• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,092
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
The situation in Ukraine seems to be cooling down. Not sure why. I think that Biden must have said something to Putin to cool it a little. Secondly, could be that Putin is prioritizing the gas pipeline over Ukraine. Perhaps the thrill of taking Kazakhstan will satisfy Russian imperialistic feelings for a while. Either way, I fully expect Kazakhstan to be a relic of the past very shortly...


I think that everyone is looking forward to what, if anything, will come out of the Geneva talks, so it is most likely that little will happen before then, outside of both sides preparing for conflict. Tomorrow is the Russian Orthodox celebration of Christmas, so we are also looking at a holiday weekend there.

What is happening in Kazakhstan bears some similarity to the Maidan uprising, and Putin is not going to risk another one of those succeeding in a former Soviet territory. Apparently, he is involving Armenia in the effort to put down a popular resistance that started with the government announcing fuel price hike a few days ago. The government there is trying a strict crackdown, which is what triggered the full-blown revolution in Ukraine. The one in Belarus failed, putting Lukashenko firmly in Putin's pocket. The Kazakhstan revolt is likely to result in that country sliding more firmly back under Russian dominance, but it is difficult for international monitors and news organizations to see what is happening. With Russian troops in the country, Putin will have firm control of yet another major supplier of fossil fuel to other countries, so prices of those commodities will probably ratchet up even more on the world market, helping Russia's economy.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,092
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
It would seem that the Kazakhstan uprising is separate from Ukraine, but it really has become somewhat intertwined as the date for the Geneva meeting approaches. Russian troops have entered Kazakhstan, but as part of a "peacekeeping force" by an organization known as the  Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). This group is currently chaired by Armenia and includes Russia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. It was allegedly invited in by the local dictator  Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, who replaced the tyrant Nursultan Nazarbayev in 2019. Nazarbayev became head of the Kazakh National Security organization and was said to have retained control of the country from that position. However, Tokayev has allegedly fired him and may have him under house arrest now.

On the face of it, the CSTO is supposed to maintain regional security, just as the Warsaw Pact did during the Cold War. Such organizations seem to be Russia's counterpart to regional security alliances like NATO, but there is one important difference. They don't seem to play any role in defending against foreign incursions. When Azerbaijan seized Armenian-held territory in the 2020  Nagorno-Karabakh war, the CSTO did not deploy troops there. Instead, Putin used his clout to negotiate a ceasefire, and Azerbaijan retained control of territory it had occupied. This, despite the fact that Armenia is a member of CSTO and Azerbaijan is not. In fact, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Belarus had left an earlier regional alliance with former CIS members and did not join CSTO in 2002.

So the CSTO operates something like the Warsaw Pact did. It doesn't really handle foreign threats. The one and only time that it has ever deployed troops to defend one of its members was just days ago--to help put down a domestic uprising. The Warsaw Pact military did that several times during the Cold War--particularly to put down an internal revolt in Czechoslovakia in 1968. The Red Army had earlier prevented a revolt in Hungary in 1956, where the rebels had declared they were withdrawing from the Warsaw Pact. NATO, whatever its faults, does not send troops into NATO countries in order to ensure that they remain in the alliance when there are local disturbances. It exists primarily to keep other nations from invading NATO members.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,092
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
The diplomats are finally sitting down together to see what, if anything, can be worked out to stop the invasion. Russian troops are massed in Belarus, probably for a flanking operation on the front lines facing the Donbas. The troops in Crimea may try to establish a land passage back to Russian-held territory in Ukraine. It's probably unlikely that Russia will try to assault Odessa or Kyiv, but they are poised to slice off another large chunk of Ukrainian territory. Since Putin has doubled down on his demands, a diplomatic solution looks very unlikely right now. He has warned that the Geneva meeting could end quickly, but I would not be surprised if it didn't take place at all. If he intends to invade, he doesn't need any meeting except as a delaying tactic. If he can engineer a coup in Kyiv, then the union of Ukraine with Russia would be eerily similar to Hitler's  Anschluss of Germany with Austria.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,092
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Things are heating up now with a major cyber attack from Russia on Ukraine. I expect Russian cybercriminals will also be attacking the US, simultaneously with any military attack, especially when the inevitable sanctions from the West start coming into play. The latest intelligence announced by the White House is that Russia may be mounting a false flag exercise to produce an apparent attack from the Ukrainian side on Russian troops or Russian proxy troops in eastern Ukraine. That would be sold to the Russian public as the pretext for its military invasion.

