Russia - Ukraine

[mtrycrafts]

This is way cool: The Russian occupiers are ready to lay down their arms and surrender in Chernihiv region.
This was reported by the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine

Thanks for the clarity of what I thought I heard earlier. Wonderful news. Every soldier giving up is a win. wonder what they are telling intelligent agents, what they know.

What really shows who and what Putler is is that he wants to cremate his dead in the background and bury them at night, if that and threaten family not to talk about it.
He did this in 2014/5. Hopefully the International agency that has a whole lot of Russian dead will not capitulate to him and publicly take them back to Russia, hand them over to family.

 

[jhaider]

Hopefully once this calms down a big hopefully we can negotiate and give Russia some concessions. You can't just back them in a corner and give them nothing to lose. They'll be twice as dangerous as they are now

Why? They should be able to get some of the new sanctions removed if they withdraw from Ukraine but maintain the Putin regime, maybe.

I think they’re less dangerous now then ever. Their post-Cold War power peak was 2014- 2016, when they used their media/propaganda savvy to sneak in “little green men” to steal parts of Ukraine, and managed to buy or blackmail enough right wing political and media types to cause calamities in the UK/EU (Brexit) and US (orange ogre), while brainwashing vulnerable segments of the population with social media disinformation campaigns. Since then it’s been downhill. Notably, they failed to oust Macron using the same Wikileaks type attacks, but timed to coincide with a wrinkle in French media law. Austria busted some high placed Russian quislings. We elected two patriotic Americans over the orange ogre and the Gilead wannabe, and then turned back the ogre’s attempted January 6th putsch. President Biden’s strategy of intelligence dumps castrated Russia’s ability to wage information war against Ukraine and, while it was never going to stop Putin, it did expose his actions (unlike in 2014) and contributed to the global unity we’re seeing opposed to this attack. Ukrainians did the rest by showing extraordinary valor in the face of tyranny.

Now, Russia’s conventional military isn’t exactly looking superhuman when fighting a motivated opponent with a few modern weapons. As for nukes, they require not just an order but implementation. There was at least one instance when an officer in the old Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces disobeyed an order to launch based on intel that turned out to be wrong. What about one based on no intel of incoming nukes?

If anything, maybe seeing a real bad actor on the global stage should motivate Western diplomats to begin to rehabilitate Iran. Yes, their regime sucks. Yes, they did horrible things to prop up Assad. Yes, they made us pay for our unprovoked aggression against the Iraqis, though from their position it was bog us down or be next on Rummy & Cheney’s permanent revolution list. But they have oil, and have never attacked a neighbor. So compared to Russia, Iran comes off smelling like rose water, pomegranates, and saffron

 

[Verdinut]

Is that a possibility, able to be done? Even though they are one of the 5 something or other.

Why should they tolerate a traitor or enemy in their group? Putler is really sneaky and a liar. Nobody can trust him now.

 

[TLS Guy]

Yeah that's a really good article. I'm on the side for Ukranians as well. They didn't ask to pay the consequences for this but there are 2 sides to every story for sure as posters have spoken about throughout this entire thread. Hopefully once this calms down a big hopefully we can negotiate and give Russia some concessions. You can't just back them in a corner and give them nothing to lose. They'll be twice as dangerous as they are now

BS. The Russians are a huge country and have had violent poor government throughout their history. They have no clue what good governance is, and unless dealt with they will be a permanent threat to world piece. They need placing under Pax Britannica and Americana for at least a hundred years until they get the hang of good governance.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Why should they tolerate a traitor or enemy in their group? Putler is really sneaky and a liar. Nobody can trust him now.

They are a permanent member of the security council. No mechanism to remove a permanent member.
However, there is a possibility to remove them from the UN.
USSR went away. Russia was not petitioned to join so they are really not a member but has been, I am reading.
So, there is an effort to remove them from the UN.

 

[Danzilla31]

BS. The Russians are a huge country and have had violent poor government throughout their history. They have no clue what good governance is, and unless dealt with they will be a permanent threat to world piece. They need placing under Pax Britannica and Americana for at least a hundred years until they get the hang of good governance.

