Russia vs Ukraine

[homersapien 11,385]

19 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I think it is a very important distinction.  I think it proves intent.

Yeah, Trump intended to have Zelensky publicly announce an investigation into Biden's son and used weapons as the bait. 

This was clearly a quid pro quo using U.S. foreign policy for Trump's personal political benefit.

Edited March 7, 2022 by homersapien

[CoffeeTiger 5,114]

51 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The moral of that story is hindsight is 20/20.

True. 

 

If the strongest sanctions ever put on a country by most of the world aren't stopping the invasion as it stands right now, I find it incredibly unlikely that American sanctions alone would have ever stopped Putin from invading. 

 

Biden was already receiving a lot of criticism from Ukraine and Republicans for being too aggressive and "warmongering" by just warning about the upcoming invasion. Highly doubt anyone would have supported pre-emptive sanctions on Russia before they actually did anything. 

[I_M4_AU 7,853]

4 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

True. 

 

If the strongest sanctions ever put on a country by most of the world aren't stopping the invasion as it stands right now, I find it incredibly unlikely that American sanctions alone would have ever stopped Putin from invading. 

 

Biden was already receiving a lot of criticism from Ukraine and Republicans for being too aggressive and "warmongering" by just warning about the upcoming invasion. Highly doubt anyone would have supported pre-emptive sanctions on Russia before they actually did anything. 

We will never know.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

3 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

True. 

 

If the strongest sanctions ever put on a country by most of the world aren't stopping the invasion as it stands right now, I find it incredibly unlikely that American sanctions alone would have ever stopped Putin from invading. 

 

Biden was already receiving a lot of criticism from Ukraine and Republicans for being too aggressive and "warmongering" by just warning about the upcoming invasion. Highly doubt anyone would have supported pre-emptive sanctions on Russia before they actually did anything. 

Sanctions weren't the primary issue. We could have invested in a strategic security partnership with Ukraine that would have made the costs of a Russian offensive prohibitively high. Yet none of this came to pass. The Biden administration cannot absolve themselves of guilt by claiming they did all they could to prevent another invasion; they offered a necessary response, not a sufficient one. 

Edited March 7, 2022 by AUFAN78

[icanthearyou 4,463]

18 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Sanctions weren't the primary issue. We could have invested in a strategic security partnership with Ukraine that would have made the costs of a Russian offensive prohibitively high. Yet none of this came to pass. The Biden administration cannot absolve themselves of guilt by claiming they did all they could to prevent another invasion; they offered a necessary response, not a sufficient one. 

So you are in favor of military intervention?  What are you suggesting?

[CoffeeTiger 5,114]

2 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

So you are in favor of military intervention?  What are you suggesting?

 

The obvious solution to this entire situation would have been for Biden to form a Super Secure Strategic Security Partnership Alliance (SSSSPA for short) with Ukraine, that would have made Putin s*** his pants and decide to send all his troops home and not do anything. 

 

Russia may not care about it's crashing economy right now, but if it had seen a Strategic Security Partnership between the US and Ukraine then Putin would have obviously judged the situation totally differently and would have viewed the invasion costs as way too high. 

You don't just mess with Strategic Security Partnerships. 

 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

13 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

So you are in favor of military intervention?  What are you suggesting?

Pre-positioning aide and equipment, pre-planning resupply efforts, etc.  Months in advance. Proactive vs reactive

[AUFAN78 3,911]

10 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

The obvious solution to this entire situation would have been for Biden to form a Super Secure Strategic Security Partnership Alliance (SSSSPA for short) with Ukraine, that would have made Putin s*** his pants and decide to send all his troops home and not do anything. 

 

Russia may not care about it's crashing economy right now, but if it had seen a Strategic Security Partnership between the US and Ukraine then Putin would have obviously judged the situation totally differently and would have viewed the invasion costs as way too high. 

You don't just mess with Strategic Security Partnerships. 