See: White House: Russia prepping pretext for Ukraine invasion

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. intelligence officials have determined a Russian effort is underway to create a pretext for its troops to further invade Ukraine, and Moscow has already prepositioned operatives to conduct “a false-flag operation” in eastern Ukraine, according to the White House.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said on Friday the intelligence findings show Russia is also laying the groundwork through a social media disinformation campaign that frames Ukraine as an aggressor that has been preparing an imminent attack against Russian-backed forces in eastern Ukraine.

Psaki charged that Russia has already dispatched operatives trained in urban warfare who could use explosives to carry out acts of sabotage against Russia’s own proxy forces — blaming the acts on Ukraine — if Russian President Vladimir Putin decides he wants to move forward with an invasion.

“We are concerned that the Russian government is preparing for an invasion in Ukraine that may result in widespread human rights violations and war crimes should diplomacy fail to meet their objectives,” Psaki said.

The White House did not provide details about how much confidence it has in the assessment. A U.S. official, who was not authorized to comment on the intelligence and spoke on condition of anonymity, said much of the intelligence was gleaned from intercepted communications and observations of the movements of people.

Russian media are also stepping up their domestic propaganda campaign to vilify the Ukrainians as aggressors egged on by the West, which is supposedly hoping for a Russian invasion. :rolleyes: Although this activity may just be a clumsy attempt by Putin to extort concessions during negotiations, it is likely to stiffen resistance to any concession. So an invasion is becoming more likely now, since I don't see any other face-saving option for Putin. This is how things spin out of control. Once a war gets going, there will be all sorts of unexpected actions that could even take the war beyond the borders of Ukraine. Wars seldom go the way their planners intend.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
21,339
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
All this posturing solely for the benefit of the Russian public?
Pootey must really be feeling the heat. It’s not like anyone outside Russia is gonna have a hard time discerning that the fake “Ukrainian attack” was Russia’s own doing to provide a pretext.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,092
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist

Thanks for the video link. Well worth the listen.

Absent some big concession at the negotiating table, I don't see how Putin can stop himself from some kind of military action just to save face. Even if Putin gets a face-saving way out, he'll only be back at it later. This is so similar to what Hitler did with Chamberlain and the  Munich Agreement. That, too, was about claiming territory based on ethnicity, but Hitler got the concessions he sought. Czechoslovakia was forced to capitulate. Nevertheless, Hitler went on to annex all of Czechoslovakia, not just the Sudetenland, and plunge Europe into war anyway. Putin wants Ukraine back under Russian control, but he wants more than that. He wants the Soviet empire back and revenge for its collapse. So I don't think he would be content with a NATO pullback and getting Nord Stream 2 approved. Without NATO membership, the Baltics and former eastern European satellites would also be under pressure to comply with his demands.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
6,151
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
It does appear that armed conflict can't be avoided. Putin has pushed himself into a corner that he can't escape from. Putin is supposed to be this great chessmaster, expertly maneuvering countries and naive US and European politicians into doing his bidding. And yet his main policy, to weaken Nato and grow the Russian zone of influence over the Eastern block is failing. Poland, Sweden, Finland and others are all moving more and more away from Russia.

Story on Finland and how they are reacting to Russia:


It appears that Germany is also willing to make Russia pay if it invades:


Germany has great leverage due to Nord2.

I think that the most likely scenario, is that Putin invades the eastern parts of Ukraine then stops. The west will enact severe economic sanctions. But the end result will be a strengthened Nato and a strengthened resolve of the former soviet bloc countries to unite to blunt Russia and move further westward.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,092
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Putin is now positioning troops in Belarus where they could be roughly 100 miles north of Kyiv, with the possibility of seizing the capital and deposing the current government. It is hard to imagine that this would happen smoothly or that ordinary Russians would turn a blind eye to the ensuing carnage. It is one thing to unleash the military on Ukrainian forces near the Donbas, but attacks on major cities like Kyiv and Odessa would leave a completely different impression of the cost of war. Ukraine is not going to go quietly, and there are bound to be lots of Russian casualties, not to mention innocent civilians. It appears that Lukashenko would have little choice but to allow Putin to launch a fresh invasion from Belarus territory, now that his brutal regime depends on Moscow for its continued existence. The excuse for positioning those troops at a time of high tension is that they are there for joint exercises with the Belarus military, although it isn't clear that Putin even consulted with Lukashenko before shifting troops into that location.

See: Russia moves more troops westward amid Ukraine tensions
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
21,339
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
And barbos has gone dark on this thread ... another bad sign?
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,430
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
And barbos has gone dark on this thread ... another bad sign?
No, I merely put copernicus on ignore.