I'm thinking along the lines of what happened after World War I with the penalties imposed on Germany. Which ultimately led to the rise of Hitler and WWII. It is true popular or not that there were treaties made with Russia that gave assurances of no more Nato expansion and those treaties were broken. I'm sure Russia has had a part in that as well 2 sides to every story.

But you keep your word. And in victory if it indeed does come you don't leave your opponent with no way out. Or nothing to hold onto. Should Russia face harsh penalties for this of course they should. Should they be dealt with I agree with you Putins left us no choice. But to just smash them with sanctions and not address anything they have agreviances with to leave them in total humiliation with nothing to hold onto especially the russian people is to just risk inviting the same cycle to repeat itself

 

[Danzilla31]

BS. The Russians are a huge country and have had violent poor government throughout their history. They have no clue what good governance is, and unless dealt with they will be a permanent threat to world piece. They need placing under Pax Britannica and Americana for at least a hundred years until they get the hang of good governance.

Placing under Pax Britannica and Americana would indeed be nice. I agree it would he a better form of government than what is there now.

But how would you impose that on a place that huge and with people that are that inherently strong and resistant to outsiders? We the US couldn't do it with Afghanistan look at the trouble Putin is having with the Ukraine. He's struggling to conquer it and there's no way he will ever hold it they will never accept a puppet government.

Let alone the risk of enforcing an entire culture and nation to be governed by your way by way of force would run the risk of making one no better then the one you overthrew at least in the eyes of the people your enforcing it on

 

[Danzilla31]

BS. The Russians are a huge country and have had violent poor government throughout their history. They have no clue what good governance is, and unless dealt with they will be a permanent threat to world piece. They need placing under Pax Britannica and Americana for at least a hundred years until they get the hang of good governance.

I am by no means any type of expert. I'm not asking questions to argue but more to learn. I have never been as good with my history as I should be and really didn't educate myself on politics either as well as I should. So any feedback from members is welcome help me see what I am missing here

 

[Danzilla31]

Why? They should be able to get some of the new sanctions removed if they withdraw from Ukraine but maintain the Putin regime, maybe.

I think they’re less dangerous now then ever. Their post-Cold War power peak was 2014- 2016, when they used their media/propaganda savvy to sneak in “little green men” to steal parts of Ukraine, and managed to buy or blackmail enough right wing political and media types to cause calamities in the UK/EU (Brexit) and US (orange ogre), while brainwashing vulnerable segments of the population with social media disinformation campaigns. Since then it’s been downhill. Notably, they failed to oust Macron using the same Wikileaks type attacks, but timed to coincide with a wrinkle in French media law. Austria busted some high placed Russian quislings. We elected two patriotic Americans over the orange ogre and the Gilead wannabe, and then turned back the ogre’s attempted January 6th putsch. President Biden’s strategy of intelligence dumps castrated Russia’s ability to wage information war against Ukraine and, while it was never going to stop Putin, it did expose his actions (unlike in 2014) and contributed to the global unity we’re seeing opposed to this attack. Ukrainians did the rest by showing extraordinary valor in the face of tyranny.

Now, Russia’s conventional military isn’t exactly looking superhuman when fighting a motivated opponent with a few modern weapons. As for nukes, they require not just an order but implementation. There was at least one instance when an officer in the old Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces disobeyed an order to launch based on intel that turned out to be wrong. What about one based on no intel of incoming nukes?

If anything, maybe seeing a real bad actor on the global stage should motivate Western diplomats to begin to rehabilitate Iran. Yes, their regime sucks. Yes, they did horrible things to prop up Assad. Yes, they made us pay for our unprovoked aggression against the Iraqis, though from their position it was bog us down or be next on Rummy & Cheney’s permanent revolution list. But they have oil, and have never attacked a neighbor. So compared to Russia, Iran comes off smelling like rose water, pomegranates, and saffron

I'm curious how could we ever hope to rehabilitate Iran? They from what I understand absolutely hate us. Why would they ever respond to us? No matter how good our intentions?