 

Nice ankle grab. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,114]

3 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Nice ankle grab. 

Stop looking at my butt. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

Pre-positioning aide and equipment, pre-planning resupply efforts, etc.  Months in advance. Proactive vs reactive

We have been giving them aid and equipment.  The theory has been, to give them enough to help but, not enough to incite Putin.  Ultimately, the responsibility for the attack falls on Putin.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

We have been giving them aid and equipment.  The theory has been, to give them enough to help but, not enough to incite Putin.  Ultimately, the responsibility for the attack falls on Putin.

Not appropriately. That is the reactive strategy and I can't argue it at this point. Never said otherwise.

[homersapien 11,385]

We need to find the courage and resolve to ensure Putin becomes history.  Now is the opportunity.

Why Putin needs to watch his back

By Leon Aron

Today at 11:02 a.m.

 

No matter what the outcome, Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukraine spells bad news for his regime. Neither taking Kyiv and declaring victory nor beginning peace negotiations will save the Russian president from the serious, if not fatal, domestic repercussions of this war.

As the war drags on, the danger to Putin’s reign will come chiefly from three quarters: the oligarchs, the military and those whom we call “ordinary Russians.” The oligarchs, who stand to lose the most from the West’s sanctions, have been publicly cautious, whatever their true sentiments may be. Cowed since the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky in 2003, some left Russia, while others appear reconciled to (in effect) managing their companies on behalf of the state rather than being their masters. Of the four who have registered concerns so far, three did so from London — Mikhail Fridman, Roman Abramovich and Oleg Tinkov. Only one, Oleg Deripaska, made a comment from Moscow. All point to the tragedy of the war and call for peace without blaming Putin. Only Tinkov explicitly said that he opposes the war.

Throughout Russian history, the military has generally stayed away from politics (with the notable exception of the hapless Decembrist revolt in 1825). Like other autocrats, Putin has had ample opportunity to choose his top officers for loyalty rather than capability. His minister of defense, Sergei Shoigu, has no military background at all: He is a civil engineer who was minister of emergency situations when Putin put him in charge of the country’s armed forces.

Thousands of ordinary Russians have already been arrested for protesting the war. But the majority of citizens are almost certain to rally around Putin at first, as they did after Putin’s first attack on Ukraine in 2014. He is clearly hoping that this effect will last until the March 2024 presidential election, when, at 71, he will likely try to embark on a presidency for life. It is impossible to predict when the memories of the Soviet Union’s quagmire in Afghanistan — the zinc-lined coffins and the unmarked graves — will result in resentment, then anger, then mass protests.

It is for just such an eventuality that Putin set up the national guard, under his former bodyguard Viktor Zolotov, in 2016. Borrowing from the police and entirely absorbing the former special riot troops (known as the OMON), the guard, which in the past six years has grown to an estimated 200,000 to 400,000 men, is supposed to be utterly loyal to the Kremlin. However, it is one thing to bash the heads of students in Moscow and St. Petersburg, and another to shoot at the mothers of soldiers killed in Ukraine. If the guardsmen hesitate, the military will not come to Putin’s rescue, while the oligarchs might be emboldened enough to donate to the protesters, as their Ukrainian counterparts did during the Orange Revolution of 2004 and the Maidan Revolution of 2014.

The Russian national tradition is unforgiving of military setbacks. Virtually every major defeat has resulted in radical change. The Crimean War (1853-1856) precipitated Emperor Alexander II’s liberal revolution from above. The Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905) brought about the First Russian Revolution. The catastrophe of World War I resulted in Emperor Nicholas II’s abdication and the Bolshevik Revolution. And the war in Afghanistan became a key factor in Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms.