Funny news which american "news" probably would not report. Germany made british plane with weapons for Ukraine to fly around Germany :)

And the other funny news, Ukraine demands to make names of the NATO countries who are against Ukraine membership to be made public :)
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,092
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
And barbos has gone dark on this thread ... another bad sign?
No, I merely put copernicus on ignore.

Funny news which american "news" probably would not report. Germany made british plane with weapons for Ukraine to fly around Germany :)

And the other funny news, Ukraine demands to make names of the NATO countries who are against Ukraine membership to be made public :)

I love the ignore feature. That means that he still sees I posted something and he has to manually open it to see what I posted. Also, he still sees replies that quote my posts, so be careful not to quote me in threads that he might be monitoring. That's why I almost never put anyone on ignore. My approach is just to ignore them. Hi, barbos! :wave2:

I don't know that there were any NATO countries that wanted Ukraine to join, so it would make more sense to publish the names of those countries. NATO currently has no treaty obligation to defend Ukraine, and that is the way it will be for the foreseeable future. Other countries such as the Baltic nations are under NATO's protection, so Putin doesn't dare invade those. Not yet, anyway. At this point in time, NATO will be strengthening its presence in all of the NATO countries in eastern Europe, especially Poland, whose border is close to where Putin's new deployment will be positioned.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,430
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
It does appear that armed conflict can't be avoided. Putin has pushed himself into a corner that he can't escape from.
This is largely western propaganda myth that Putin is planning to invade.
In Russia nobody believes that and Putin can simply "cancel" the "invasion" without any loss to his perceived image.
Having said that, yes there is very little either side can do. So both sides are in the corners. Russia can not allow NATO in Ukraine and US can not give such promise to Russia. Not in the present format. NATO is fundamentally anti-russian block which is supported by millitary-industrial complex. My hope that over time China will take the rightful place of the enemy of the world and US will leave Russia alone with NATO losing their relevance.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,092
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
It does appear that armed conflict can't be avoided. Putin has pushed himself into a corner that he can't escape from.
This is largely western propaganda myth that Putin is planning to invade.
In Russia nobody believes that and Putin can simply "cancel" the "invasion" without any loss to his perceived image.
Having said that, yes there is very little either side can do. So both sides are in the corners. Russia can not allow NATO in Ukraine and US can not give such promise to Russia. Not in the present format. NATO is fundamentally anti-russian block which is supported by millitary-industrial complex. My hope that over time China will take the rightful place of the enemy of the world and US will leave Russia alone with NATO losing their relevance.
If Putin answered to barbos, he probably could just smile, walk away, and say "never mind". Barbos poses no threat to him, but there are others Putin depends on who could. The problem is that the West will have called his bluff and won the macho stare-down match. It will be a tremendous loss of prestige to have spent all that money and wound everyone up to just back away. He didn't have to have made impossible demands, but he did. Now he needs something. Otherwise, he has to show that he meant business. I think that most governments understand that and realize that he is probably going to have to start hostilities at some point, if they can't find some way to help him back away. And it really isn't clear that Putin wants to back away. He really does want his old Soviet Union back in all its glory. He feels that it didn't have to collapse the way it did and that the country was betrayed by leaders like Gorbachev and Yeltsin. He wants a redo.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
6,151
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
It does appear that armed conflict can't be avoided. Putin has pushed himself into a corner that he can't escape from.
This is largely western propaganda myth that Putin is planning to invade.
In Russia nobody believes that and Putin can simply "cancel" the "invasion" without any loss to his perceived image.
Having said that, yes there is very little either side can do. So both sides are in the corners. Russia can not allow NATO in Ukraine and US can not give such promise to Russia. Not in the present format. NATO is fundamentally anti-russian block which is supported by millitary-industrial complex. My hope that over time China will take the rightful place of the enemy of the world and US will leave Russia alone with NATO losing their relevance.
You contradicted yourself. You said that it's a western myth "that Putin is planning to invade". And yet, you said in the next sentence that nobody believes in Russia that "Putin can simply cancel the invasion". If Putin truely didn't want Russia in Nato, why is he pushing them into Nato? I think that the grand master PooPah Putin is losing it.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,430
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
It does appear that armed conflict can't be avoided. Putin has pushed himself into a corner that he can't escape from.
This is largely western propaganda myth that Putin is planning to invade.
In Russia nobody believes that and Putin can simply "cancel" the "invasion" without any loss to his perceived image.
Having said that, yes there is very little either side can do. So both sides are in the corners. Russia can not allow NATO in Ukraine and US can not give such promise to Russia. Not in the present format. NATO is fundamentally anti-russian block which is supported by millitary-industrial complex. My hope that over time China will take the rightful place of the enemy of the world and US will leave Russia alone with NATO losing their relevance.
You contradicted yourself. You said that it's a western myth "that Putin is planning to invade". And yet, you said in the next sentence that nobody believes in Russia that "Putin can simply cancel the invasion". If Putin truely didn't want Russia in Nato, why is he pushing them into Nato? I think that the grand master PooPah Putin is losing it.
Read what I wrote again.
 