 

[Swerd]

They [Russia] need placing under Pax Britannica and Americana for at least a hundred years until they get the hang of good governance.

Pax Britannica and Americana? Let's not be selfish. In 1945 when Nazi Germany was occupied and partitioned, it was divided up among the four allied forces that defeated it: UK, USA, France, and the USSR. France and the USSR had been occupied and cruelly treated by Nazi Germany. Canada was left out, although I don't think Canadians minded.

I kind of like your idea of occupying and partitioning Russia. It's a country that has repeatedly demonstrated it's inability to govern itself without harming or threatening it's neighbors (including all of Europe, Asia and North America). Is a hundred years long enough? It may take many generations to change that. Russia, long a medieval monarchy where land and peasant farmers were owned by a few aristocrats, never had an economically viable middle class. After WW1 and the violent overthrow of the monarchy by the Bolsheviks, it took two decades under a vicious communist dictatorship, a devastating war with Nazi Germany, and another few more decades of recovery afterwards before Russia entered the 20th century.

Of course, partitioning Russia will first require that NATO and all others with grievances against the former USSR or present day Russia, fight a no-holds barred war to invade and destroy Russia along with it's criminal government. It won't be pretty or non-radioactive. Part of me hopes it doesn't get that far, and another part believes it will take no less.

 

[Danzilla31]

Pax Britannica and Americana? Let's not be selfish. In 1945 when Nazi Germany was occupied and partitioned, it was divided up among the four allied forces that defeated it: UK, USA, France, and the USSR. France and the USSR had been occupied and cruelly treated by Nazi Germany. Canada was left out, although I don't think Canadians minded.

I kind of like your idea of occupying and partitioning Russia. It's a country that has repeatedly demonstrated it's inability to govern itself without harming or threatening it's neighbors (including all of Europe, Asia and North America). It may take generations to change that. Of course, this will first require that NATO and all others with grievances against the former USSR or present day Russia, fight a no-holds barred war to invade and destroy Russia along with it's criminal government. It won't be pretty or non-radioactive. Part of me hopes it doesn't get that far, and another part believes it will take no less.

That's the problem I'm having with seeing it being able to be pulled off. The word you used non-radioactive. The moment it goes that far its game over for the world anyway am I wrong? No country with nukes has been invaded by another up to this point am I correct on that?

If we can't pay that price or pull that off what are other options we can take?

 

[Swerd]

That's the problem I'm having with seeing it being able to be pulled off. The word you used non-radioactive. The moment it goes that far its game over for the world anyway am I wrong? No country with nukes has been invaded by another up to this point am I correct on that?

Right. The whole idea of a large army invading another country seems impossible with nukes. Just try to picture an invasion the size of the June 1944 Normandy invasion if nukes are an option.

If we can't pay that price or pull that off what are other options we can take?

Were getting ahead of ourselves. First, Russia's invasion of Ukraine has to fail. We're not there yet.

I don't really know what might come next. Putin and his gang have to go. Is it wishful thinking to hope that the Russian people drive them out? Probably.

And then, the Russian people have to learn how to run their own affairs by an elected government – without resorting to another Napoleon, Hitler, or Stalin when the going gets tough. But that's my thinking as an American. That's probably not a solution that could be directly installed in Russia without a lot of adaptation along the way.

 

[SithZedi]

The idea of a Pax America, or Britannica died when the US chose poorly after the Cold War ended. The key moment to integrate Russia was right after the Budapest agreement which denuclearized the Ukraine. Former Clinton Defense Secretary wrote a interesting book about those decisions called My Journey at the Nuclear Brink. He argued, the US was working closely with Yeltsin on dismantling nuclear weapons together. Both our militaries were working to ratchet down tension from fall of the Soviet Union and that these gains were then squandered more as a result of US than Russian actions. His words from a 2016 Guardian event.

“In the last few years, most of the blame can be pointed at the actions that Putin has taken. But in the early years I have to say that the United States deserves much of the blame,”
“Our first action that really set us off in a bad direction was when Nato started to expand, bringing in eastern European nations, some of them bordering Russia. At that time we were working closely with Russia and they were beginning to get used to the idea that Nato could be a friend rather than an enemy ... but they were very uncomfortable about having Nato right up on their border and they made a strong appeal for us not to go ahead with that.”