It’s also worth noting that the current regime is uniquely vulnerable on this account. More than any other Russian ruler, Putin has made war, or the threat of war, the foundation of his popular support. He began his presidency by promising economic modernization, but when growth slowed and then began to stall, he shifted his tactics to what Russian scholars have called “patriotic mobilization” or “militarized patriotism in peacetime.” Russian propaganda soon began stressing two main themes: The “West” is at war with Russia. An undeclared, mean, constant war. But the Motherland has nothing to worry about so long as Putin is in charge. Not only will he protect Russia, but he will also restore it to at least some of the victorious glory of the Soviet superpower status.

Compared with Marxism-Leninism, Putin’s national ideology of militarized patriotism lacks coherence and is yet to be tested by adversity. As to the terror, the evolution of the regime from a still “softer” authoritarianism to a traditional brutal dictatorship will be one of the most troubling consequences of this war. Wartime censorship has already started, with huge fines and up to 15 years in jail for “distorting the purpose, role and tasks of the Armed Forces,” arrests are piling up, and more repression is likely to follow. Yet after two decades of incomplete and steadily diminishing but real freedoms, a sudden switch to near-totalitarianism carries enormous risks for Putin.

Every day that Ukraine holds out erodes Putin’s regime. The consequences could be far-reaching.

Leon Aron is the author of “Yeltsin.” He is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and is writing a book about Vladimir Putin’s road to Ukraine and beyond.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/07/why-putin-must-beware-of-coup-threats/

[homersapien 11,385]

This is a very scary situation.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

 

[CoffeeTiger 5,114]

12 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

 

 

 

Upon doing some quick google research, I would say this guys credibility is very suspect, and I wouldn't give much credence to his views. 

 

His main claim to being an 'expert' on these matters is that he was a 'visiting researcher' at a University in Moscow for a few years, where he apparently ran a "fact check" website from inside Russia where he posted pro-Trump news and editorials, and in 2016 he wrote an article that claimed Hillary Clinton was going to start WW3 with Russia and that Russia and Putin was really a progressive place that only wanted peace with the US. 

 

Looking through his twitter feed...while he's not expressly voicing support for Russia, he seems to be saying that he'll post anti-Ukrainian news and views to 'balance' against all the pro-Ukrainian coverage in the national media. He's posting pro-Russian propaganda videos, posting videos of random people accusing Ukraine of war crimes. He posted a video that he says is Russian troops giving out aid to Ukrainian citizens. He's claiming Ukraine and the West wants more civilian casualties to blame on Russia and that Russia is likely doing its best to prevent civilian casualties. 

 

He also thinks that it's America's fault Russia is against us now. He says that America is the reason Russia didn't join NATO and become a strategic ally after the fall of the USSR, and he also says that the Russian invasion is America and Europe fault for trying to get Ukraine into NATO. 

Get this,...he even hilariously claimed multiple times in tweets that Putin and Russia doesn't 'rig' their elections and Putin is just so popular. Russia outright bans other anti-Putin politicians from running and controls all national media. I have no idea how this dude claims that isn't "rigging" the elections. 

He has a lot of opinions, but I'm not convinced his knowledge or experience means they should be taken seriously. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Have sanctions ever actually worked?  Anywhere?

[jj3jordan 2,053]

5 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

 

Upon doing some quick google research, I would say this guys credibility is very suspect, and I wouldn't give much credence to his views. 

 

His main claim to being an 'expert' on these matters is that he was a 'visiting researcher' at a University in Moscow for a few years, where he apparently ran a "fact check" website from inside Russia where he posted pro-Trump news and editorials, and in 2016 he wrote an article that claimed Hillary Clinton was going to start WW3 with Russia and that Russia and Putin was really a progressive place that only wanted peace with the US. 

 

Looking through his twitter feed...while he's not expressly voicing support for Russia, he seems to be saying that he'll post anti-Ukrainian news and views to 'balance' against all the pro-Ukrainian coverage in the national media. He's posting pro-Russian propaganda videos, posting videos of random people accusing Ukraine of war crimes. He posted a video that he says is Russian troops giving out aid to Ukrainian citizens. He's claiming Ukraine and the West wants more civilian casualties to blame on Russia and that Russia is likely doing its best to prevent civilian casualties. 