Last edited:

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
6,151
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
It does appear that armed conflict can't be avoided. Putin has pushed himself into a corner that he can't escape from.
This is largely western propaganda myth that Putin is planning to invade.
In Russia nobody believes that and Putin can simply "cancel" the "invasion" without any loss to his perceived image.
Having said that, yes there is very little either side can do. So both sides are in the corners. Russia can not allow NATO in Ukraine and US can not give such promise to Russia. Not in the present format. NATO is fundamentally anti-russian block which is supported by millitary-industrial complex. My hope that over time China will take the rightful place of the enemy of the world and US will leave Russia alone with NATO losing their relevance.
You contradicted yourself. You said that it's a western myth "that Putin is planning to invade". And yet, you said in the next sentence that nobody believes in Russia that "Putin can simply cancel the invasion". If Putin truely didn't want Russia in Nato, why is he pushing them into Nato? I think that the grand master PooPah Putin is losing it.
Read what I wrote again.
The west has been anticipating Putin's invasion for weeks. Therefore, the west has been trying to help Ukraine and is planning deep and painful sanctions for Russia. If Putin attacks in the next few weeks, the west was right. Correct?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,628
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
If Putin attacks in the next few weeks, the west was right. Correct?
The West will be right no matter what. The West is always right, cause it's West!
Well duh. :D

To be fair, Russia has rarely had a golden touch. Wherever they place influence, things become gray. Where as the United States, any third world nation we expand capitalism to becomes a darker shade of red. But at least they have open markets... kind of.

It is funny, in a sort of way that Russia and the US have literally ruined the lives of millions, killing hundreds of thousands, in a show of penis length against one another. The US jeopardized the lives of millions to ensure the safety of corporate holdings in Central/South America. There certainly is a glossing over the truth when regarding American influence of other nations.

And Russian/France&England paranoia of each other has been endemic for over a century.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
6,151
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
If Putin attacks in the next few weeks, the west was right. Correct?
The West will be right no matter what. The West is always right, cause it's West!
Well, the sad thing about is that there really doesn't need to be any sides here. The fact is that Nato hadn't been arming Ukraine or expanding into Ukraine. Ukraine has been begging them to do this for years. They've been screaming for help and defensive weapons. We've been declining in order to not offend Mother Russia. Probably a mistake by the west. Well, the weapons are going to pour in now! It's Russia that is pushing the former eastern bloc countries towards the west, not Nato. If Mother Russia would just stop bullying other countries, there would be no conflict.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
9,224
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
The Putin will be opposed by force and he will lose. When? Anyone's guess. It's all up to the Putin.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,430
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
If Putin attacks in the next few weeks, the west was right. Correct?
The West will be right no matter what. The West is always right, cause it's West!
Well, the sad thing about is that there really doesn't need to be any sides here. The fact is that Nato hadn't been arming Ukraine or expanding into Ukraine. Ukraine has been begging them to do this for years. They've been screaming for help and defensive weapons. We've been declining in order to not offend Mother Russia. Probably a mistake by the west. Well, the weapons are going to pour in now! It's Russia that is pushing the former eastern bloc countries towards the west, not Nato. If Mother Russia would just stop bullying other countries, there would be no conflict.
You do realize that 2014 coup was organized by the West?
So there was quite a bit of pushing and luring.

I personally don't care about Ukraine in NATO. Just pay $250bil they owe to Russia and you can have it (Except Crimea of course).
You can have Belarus as well, after you pay back their accumulated debt.
It's about money for me at this point. Actually, it's always been about money for me.
In fact it's about money for everybody. Ukraine does not want to pay back. West wants Russia to pay Ukrainian regime for nothing because they themselves are not willing to pay. It's allways about money.
 
Last edited:

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
21,339
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
They've been screaming for help and defensive weapons. We've been declining in order to not offend Mother Russia. Probably a mistake by the west.