Perry argued for a slower expansion of Nato so as not to alienate Russia during the initial period of post-Soviet courtship and cooperation. Richard Holbrooke, the US diplomat, led the opposing argument at the time, and was ultimately supported by the vice-president, Al Gore, who argued “we could manage the problems this would create with Russia”.

Perry said the decision reflected a contemptuous attitude among US officials towards the troubled former superpower.

“It wasn’t that we listened to their argument and said he don’t agree with that argument,” he said. “Basically the people I was arguing with when I tried to put the Russian point ... the response that I got was really: ‘Who cares what they think? They’re a third-rate power.’ And of course that point of view got across to the Russians as well. That was when we started sliding down that path.”

The West missed that window to plug Russia into the Western Economic Model and partially fulfilling Fukuyama's "End of History" moment. If we had been successful, we could have dismantled NATO, let the EU build their own military, and saved many lives and dollars that could have been invested elsewhere. Frankly, having over 100,000 American soldiers buried in Europe over the course of the 20th century was enough of a cost.

Russia weaker now than 1994, probably. US weaker now than 1994 definitely. The US was the sole superpower with no rival. We had a small fiscal deficit and no Chinese threat yet, the Mid East was contained. All squandered due to a series of bad political leaders.

 

[Danzilla31]

Right. The whole idea of a large army invading another country seems impossible with nukes. Just try to picture an invasion the size of the June 1944 Normandy invasion if nukes are an option.
Were getting ahead of ourselves. First, Russia's invasion of Ukraine has to fail. We're not there yet.

I don't really know what might come next. Putin and his gang have to go. Is it wishful thinking to hope that the Russian people drive them out? Probably.

And then, the Russian people have to learn how to run their own affairs by an elected government – without resorting to another Napoleon, Hitler, or Stalin when the going gets tough. But that's my thinking as an American. That's probably not a solution that could be directly installed in Russia without a lot of adaptation along the way.

You are 100% correct first things first. Thanks for all of your input I appreciate it

 

[shadyJ]

View attachment 54229
View attachment 54230

View attachment 54231

Wow you must be pulling in some serious overtime at the Russian Troll farm. These have to be busy days for you, comrade.

 

[Danzilla31]

The idea of a Pax America, or Britannica died when the US chose poorly after the Cold War ended. The key moment to integrate Russia was right after the Budapest agreement which denuclearized the Ukraine. Former Clinton Defense Secretary wrote a interesting book about those decisions called My Journey at the Nuclear Brink. He argued, the US was working closely with Yeltsin on dismantling nuclear weapons together. Both our militaries were working to ratchet down tension from fall of the Soviet Union and that these gains were then squandered more as a result of US than Russian actions. His words from a 2016 Guardian event.

“In the last few years, most of the blame can be pointed at the actions that Putin has taken. But in the early years I have to say that the United States deserves much of the blame,”
“Our first action that really set us off in a bad direction was when Nato started to expand, bringing in eastern European nations, some of them bordering Russia. At that time we were working closely with Russia and they were beginning to get used to the idea that Nato could be a friend rather than an enemy ... but they were very uncomfortable about having Nato right up on their border and they made a strong appeal for us not to go ahead with that.”

Perry argued for a slower expansion of Nato so as not to alienate Russia during the initial period of post-Soviet courtship and cooperation. Richard Holbrooke, the US diplomat, led the opposing argument at the time, and was ultimately supported by the vice-president, Al Gore, who argued “we could manage the problems this would create with Russia”.

Perry said the decision reflected a contemptuous attitude among US officials towards the troubled former superpower.

“It wasn’t that we listened to their argument and said he don’t agree with that argument,” he said. “Basically the people I was arguing with when I tried to put the Russian point ... the response that I got was really: ‘Who cares what they think? They’re a third-rate power.’ And of course that point of view got across to the Russians as well. That was when we started sliding down that path.”