 

He also thinks that it's America's fault Russia is against us now. He says that America is the reason Russia didn't join NATO and become a strategic ally after the fall of the USSR, and he also says that the Russian invasion is America and Europe fault for trying to get Ukraine into NATO. 

Get this,...he even hilariously claimed multiple times in tweets that Putin and Russia doesn't 'rig' their elections and Putin is just so popular. Russia outright bans other anti-Putin politicians from running and controls all national media. I have no idea how this dude claims that isn't "rigging" the elections. 

He has a lot of opinions, but I'm not convinced his knowledge or experience means they should be taken seriously. 

 

 

 

 

 

Eerily familiar sounding plan there. Who is trying to use the Legislature of the US to "ban" a candidate from running and they control virtually all the national media? That's odd. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

4 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Have sanctions ever actually worked?  Anywhere?

Yes, maybe we need to get the NCAA involved….

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/this-day-in-history/smu-ncaa-football-death-penalty

[icanthearyou 4,463]

28 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Yes, maybe we need to get the NCAA involved….

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/this-day-in-history/smu-ncaa-football-death-penalty

Not those sanctions.  The other sanctions.

[CoffeeTiger 5,114]

 

46 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Eerily familiar sounding plan there. Who is trying to use the Legislature of the US to "ban" a candidate from running and they control virtually all the national media? That's odd. 

 

hmm...yess...eerily familiar. 

 

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

37 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Not those sanctions.  The other sanctions.

 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

6 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

He has a lot of opinions, but I'm not convinced his knowledge or experience means they should be taken seriously.

He's not alone in thinking the U.S. has helped create this situation in Ukraine. Several academics and others who aren't rabidly anti-Russia agree with him.

This war didn't start 2 weeks ago. It started 8 years ago in 2014. The U.S. has been supporting the war in the Donbas region of Ukraine since 2014. It's just now become a full scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. The U.S. media want you to think this all started 2 weeks ago because of Russia invading.

Russia is responsible for invading Ukraine. They're wrong for doing that but the U.S. has played a large part in escalating the conflict. The U.S. backed a coup that overthrew the neutral Ukraine government. The U.S. hand picked an anti-Russia government in Ukraine. That's a fact. No amount of attacking the messenger or source is going to change it.

There was a leaked phone call in February 2014 between then Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussing who the U.S. wanted to run the Ukraine government.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

Also, the Ukrainian government has literal neo-Nazi's as part of their armed forces. The Azov Batallion is a paramilitary organization that NATO countries literally helped train.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/allegations-of-canadian-troops-training-neo-nazis-and-war-criminals-sparks-military-review

The idea that this is a fight between good guys(Ukraine) vs bad guys(Russia) is wrong. In my view and a lot of others views that oppose U.S. involvement, there are no good guys in this conflict. Both sides have bad actors.

The anti-war voices are being shouted down and accused of being pro-Putin for opposing the U.S.'s involvement.

Instead of trying to come to an agreement with Russia that Ukraine remain neutral and not join NATO which would end the war, that path seems to be completely disregarded. The U.S. would rather more Ukrainians suffer in this war than agree to the terms that Russia wants in order to end it. The U.S. appears to be trending toward a Syria style war in Ukraine. They're going to keep sending weapons and arming rebels in Ukraine to keep Russia bogged down in Ukraine for as long as possible. The U.S. doesn't want to end the war.

We are in a dangerous climate. We need cooler heads to prevail.

[jj3jordan 2,053]

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

 

hmm...yess...eerily familiar. 

 

 

As usual no comment on the post. Just memed Trump hate antics. 

[TexasTiger 12,947]

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

28 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

 

I don't believe that means much.  Sure, sanctions are always "effective" in that manner.   Will they really change anything or, will the people of the sanctioned country suffer while their leadership and elites remain in power?