Ya think?
Now we have Pootey all full of himself, telling other sovereign nations what associations they may or may not form.
We don’t even bat an eyelash when he whines about “NATO on our doorstep” and “”Ukrainian aggression”, despite the patent absurdity of such complaints.
Of course when Ukraine joins NATO there will be one more NATO Country bordering Russia. But after Russia invades Ukraine, there will be THREE additional NATO Countries on its border. So that’s a false pretext. It’s an expansionist land grab, plain and simple. Pootey is trying to make it sound justified on the grounds that everyone isn’t doing what he tells them to.
Fuck Putin, and fuck his Soviet ambitions.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,430
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
If Putin attacks in the next few weeks, the west was right. Correct?
The West will be right no matter what. The West is always right, cause it's West!
Well duh. :D

To be fair, Russia has rarely had a golden touch. Wherever they place influence, things become gray. Where as the United States, any third world nation we expand capitalism to becomes a darker shade of red. But at least they have open markets... kind of.
I am not sure what is worse red or grey.
It is funny, in a sort of way that Russia and the US have literally ruined the lives of millions, killing hundreds of thousands, in a show of penis length against one another. The US jeopardized the lives of millions to ensure the safety of corporate holdings in Central/South America. There certainly is a glossing over the truth when regarding American influence of other nations.

And Russian/France&England paranoia of each other has been endemic for over a century.
Well, The difference is, Russian paranoia is justified more. After all, GB and France invaded Crimea just because they thought Russia was too big. I thought irony of the present moment would not be lost in the West, I was wrong.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
6,151
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
If Putin attacks in the next few weeks, the west was right. Correct?
The West will be right no matter what. The West is always right, cause it's West!
Well, the sad thing about is that there really doesn't need to be any sides here. The fact is that Nato hadn't been arming Ukraine or expanding into Ukraine. Ukraine has been begging them to do this for years. They've been screaming for help and defensive weapons. We've been declining in order to not offend Mother Russia. Probably a mistake by the west. Well, the weapons are going to pour in now! It's Russia that is pushing the former eastern bloc countries towards the west, not Nato. If Mother Russia would just stop bullying other countries, there would be no conflict.
You do realize that 2014 coup was organized by the West?
So there was quite a bit of pushing and luring.

I personally don't care about Ukraine in NATO. Just pay $250bil they owe to Russia and you can have it (Except Crimea of course).
You can have Belarus as well, after you pay back their accumulated debt.
It's about money for me at this point. Actually, it's always been about money for me.
In fact it's about money for everybody. Ukraine does not want to pay back. West wants Russia to pay Ukrainian regime for nothing because they themselves are not willing to pay. It's allways about money.
The sad thing about it is that this conflict is not due to Nato expansion or the money that you claim that Ukraine owes to Russia. I'll bet that you don't even know the real cause of this conflict. This conflict is about water. Crimea is running out of water. Ukraine cut it off when Russia took it. And rather than do what most countries do (negotiate); Russia just wants to take the water (and everything else).
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,430
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
The sad thing about it is that this conflict is not due to Nato expansion or the money that you claim that Ukraine owes to Russia. I'll bet that you don't even know the real cause of this conflict. This conflict is about water. Crimea is running out of water. Ukraine cut it off when Russia took it. And rather than do what most countries do (negotiate); Russia just wants to take the water (and everything else).
You would have lost your bet.
Yes, Ukrainian junta/government immediately cut water supply to people they call Ukrainian citizens. Keyword here is "immediately". And your media still claim that everybody in Crimea feels occupied by Russia and dreams about liberation by Ukrainian Army :)

And no, conflict is not about water. Russia did not even bother to sue Ukraine in some International Court. Conflict is about West trying to shutdown Russia in its present form. Russia is too big for West's liking. West is trying to balkanize Russia. Ukraine is just a tool or intermediate goal. Plus money, people like money they get from Millitary Industrial Complex.
 
Last edited:

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
6,151
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The sad thing about it is that this conflict is not due to Nato expansion or the money that you claim that Ukraine owes to Russia. I'll bet that you don't even know the real cause of this conflict. This conflict is about water. Crimea is running out of water. Ukraine cut it off when Russia took it. And rather than do what most countries do (negotiate); Russia just wants to take the water (and everything else).
You would have lost your bet.
Yes, Ukrainian junta/government immediately cut water supply to people they call Ukrainian citizens. Keyword here is "immediately". And your media still claim that everybody in Crimea feels occupied by Russia and dreams about liberation by Ukrainian Army :)

