---why now?

I can tell you exactly "why now."

Russia is facing a complete demographic collapse. Its now or never. In 10 years they wont even be able to defend themselves. There is culpability in pushing right up to the wounded animal's front door and then clutching pearls when they react.

You simply can't say they weren't in some danger. If they weren't, why would we continue to run up against them? Why did we continue to make "defense against Russia" the main goal. If they are no longer the enemy, why do we need an alliance against them?

This is the treasury of virtue in action. We have no ability to self-reflect and we cannot conceive of a situation wherein we are not the good guys--as you said "its defensive!"

Again odd. You suggest we should accept blame as we have failed to "self reflect"---yet you have no requirement for the Russians to do the same--they need only act as "wounded animals" (despite the fact they were not "wounded" at all). In virtually all law---the one who resorts to aggressive violence must prove immediate threat to claim self defense. There was no immediate threat. Its that simple.

I think you are missing a critical point of my comments; I'm not advocating.

I'm simply stating some of the mindset that is being confronted. It does, as it should, call into question our own thinking. This isn't a case of "us good guy," "them bad guy." It's that kind of wooden thinking that leads to catastrophe.

The Russians are not acting "odd." They aren't acting "crazy." Putin is not a lunatic. This is the culmination of nearly a thousand years of the Russian people confronting and dealing with Europe.

Putting angry Ukranians on the Russian border armed to the teeth with American weapons may not be the best way to confront that.

(09-12-2022 01:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:18 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  That's pretty much how they see it; yes.

Simply shouting, "but we're the good guys--trust us," is not convincing, especially in light of what I have been saying.

The point I am getting at is you have to try to see it from the other side if you hope to negotiate a resolution.

The thing is I do get it. I think its totally unreasonable---but I get it. That said---a negotiation is just that---a negotiation. There must be give and take. Russia basically said---Ukraine must demilitarize, give us the territory we want, and NATO must go back to the 1997 borders----or we will do it by force. Russia was not in danger nor was any invasion of Russia imminent or even considered. This "crisis" was manufactured. So ask yourself---why now?

I can tell you exactly "why now."

Russia is facing a complete demographic collapse. Its now or never. In 10 years they wont even be able to defend themselves. There is culpability in pushing right up to the wounded animal's front door and then clutching pearls when they react.

You simply can't say they weren't in some danger. If they weren't, why would we continue to run up against them? Why did we continue to make "defense against Russia" the main goal. If they are no longer the enemy, why do we need an alliance against them?

This is the treasury of virtue in action. We have no ability to self-reflect and we cannot conceive of a situation wherein we are not the good guys--as you said "its defensive!"

Again odd. You suggest we should accept blame as we have failed to "self reflect"---yet you have no requirement for the Russians to do the same--they need only act as "wounded animals" (despite the fact they were not "wounded" at all). In virtually all law---the one who resorts to aggressive violence must prove immediate threat to claim self defense. There was no immediate threat. Its that simple.

I think you are missing a critical point of my comments; I'm not advocating.

I'm simply stating some of the mindset that is being confronted. It does, as it should, call into question our own thinking. This isn't a case of "us good guy," "them bad guy." It's that kind of wooden thinking that leads to catastrophe.

The Russians are not acting "odd." They aren't acting "crazy." Putin is not a lunatic. This is the culmination of nearly a thousand years of the Russian people confronting and dealing with Europe.

Putting angry Ukranians on the Russian border armed to the teeth with American weapons may not be the best way to confront that.

I agree that understanding your adversaries point of view in a negotiation makes sense. A negotiation is a give and take. The Russians have issued demands and resorted to force. That's not a negotiation.

As for acting odd----I happen to think Putin is not right in the head. He is not the same guy he was 20 years ago---or even 10 years ago. Not sure if he is sick, no longer getting good info from his underlings, or maybe its the result of his extreme isolation during Covid---but something is not the same in his head. Ten years ago Putin would have negotiated most of what he wanted when he had the overwhelming upper hand in early Feb of 2022. The old Putin would have walked away with 80-90% of what he wanted without ever firing a shot in Ukraine.

As for the Americans----we dont want to fight a direct war with Russia---so now that we know the Ukrainians can hold----we will pump every weapons system necessary into Ukraine to make sure the Russian forces never get past Ukraine to force a direct NATO-vs-Russia confrontation over those 1997 borders. NATO remains open to negotiations----its the Russians who are not.

I think we can add to that that Putin is shown himself a heartless genocidal f***. Who has no qualms about killing civilians, his political rivals and committing crimes against humanity and war crimes. It sounds like some here would like to add clinical paranoia to the list. I have no problem with that in fact it may be true based on his actions and his 15 ft table reactions. So yes I think that's understood going in.

(09-12-2022 01:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 01:18 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  That's pretty much how they see it; yes.

Simply shouting, "but we're the good guys--trust us," is not convincing, especially in light of what I have been saying.

