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

[Ovazor]

Yes, eventually fought the Germans, but that does not change the fact that the Soviets started a war of aggression against Finland in 1939 and did enter the country, losing 300 000+ in KIA, WIA and MIA by March 1940. You claimed that they did not even enter the country.

Dude, JayJay agreed with me, go talk to him.

No Finn would agree with the claim "Soviet Army did not even enter Finland"

 

[barbos]

The support of NATO membership shot through the roof after the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine. The pre-invasion wisdom here was that economic ties would secure peace, but that mode of thinking died the day Russia invaded Ukraine.

So one is left wondering why Russia - more specifically Putin - would do such a stupid thing. IMHO the likely explanation is that Putin was getting cold feet. He's a criminal of the highest order, no different from Hitler, and realized western freedom and accountability was closing in. In his infantile mind he had no better option. And he's willing to kill as many as it takes, including his own countrymen, same as Hitler, to escape accountability.

For fuck's sake. For millionth time, Putin knew that Finland was a de-facto NATO country, but sane one at that.
He also knew that Ukraine was insane but not that insane to not agree on a good deal with enough persuasion, and they fucking did take that deal. What he did not account for was Elensky stupidity. The guy is fucking stupid and US/US fooled him into believing that he can defeat Russia, become a hero and live happily ever after.
I have to give it to US, nicely played, but in the end Russia will win and US will lose.

 

[barbos]

Yes, eventually fought the Germans, but that does not change the fact that the Soviets started a war of aggression against Finland in 1939 and did enter the country, losing 300 000+ in KIA, WIA and MIA by March 1940. You claimed that they did not even enter the country.

Dude, JayJay agreed with me, go talk to him.

No Finn would agree with the claim "Soviet Army did not even enter Finland"

That's not what I claimed.

 

[Ovazor]

For fuck's sake. For millionth time, Putin knew that Finland was a de-facto NATO country, but sane one at that.
He also knew that Ukraine was insane but not that insane to not agree on a good deal with enough persuasion, and they fucking did take that deal. What he did not account for was Elensky stupidity. The guy is fucking stupid and US/US fooled him into believing that he can defeat Russia.

Ukraine was not about to join NATO. The invasion was motivated purely by irredentism - Putsolini looked at a map of 1900 and wanted to have all that back. Consider the circumstances in 2021

• The chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan, the US looks weak.
• EU and UK relations strained by the aftermath of the Brexit
• Stories such as this one about most of the German Air Force being grounded by the lack of spares

Plenty of more in this vein. The fact is that the Russian aggression was motivated not by concern of Western military, but opportunism - like Hitler in 1939, Galtieri in 1982, Saddam in 1991 Putsolini thought that he could get away with it without much more than an angry editorial.

 

[barbos]

Ukraine was not about to join NATO. The invasion was motivated purely by irredentism

That have been discussed to death already, go and read.

 

[Ovazor]

Ukraine was not about to join NATO. The invasion was motivated purely by irredentism

That have been discussed to death already, go and read.

I am familiar with that tactic from debating creationists in my younger days. Just keep claiming something and then just say "I have already answered that".

 

[Elixir]

I am familiar with that tactic from debating creationists in my younger days. Just keep claiming something and then just say "I have already answered that".

Yup. Propagandists of the right, like Putin and Trump, do that all the time.
They have a huge advantage, gained by courting the stupidest segment of their populations. Their followers don’t need decent arguments - or decency of any sort.
These fora provide an ant farm view of the mental machinations of fascist leaders and their followers.

 

[barbos]

Ukraine was not about to join NATO. The invasion was motivated purely by irredentism

That have been discussed to death already, go and read.

I am familiar with that tactic from debating creationists in my younger days. Just keep claiming something and then just say "I have already answered that".

That's what you are doing.
I have answered this question million times, but if you insist:
Kiev Regime was a de-facto NATO member - occupied, armed and supported by NATO, ready to slaughter russian population in the breakaway regions, with ultimate goal to provoke Russia into a war with Ukraine and then subjecting Russia to a strategic defeat through sanctions, regime change following splitting into 5 parts. That was openly stated at neocon conferences. Ukraine was/is nothing but a tool to destroy Russia.

 

[barbos]

By the way, Putin just offered his peace plan preempting clown show in Switzerland.
Basically Minsk 2 but with Ukraine losing regions which has been included into Russia already.
Interesting. To me it looks like he is tired of this war and wants to end it by offering a fair deal.
Kharkov and Odessa are not included, he really wants it to be considered by regime in Washington.
I have mixed feelings. I don't trust regime in Washington would let Ukraine go.
I suspect Global Majority will take this plan and run circles around Elensky making his life at conference miserable.
....
....
LOL, that was quick. Both Elensky and Jens IQ=85 Stoltenberg both replied

 

[Harry Bosch]

By the way, Putin just offered his peace plan preempting clown show in Switzerland.
Basically Minsk 2 but with Ukraine losing regions which has been included into Russia already.
Interesting. To me it looks like he is tired of this war and wants to end it by offering a fair deal.
Kharkov and Odessa are not included, he really wants it to be considered by regime in Washington.
I have mixed feelings. I don't trust regime in Washington would let Ukraine go.
I suspect Global Majority will take this plan and run circles around Elensky making his life at conference miserable.