And no, conflict is not about water. Russia did not even bother to sue Ukraine in some International Court. Conflict is about West trying to shutdown Russia in its present form. Russia is too big for West's liking. West is trying to balkanize Russia. Ukraine is just a tool or intermediate goal. Plus money, people like money they get from Millitary Industrial Complex.
I'm starting to question how much you know about this conflict. Yes, it's mostly about water. Russia wants Ukraine water for Crimea. And rather than negotiate for it (because it's Ukraine's water, not Putins); Russia just wants to take it.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,628
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
The sad thing about it is that this conflict is not due to Nato expansion or the money that you claim that Ukraine owes to Russia. I'll bet that you don't even know the real cause of this conflict. This conflict is about water. Crimea is running out of water. Ukraine cut it off when Russia took it. And rather than do what most countries do (negotiate); Russia just wants to take the water (and everything else).
You would have lost your bet.
Yes, Ukrainian junta/government immediately cut water supply to people they call Ukrainian citizens. Keyword here is "immediately". And your media still claim that everybody in Crimea feels occupied by Russia and dreams about liberation by Ukrainian Army :)

And no, conflict is not about water. Russia did not even bother to sue Ukraine in some International Court. Conflict is about West trying to shutdown Russia in its present form. Russia is too big for West's liking.
I'd say that was true back in the late 19th / early 20th centuries. These days, we don't trust Russia because Russia has never been a team player (except WWII... and you were given a seat at the most important table of the UN as a result of that playing as part of a team).

Russia's pride is also counterproductive, like with the Kursk incident. Granted, international aid would likely not have been capable of saving lives, but Russia has this chip on its shoulder that it feels it has to project much bigger of a profile than it really is capable of actually being.

But ultimately, it is inertia. Neither side trusts each other. Both for pre-Great War historical logistics and the whole Stalin thing. Russia likes to project power and NATO doesn't want Russia to project power. And the second satellite states were given the ability, they withdrew from USSR as quickly as they could.
West is trying to balkanize Russia. Ukraine is just a tool or intermediate goal. Plus money, people like money they get from Millitary Industrial Complex.
Yes, our military industry is a major component to "aid" foreign nations and it can be a bit counterproductive.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,430
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
The sad thing about it is that this conflict is not due to Nato expansion or the money that you claim that Ukraine owes to Russia. I'll bet that you don't even know the real cause of this conflict. This conflict is about water. Crimea is running out of water. Ukraine cut it off when Russia took it. And rather than do what most countries do (negotiate); Russia just wants to take the water (and everything else).
You would have lost your bet.
Yes, Ukrainian junta/government immediately cut water supply to people they call Ukrainian citizens. Keyword here is "immediately". And your media still claim that everybody in Crimea feels occupied by Russia and dreams about liberation by Ukrainian Army :)

And no, conflict is not about water. Russia did not even bother to sue Ukraine in some International Court. Conflict is about West trying to shutdown Russia in its present form. Russia is too big for West's liking. West is trying to balkanize Russia. Ukraine is just a tool or intermediate goal. Plus money, people like money they get from Millitary Industrial Complex.
I'm starting to question how much you know about this conflict. Yes, it's mostly about water. Russia wants Ukraine water for Crimea. And rather than negotiate for it (because it's Ukraine's water, not Putins); Russia just wants to take it.
Wow, just wow. You really think that...
You must be very proud of yourself. Such an expert, aren't you?
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,430
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I'd say that was true back in the late 19th / early 20th centuries.
Dude, it was true in the end of the 20th century when GB and France asked Gorbi not to leave East Germany. They were afraid of their own NATO member being too big.
Of course it's about shutting down Russia, that's why you supported islamic terrotists in Chechnya, that's why you support any asshole who trash Russia.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,430
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
These days, we don't trust Russia because Russia has never been a team player
I actually agree. Russia is not a team player. Not YOUR team player. The team which invaded Iraq, which bombed Yugolsavia, the team which supported ISIS in order to topple Assad. The team which does not care about democracy when it suits them (Arab Spring)
Speaking of which, dumbass Assad does not get it, the only reason he was attacked by the West is ..... Russia and Iran. He should had cut ties with Russia and would have been fine as the rest of arab world.

And don't forget that your team also started WW1 and WW2.
And I don't mean Germany alone. I mean the whole damn team including WW1 "winners". So excuse me if I don't trust west's judgement when it comes to anything other than internal affairs.
 
