How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[Harry Bosch]

Ukraine would be crazy to sign any treaty with Russia that forced it to de-arm and give up defensive arms and strategic locations. Without peace keeping troops and massive amounts of defensive arms; Russia will invade again.

1. They have not yet sat across the table. Why do you think that Russia will want Ukraine to disarm and give up strategic locations?
The treaty will be between them, if it ever happens. Why should others be concerned about it?
2. Again, they would decide the terms between themselves. Why should you deem the presence of third-party troops as necessary?
Third-party interference should be avoided unless both the parties want it.

It's pretty simple really. Most of the time, wars start when bigger countries decide that they want a piece or all of a smaller country. Russia wants Ukraine. Forgot about all the Maiden bullshit. The "Ukraine has so offended us", blah blah. That's all noise for dummys. Russia wants Ukraine. It wants its land and its resources. One of the few ways to stop larger bully countries is to form alliances. Third party troops could prevent future Russian invasions. You have a very cavalier attitude about war. It doesn't bother you much. Maybe because you are too old to serve. I don't know. I have family members that live in Eastern Europe. Some live very close to the Ukranian border. I know some Ukrainians. They want a life. They don't want to fight. They want to live.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ukraine would be crazy to sign any treaty with Russia that forced it to de-arm and give up defensive arms and strategic locations. Without peace keeping troops and massive amounts of defensive arms; Russia will invade again.

1. They have not yet sat across the table. Why do you think that Russia will want Ukraine to disarm and give up strategic locations?
The treaty will be between them, if it ever happens. Why should others be concerned about it?

Because Ukraine needs guarantees by other countries than Russia to uphold the agreement. Because Russia can't be trusted. The countries are already at war. Other countries aren't sending troops now. What makes you think they'll send troops if Russia breaks the future agreement

2. Again, they would decide the terms between themselves. Why should you deem the presence of third-party peace troops as necessary?
Third-party interference should be avoided unless both the parties want it.

Ukraine most definitely wants it. Russia does not want it. Because Ukraine needs it

 

[TV and credit cards]

Ukraine would be crazy to sign any treaty with Russia that forced it to de-arm and give up defensive arms and strategic locations. Without peace keeping troops and massive amounts of defensive arms; Russia will invade again.

1. They have not yet sat across the table. Why do you think that Russia will want Ukraine to disarm and give up strategic locations?
The treaty will be between them, if it ever happens. Why should others be concerned about it?
2. Again, they would decide the terms between themselves. Why should you deem the presence of third-party troops as necessary?
Third-party interference should be avoided unless both the parties want it.

Assistance defending Ukraine because Russia will not honor any treaty they sign their name to, not Putin, not likely anyone who succeeds him. To Russia, treaties are nothing but a means of putting the other party at a disadvantage.

And why shouldn't other countries be concerned with the Russia/Ukraine conflict? After all, in this blatant act, Russia's concern was for the Russian speaking people of Ukraine. And on that note, do you not find it a bit contradictory that Putin has sent over 100,000 Russians to their death to defend these Russian speaking Ukrainians? For a guy who claims to be so concerned with Russian speaking Ukrainians, he sure is cavalier with the lives of Russian speaking Russians.

 

[barbos]

What more does Russia need to do to trigger NATO to send troops to Ukraine?

As far as I am concerned, the moment Russia started targeting civilians and the power infrastructure we should have gone in. Kidnapping Ukrainian children is another bad one.

Now we're letting Russia grind Ukraine to dust while we're sending trinkets. Right now its looking like its just a matter of time before Russia wins. Which would be bad. I don't think we have much time left

What else needs to happen that will make the NATO countries willing to commit troops?

What are you talking about? Trump just said that Ukraine can win and maybe even take Moscow!
Ukraine is winning! Muhahahaha!

 

[barbos]

Ukraine would be crazy to sign any treaty with Russia that forced it to de-arm and give up defensive arms and strategic locations. Without peace keeping troops and massive amounts of defensive arms; Russia will invade again.

1. They have not yet sat across the table. Why do you think that Russia will want Ukraine to disarm and give up strategic locations?
The treaty will be between them, if it ever happens. Why should others be concerned about it?
2. Again, they would decide the terms between themselves. Why should you deem the presence of third-party troops as necessary?
Third-party interference should be avoided unless both the parties want it.

It's pretty simple really. Most of the time, wars start when bigger countries decide that they want a piece or all of a smaller country.