There're two very big problems with Putler's "Peace Plan". #1, Ukraine is being asked to give up substantial land. Russia doesn't lose anything. Secondly, how to ensure that Russia doesn't invade at a later date? Ukraine actually has a very promising future. They have tons of resources that could be sold to the west to help them rebuild. They have a democratic government and a vibrant population with substantial access to the EU markets. But Ukraine shares a large border with a very angry bitter country bent on conquering it. Not a lot of trust there.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Russia's expansionism and attacks on neighbors has caused NATO to expand. and caused many NATO nations to start rebuilding their military ability.

Russia had its own reasons to attack - Expansion of NATO.

NATO isn't a threat to anyone. It's a defensive alliance only. It's just an impediment to those with an eye for conquest.

 

[barbos]

Russia doesn't lose anything.

Why should we? We are winning.

Ukraine is being asked to give up substantial land

That does not compute. Your ilk keeps pointing how little Russia managed to occupy

Secondly, how to ensure that Russia doesn't invade at a later date?

Easy. you keep Russia happy by keeping Ukraine neutral.

They have tons of resources that could be sold to the west to help them rebuild.

You've been listening to Linsey again? you dirty boy.

They have a democratic government and a vibrant population with substantial access to the EU markets. But Ukraine shares a large border with a very angry bitter country bent on conquering it. Not a lot of trust there.

Cool, follow your original plan of using Ukraine to destroy evil Russia.

 

[barbos]

Not a lot of trust there.

Yes, I have zero trust in back stabbing Regime in Washington. But Putin seems tired and wants to try one more time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nato expansion is dangerous. However, I don't know how else to stop Russian imperialism.

You are not making any sense. There is no such thing a russian imperialism. There is only neocon imperialism.
All you had to do was to not expand NATO and there would have been no war. Of course scum which runs US/EU had a goal to start a war with Russia (and win it). They started it all right, but they are losing it.

Can you point out the NATO expansion that bothered Russia prior to the war?

Dude, it was published in some western paper. Yes, NATO instructors are training these ukrainian retirees.

NATO trainers doesn't mean NATO is fighting.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are putting Ukraine in a position where they can't concede. Of course they're going to fight to the bitter end!

They were given multiple chances to have a great deal and don't concede anything, except Crimea which was never their.
US convinced their corrupt government US themselves installed that they can fight Russia and win, or at least retire in Florida.
Ukrainians as people are incapable to govern themselves. Georgians can, ukrainians can't.

What great deal?!

Russia simply took the eastern part. Ukraine was in no position to fight about it but that was a wakeup. When you came back for the rest you found it not so easy pickings.

 

[barbos]

World Bank keeps increasing their estimate of Russian economy.
Last time they apparently recalculated and made Russia ~$6trln economy.
Now they appear to be saying that Russia could be $10trln economy. ~They explain that 40% of russian economy was not accounted by their accounting methodology
I personally doubt that but that's what they say for some reason. They are probably trying to make sense of apparent immunity of russian economy to sanctions. Basically they don't know what to do.
I think even with PPP it's really hard to compare economies which are structured very differently.

 

[barbos]

What great deal?!

The one where Ukraine does not collapse and gets wholly occupied by Evil Putin.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That Russia aggression is to blame for NATO expansion

We don't care for NATO "expanding" into Finland/Sweden. I have told you that a million times. Are you suffering from dementia?
We care for NATO expanding into former USSR republics. We also care about former Warsaw pact countries but less so.
You've already expanded into all of them, except Serbia.

You are not Finland. You are not Sweden. You don't get a say in whether they join NATO or not. They are not children to be ordered about.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Russian army does not bomb civilians. There is no point in doing that. Russia is winning and has plenty of legitimate targets which they can hit. Ukro-Regime, on the other hand is losing and was tacitly allowed to attack civilians by the West.
They can't hit that many legitimate military targets because they are heavily protected by Air Defence. So they bomb civilians targets and report it as military, or don't even care to do that.

If they're not bombing civilians why do we see so many civilian targets hit when there's nothing military about? I can understand apartments getting wrecked in ground combat, but when there are no ground forces nearby there's no reason to be dropping artillery on them. An awful lot of Russian "targeting" in the earlier parts of the war seemed to be from an emphasis on hitting something, whether or not there was anything worth hitting.

 

[Elixir]

They are not children to be ordered about.

Pootey's opinion is contrary to that. Everyone is a child in dire need of Pootey's guidance. Which excuses every single heinous act of genocide, crimes against humanity and plain old sadism.