Last edited:

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,551
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I am sure that no one in Ukraine recalls how well that country faired under the generous rule of Joseph Stalin whose policies induced famine and over an estimated 3 million Ukranian deaths. I am also sure that no one will recall that Russia was first an ally of Hitler.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,628
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
These days, we don't trust Russia because Russia has never been a team player
I actually agree. Russia is not a team player. Not YOUR team player. The team which invaded Iraq, which bombed Yugolsavia, the team which supported ISIS in order to topple Assad. The team which does not care about democracy when it suits them (Arab Spring)
Speaking of which, dumbass Assad does not get it, the only reason he was attacked by the West is ..... Russia and Iran. He should had cut ties with Russia and would have been fine as the rest of arab world.

And don't forget that your team also started WW1 and WW2.
And I don't mean Germany alone. I mean the whole damn team including WW1 "winners". So excuse me if I don't trust west's judgement when it comes to anything other than internal affairs.
Dude, I've already addressed that "The West" is not clean, and the reasons for such. But Russia is also far from a perfect partner. Russia and The West are guilty of playing gods with third world nations, for their own petty gains. The West, more so than Russia, who have lacked money and capability of Colonial expansion.

But this doesn't mean Russia is free of culpability or that their policies with Ukraine have to be in the right. That Ukraine is a muddled mess. That Russia wants a neutral Ukraine because they don't want NATO so close to their borders, so they've repeatedly meddled with Ukrainian politics, to ensure Ukraine doesn't get cozy with The West, because that ruins Russia's influence buffer.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,819
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
These days, we don't trust Russia because Russia has never been a team player
I actually agree. Russia is not a team player. Not YOUR team player. The team which invaded Iraq, which bombed Yugolsavia, the team which supported ISIS in order to topple Assad. The team which does not care about democracy when it suits them (Arab Spring)
Speaking of which, dumbass Assad does not get it, the only reason he was attacked by the West is ..... Russia and Iran. He should had cut ties with Russia and would have been fine as the rest of arab world.

And don't forget that your team also started WW1 and WW2.
And I don't mean Germany alone. I mean the whole damn team including WW1 "winners". So excuse me if I don't trust west's judgement when it comes to anything other than internal affairs.
I'll admit that I'm not much of a history buff but could you please explain how we started both WWI and WWII?
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,430
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
These days, we don't trust Russia because Russia has never been a team player
I actually agree. Russia is not a team player. Not YOUR team player. The team which invaded Iraq, which bombed Yugolsavia, the team which supported ISIS in order to topple Assad. The team which does not care about democracy when it suits them (Arab Spring)
Speaking of which, dumbass Assad does not get it, the only reason he was attacked by the West is ..... Russia and Iran. He should had cut ties with Russia and would have been fine as the rest of arab world.

And don't forget that your team also started WW1 and WW2.
And I don't mean Germany alone. I mean the whole damn team including WW1 "winners". So excuse me if I don't trust west's judgement when it comes to anything other than internal affairs.
I'll admit that I'm not much of a history buff but could you please explain how we started both WWI and WWII?
Read history, you might learn something from it.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,430
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
These days, we don't trust Russia because Russia has never been a team player
I actually agree. Russia is not a team player. Not YOUR team player. The team which invaded Iraq, which bombed Yugolsavia, the team which supported ISIS in order to topple Assad. The team which does not care about democracy when it suits them (Arab Spring)
Speaking of which, dumbass Assad does not get it, the only reason he was attacked by the West is ..... Russia and Iran. He should had cut ties with Russia and would have been fine as the rest of arab world.

And don't forget that your team also started WW1 and WW2.
And I don't mean Germany alone. I mean the whole damn team including WW1 "winners". So excuse me if I don't trust west's judgement when it comes to anything other than internal affairs.
Dude, I've already addressed that "The West" is not clean, and the reasons for such. But Russia is also far from a perfect partner. Russia and The West are guilty of playing gods with third world nations, for their own petty gains. The West, more so than Russia, who have lacked money and capability of Colonial expansion.

But this doesn't mean Russia is free of culpability or that their policies with Ukraine have to be in the right. That Ukraine is a muddled mess. That Russia wants a neutral Ukraine because they don't want NATO so close to their borders, so they've repeatedly meddled with Ukrainian politics, to ensure Ukraine doesn't get cozy with The West, because that ruins Russia's influence buffer.
All Russia asked is for Ukraine to be neutral and Russia even paid $250bil for that.
Then West supports fascist revolt and all of a sudden demands Russia to get the fuck off.