Yes, US/West wanted a piece or preferably all of Russia.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Ukraine would be crazy to sign any treaty with Russia that forced it to de-arm and give up defensive arms and strategic locations. Without peace keeping troops and massive amounts of defensive arms; Russia will invade again.

1. They have not yet sat across the table. Why do you think that Russia will want Ukraine to disarm and give up strategic locations?
The treaty will be between them, if it ever happens. Why should others be concerned about it?
2. Again, they would decide the terms between themselves. Why should you deem the presence of third-party troops as necessary?
Third-party interference should be avoided unless both the parties want it.

It's pretty simple really. Most of the time, wars start when bigger countries decide that they want a piece or all of a smaller country.

Yes, US/West wanted a piece or preferably all of Russia.

Yes, god dammitt! It's the rogues from Luxemburg who have been planning this. They saw Russian weakness ever since the 1980 winter Olympics when USA stomped Russia. We've been trying to hold them back ever since. I'd recommend beefing up your defenses in case we can't hold them back.

 

[barbos]

Ukraine would be crazy to sign any treaty with Russia that forced it to de-arm and give up defensive arms and strategic locations. Without peace keeping troops and massive amounts of defensive arms; Russia will invade again.

1. They have not yet sat across the table. Why do you think that Russia will want Ukraine to disarm and give up strategic locations?
The treaty will be between them, if it ever happens. Why should others be concerned about it?
2. Again, they would decide the terms between themselves. Why should you deem the presence of third-party troops as necessary?
Third-party interference should be avoided unless both the parties want it.

It's pretty simple really. Most of the time, wars start when bigger countries decide that they want a piece or all of a smaller country.

Yes, US/West wanted a piece or preferably all of Russia.

Yes, god dammitt! It's the rogues from Luxemburg who have been planning this. They saw Russian weakness ever since the 1980 winter Olympics when USA stomped Russia. We've been trying to hold them back ever since. I'd recommend beefing up your defenses in case we can't hold them back.

There was no winter Olympics in 1980.
But yes, EU/US/NATO has always been busy trying to destroy Russia. That's just historic fact.

 

[ZiprHead]

Ukraine would be crazy to sign any treaty with Russia that forced it to de-arm and give up defensive arms and strategic locations. Without peace keeping troops and massive amounts of defensive arms; Russia will invade again.

1. They have not yet sat across the table. Why do you think that Russia will want Ukraine to disarm and give up strategic locations?
The treaty will be between them, if it ever happens. Why should others be concerned about it?
2. Again, they would decide the terms between themselves. Why should you deem the presence of third-party troops as necessary?
Third-party interference should be avoided unless both the parties want it.

It's pretty simple really. Most of the time, wars start when bigger countries decide that they want a piece or all of a smaller country.

Yes, US/West wanted a piece or preferably all of Russia.

Yes, god dammitt! It's the rogues from Luxemburg who have been planning this. They saw Russian weakness ever since the 1980 winter Olympics when USA stomped Russia. We've been trying to hold them back ever since. I'd recommend beefing up your defenses in case we can't hold them back.

There was no winter Olympics in 1980.
But yes, EU/US/NATO has always been busy trying to destroy Russia. That's just historic fact.

 1980 Winter Olympics

 

[aupmanyav]

I know some Ukrainians. They want a life. They don't want to fight. They want to live.

Reason why Ukraine should agree to a dialogue ('dia' means two, not three or more). We do not want a chair when and if that happens.

Because Ukraine needs guarantees by other countries than Russia to uphold the agreement. Because Russia can't be trusted.

You don't trust Russia. But you are not at war with Russia, Ukraine is. Who gave you the authority to speak for Ukraine?

Assistance defending Ukraine because Russia will not honor any treaty they sign their name to, not Putin, not likely anyone who succeeds him. To Russia, treaties are nothing but a means of putting the other party at a disadvantage.

That is your assessment.

 

[barbos]

Reason why Ukraine should agree to a dialogue ('dia' means two, not three or more). We do not want a chair when and if that happens.