The point I am getting at is you have to try to see it from the other side if you hope to negotiate a resolution.

The thing is I do get it. I think its totally unreasonable---but I get it. That said---a negotiation is just that---a negotiation. There must be give and take. Russia basically said---Ukraine must demilitarize, give us the territory we want, and NATO must go back to the 1997 borders----or we will do it by force. Russia was not in danger nor was any invasion of Russia imminent or even considered. This "crisis" was manufactured. So ask yourself---why now?

I can tell you exactly "why now."

Russia is facing a complete demographic collapse. Its now or never. In 10 years they wont even be able to defend themselves. There is culpability in pushing right up to the wounded animal's front door and then clutching pearls when they react.

You simply can't say they weren't in some danger. If they weren't, why would we continue to run up against them? Why did we continue to make "defense against Russia" the main goal. If they are no longer the enemy, why do we need an alliance against them?

This is the treasury of virtue in action. We have no ability to self-reflect and we cannot conceive of a situation wherein we are not the good guys--as you said "its defensive!"

Again odd. You suggest we should accept blame as we have failed to "self reflect"---yet you have no requirement for the Russians to do the same--they need only act as "wounded animals" (despite the fact they were not "wounded" at all). In virtually all law---the one who resorts to aggressive violence must prove immediate threat to claim self defense. There was no immediate threat. Its that simple.

I think you are missing a critical point of my comments; I'm not advocating.

I'm simply stating some of the mindset that is being confronted. It does, as it should, call into question our own thinking. This isn't a case of "us good guy," "them bad guy." It's that kind of wooden thinking that leads to catastrophe.

The Russians are not acting "odd." They aren't acting "crazy." Putin is not a lunatic. This is the culmination of nearly a thousand years of the Russian people confronting and dealing with Europe.

Putting angry Ukranians on the Russian border armed to the teeth with American weapons may not be the best way to confront that.

Being delusionally paranoid is acting odd and acting crazy.

While Im happy that the Ukrainians have turned the tide of this conflict I question the amount of money the US is spending on this. Looks like overkill to me. The Russian military is showing it is a clown show and Im wondering where all this cash is ending up.

(09-12-2022 02:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  While Im happy that the Ukrainians have turned the tide of this conflict I question the amount of money the US is spending on this. Looks like overkill to me. The Russian military is showing it is a clown show and Im wondering where all this cash is ending up.

I guess I just dont get this line of thought. Before the war began, we were told by every military expert who anyone could find that the Russian military was the best or second best in the world and would roll over Ukraine in a few weeks---perhaps even in a few days. For a relatively limited investment----the Ukrainians are now over 200 days into the war and have not only stabilized their front lines---maintaining control over 80% of their country---they have pushed Russian forces out from around Kyiv and now they have done the same in the Kharkiv area. We have invested about 84 billion---most of which has not even been sent yet as it is doled out in small packages every couple of weeks or so. The Iraq invasion cost almost 10 times that much in its first year (811 billion in 2010 dollars---with inflation---that would be over a trillion dollars today) and frankly---likely accomplished far less over the long term.

I feel like we are getting pretty good bang for our buck. The goal is to avoid a direct conflict between Russia and NATO---and the best way to avoid that is to prevent Russia from ever getting past Ukraine. That strategy seems to be working extremely well.

…or why get in a nuclear pissing contest with a dying enemy while ignoring our serious and mortal enemy on the other side of the globe?

(09-12-2022 02:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  …or why get in a nuclear pissing contest with a dying enemy while ignoring our serious and mortal enemy on the other side of the globe?

The 1990’s blew any chance of Russia trusting ANYTHING the US says or does, probably forever.

Yes, we fooled them at the end of the Cold War, but this special military operation has shown the US where the line is. And from that strategic point, it has already been a success for Russia no matter happens from here. If you bully Russia, they are going to fight back.

And if anyone thinks all Ukranians are fans of the US, were for the 2014 coup, and hate Russia, think again. I repeat, think again.

US intelligence services constantly lie to us, manipulate us, and have been proven time and again they are not trustworthy organizations. It mystifies me that in select topics like Russia, people believe the basics of how they present things to us. Why? I have no idea.

(09-12-2022 02:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  …or why get in a nuclear pissing contest with a dying enemy while ignoring our serious and mortal enemy on the other side of the globe?

Are we ignoring China? I would suggest to you that Ukraine is as much about China as it is about Ukraine. I suspect China is watching what happens in Ukraine very very closely.

(09-12-2022 03:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 02:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  …or why get in a nuclear pissing contest with a dying enemy while ignoring our serious and mortal enemy on the other side of the globe?

Are we ignoring China? I would suggest to you that Ukraine is as much about China as it is about Ukraine. I suspect China is watching what happens in Ukraine very very closely.

That's a fair point

If the world is rallying around Ukraine, China has to wonder if the same will happen to Taiwan and if it will be worth it