Whether you like it or not, but when it comes to foreign relations Russia is orders of magnitude cleaner than the West. And yet you try to paint Russia as the worst of the worst in that regard.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,819
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
These days, we don't trust Russia because Russia has never been a team player
I actually agree. Russia is not a team player. Not YOUR team player. The team which invaded Iraq, which bombed Yugolsavia, the team which supported ISIS in order to topple Assad. The team which does not care about democracy when it suits them (Arab Spring)
Speaking of which, dumbass Assad does not get it, the only reason he was attacked by the West is ..... Russia and Iran. He should had cut ties with Russia and would have been fine as the rest of arab world.

And don't forget that your team also started WW1 and WW2.
And I don't mean Germany alone. I mean the whole damn team including WW1 "winners". So excuse me if I don't trust west's judgement when it comes to anything other than internal affairs.
I'll admit that I'm not much of a history buff but could you please explain how we started both WWI and WWII?
Read history, you might learn something useful.
History mostly bores me. Usually about a bunch of men starting wars with each other.

The history that I was taught was that the US entered WWII after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The US joined WWI after the Germans kept attacking submarines and was trying to get Mexico to join forces with Germany.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,551
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
These days, we don't trust Russia because Russia has never been a team player
I actually agree. Russia is not a team player. Not YOUR team player. The team which invaded Iraq, which bombed Yugolsavia, the team which supported ISIS in order to topple Assad. The team which does not care about democracy when it suits them (Arab Spring)
Speaking of which, dumbass Assad does not get it, the only reason he was attacked by the West is ..... Russia and Iran. He should had cut ties with Russia and would have been fine as the rest of arab world.

And don't forget that your team also started WW1 and WW2.
And I don't mean Germany alone. I mean the whole damn team including WW1 "winners". So excuse me if I don't trust west's judgement when it comes to anything other than internal affairs.
I'll admit that I'm not much of a history buff but could you please explain how we started both WWI and WWII?
Read history, you might learn something useful.
History mostly bores me. Usually about a bunch of men starting wars with each other.

The history that I was taught was that the US entered WWII after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The US joined WWI after the Germans kept attacking submarines and was trying to get Mexico to join forces with Germany.
WWI started when a Bosnian Serb assassinated the heir to the Austria-Hungary throne which prompted a domino effect via treaties and alliances to start WWI. Russia declared war because it was an ally of Serbia who was threatened by the Germany Austria alliance. Of course, no one forced the Czar Nicholas to enter WWI.

The Treaty of Versailles after WWI required heavy reparations from the losing countries. That caused severe economic hardship and paved the way for the Nazis and Hitler to take power. Hitler had numerous reasons for fighting the Allies, but one of the factors enabling him was his treaty with Russia. Without having to worry about an Eastern front, Germany could concentrate its military resources against its Western enemies.

The notion that Russia has responsibility for its choices and actions, and therefore had no role in the extent of damage and destruction in WWI or the start of WWII and its subsequent destruction is either pure ignorance or revisionist delusions.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,430
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
These days, we don't trust Russia because Russia has never been a team player
I actually agree. Russia is not a team player. Not YOUR team player. The team which invaded Iraq, which bombed Yugolsavia, the team which supported ISIS in order to topple Assad. The team which does not care about democracy when it suits them (Arab Spring)
Speaking of which, dumbass Assad does not get it, the only reason he was attacked by the West is ..... Russia and Iran. He should had cut ties with Russia and would have been fine as the rest of arab world.

And don't forget that your team also started WW1 and WW2.
And I don't mean Germany alone. I mean the whole damn team including WW1 "winners". So excuse me if I don't trust west's judgement when it comes to anything other than internal affairs.
I'll admit that I'm not much of a history buff but could you please explain how we started both WWI and WWII?
Read history, you might learn something useful.
History mostly bores me. Usually about a bunch of men starting wars with each other.

The history that I was taught was that the US entered WWII after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The US joined WWI after the Germans kept attacking submarines and was trying to get Mexico to join forces with Germany.
Wow, I am "impressed". The average american I think thinks that US fought Soviets in WW2 and won.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,628
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
History mostly bores me. Usually about a bunch of men starting wars with each other.

The history that I was taught was that the US entered WWII after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The US joined WWI after the Germans kept attacking submarines and was trying to get Mexico to join forces with Germany.
Wow, I am "impressed". The average american I think thinks that US fought Soviets in WW2 and won.
That'd be an interesting poll to run. I doubt it'd be that many thought the US fought USSR though. If nothing else, pop culture helps remind us the Nazis were the bad guys.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
21,339
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Wow, I am "impressed". The average american I think thinks that US fought Soviets in WW2 and won.

More projection. The average Russian thinks Soviets defeated the Allies and the Axis in WWII.
“Your propaganda is lying to you!”
:hysterical:
 
Top Bottom