Life is more complicated than that. Ukraine currently is a de facto Totalitarian State rulled by insane/deluded and corrupt puppets.
All indications are, Elensky does not get the real information from his generals, he can't handle really bad news.
People who give him bad news quickly lose their positions and escape to Europe losing all the access to corruption money.
So you see, people on the top have direct financial incentive to lie to Elensky and public about the state of the war.
Random men kidnapped from the streets are dying, but children of government critters are all studying in European universities.
And even if Russia occupies all of Ukraine they would simply run away to Europe to their mansions.
In fact, some of them probably want Russia to occupy all of Ukraine, they stole enough money for life in Europe already.
Ironically, it's some people in ukro-parliament who are starting to get into their senses. This is because they have lesser access to corrupt money than people in the government and Elensky really does not need parliament.
So when nazi supporters here on this forum say that heroic ukrainians have their back against the wall and have no choice but to fight invading russian hordes, they are talking complete bullshit.
They will all run to EU/US and will live the rest of their lives quite happily. I am talking about higher ranks of course.
Ordinary ukrainians will live in Russia much better than in independent Ukraine.
By the way, EuroMaidan itself literally happened because young people wanted easy escape from Ukraine. That was the real reason. It had nothing to do with Russia Bad or anything at all with Russia.


Russia, on the other hand, have different mechanics of the war. Top government people clearly have their backs
against the wall. They know what happened to Libya, Iraq, Yugoslavia. They have no place to run to.
Russian Oligarchs too, now know that the West is not the land of the law when it comes to money.
Ordinary people are too not interested in regime change, they remember the chaos of 1990s and hate russian "opposition" with ferocity. Putin is largely credited with economic success and stability during his rule.
So in the end of the day it is "It's economy, stupid!"

 

[barbos]

Some interesting factoids. Forgot his name, but Putin recently awarded some general in russian army fighting in Ukraine.
The general has ukrainian last name and is in fact .... ukrainian. He defected ukraine after 2014 coup and is now liberating Ukraine from the nazis. And supreme commander of Ukrainain Army Syrski is a ..... russian who has all his family in Russia and recently sent money to ..... Russia to help his ill father.

It's just saying that what we have here is more of a civil war in ..... Russia. As always funded by external forces.

 

[laughing dog]

There was no winter Olympics in 1980.
But yes, EU/US/NATO has always been busy trying to destroy Russia. That's just historic fact.

You mean a fact like there was no Winter Olympics in 1980?

Russia has been busy destroying itself for decades without any help.

 

[barbos]

That is your assessment.

Yes, that is, and ridiculous at that. It is the west who threw all treaties to trash whereas Russia has kept all of them.

 

[barbos]

Good commentary.
Daniel Davis is actually very good at his retirement job.

 

[aupmanyav]

Zelenskyy says 'India is on its side' at UN' - News report in India
Putin too has full faith in India.

India mostly with us, says Zelenskyy, hopes for more | India News - The Times of India

India News: President Zelensky expressed optimism that India is largely supportive of Ukraine and hopes former President Trump can persuade New Delhi to cease pur

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Now, who is the war-monger?

 

[barbos]

British communist Russian/Ukrainian history lecture.
So, no, India is not with ukro-nazi.

 

[barbos]

And here is a lecture from western-ukrainian who has nazis in her own family (on mother side)

 

[barbos]

Ukraine would be crazy to sign any treaty with Russia that forced it to de-arm and give up defensive arms and strategic locations. Without peace keeping troops and massive amounts of defensive arms; Russia will invade again.

1. They have not yet sat across the table. Why do you think that Russia will want Ukraine to disarm and give up strategic locations?
The treaty will be between them, if it ever happens. Why should others be concerned about it?
2. Again, they would decide the terms between themselves. Why should you deem the presence of third-party troops as necessary?
Third-party interference should be avoided unless both the parties want it.

It's pretty simple really. Most of the time, wars start when bigger countries decide that they want a piece or all of a smaller country.

Yes, US/West wanted a piece or preferably all of Russia.

Yes, god dammitt! It's the rogues from Luxemburg who have been planning this. They saw Russian weakness ever since the 1980 winter Olympics when USA stomped Russia. We've been trying to hold them back ever since. I'd recommend beefing up your defenses in case we can't hold them back.

There was no winter Olympics in 1980.
But yes, EU/US/NATO has always been busy trying to destroy Russia. That's just historic fact.

 1980 Winter Olympics

Wow! You are quick to point out a mistake.
good to know that when you do not correct me that means I am right.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Russia (is probably) sending drones to Denmark to disrupt our transport infrastructure. I think it's a flex by Russia and a warning. A warning to stay out of Ukraine. I'm in a position to know that Russia has been attacking the Danish power grid daily. Thousands of cyber attacks per day. Even Russian agents have been caught trying to sabotage it.

Denmark: Drone activity confirmed at multiple airports

The latest incidents come days after drones forced Copenhagen airport to close for several hours.

www.bbc.com

What do you guys think?

 

[barbos]

Russia (is probably) sending drones to Denmark to disrupt our transport infrastructure

Only probably?

You really need to see a head doctor.