The West missed that window to plug Russia into the Western Economic Model and partially fulfilling Fukuyama's "End of History" moment. If we had been successful, we could have dismantled NATO, let the EU build their own military, and saved many lives and dollars that could have been invested elsewhere. Frankly, having over 100,000 American soldiers buried in Europe over the course of the 20th century was enough of a cost.

Russia weaker now than 1994, probably. US weaker now than 1994 definitely. The US was the sole superpower with no rival. We had a small fiscal deficit and no Chinese threat yet, the Mid East was contained. All squandered due to a series of bad political leaders.

Thanks for all this info it goes along with what I've been seeing as I've been trying to research and it fills in a lot of blanks. There's always 2 sides to every story and somewhere in the middle is truth

 

[shadyJ]

The US as already made dangerous misjudgments. History tells us you have to act early and decisively in these situations, with no dithering.

Joe Biden was blithering on about not going into Ukraine, so he would not start WW III. Well I have a reality check for old Joe. Putin has already started WW III.

Biden has handled the situation very well. He has made public much of the intelligence he had so that the world would be better prepared for the crisis. He has released intelligence indicating that Russians were looking to fake provocations so that the world would not be fooled by Russian propaganda BS. He has supported Ukraine while keeping America out of combat- would you rather American boots be on the ground? In a direct shooting war with a nuclear power led by an unstable leader? Biden has helped to bring together a coalition of many world governments that collectively brought punitive action against Russia for its aggression, and many of these actions were very severe. If things keep going this way, Russia will be un the level of North Korea in 5 years.

And no, this is not world war 3. This is Russia and Belarus versus Ukraine. Containing this conflict so that it does not escalate into world war 3 sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

 

[Danzilla31]

The idea of a Pax America, or Britannica died when the US chose poorly after the Cold War ended. The key moment to integrate Russia was right after the Budapest agreement which denuclearized the Ukraine. Former Clinton Defense Secretary wrote a interesting book about those decisions called My Journey at the Nuclear Brink. He argued, the US was working closely with Yeltsin on dismantling nuclear weapons together. Both our militaries were working to ratchet down tension from fall of the Soviet Union and that these gains were then squandered more as a result of US than Russian actions. His words from a 2016 Guardian event.

“In the last few years, most of the blame can be pointed at the actions that Putin has taken. But in the early years I have to say that the United States deserves much of the blame,”
“Our first action that really set us off in a bad direction was when Nato started to expand, bringing in eastern European nations, some of them bordering Russia. At that time we were working closely with Russia and they were beginning to get used to the idea that Nato could be a friend rather than an enemy ... but they were very uncomfortable about having Nato right up on their border and they made a strong appeal for us not to go ahead with that.”

Perry argued for a slower expansion of Nato so as not to alienate Russia during the initial period of post-Soviet courtship and cooperation. Richard Holbrooke, the US diplomat, led the opposing argument at the time, and was ultimately supported by the vice-president, Al Gore, who argued “we could manage the problems this would create with Russia”.

Perry said the decision reflected a contemptuous attitude among US officials towards the troubled former superpower.

“It wasn’t that we listened to their argument and said he don’t agree with that argument,” he said. “Basically the people I was arguing with when I tried to put the Russian point ... the response that I got was really: ‘Who cares what they think? They’re a third-rate power.’ And of course that point of view got across to the Russians as well. That was when we started sliding down that path.”

The West missed that window to plug Russia into the Western Economic Model and partially fulfilling Fukuyama's "End of History" moment. If we had been successful, we could have dismantled NATO, let the EU build their own military, and saved many lives and dollars that could have been invested elsewhere. Frankly, having over 100,000 American soldiers buried in Europe over the course of the 20th century was enough of a cost.

Russia weaker now than 1994, probably. US weaker now than 1994 definitely. The US was the sole superpower with no rival. We had a small fiscal deficit and no Chinese threat yet, the Mid East was contained. All squandered due to a series of bad political leaders.

What I'm learning is what brought us to this point is complex and its not all one sided.

First things first as some one correctly pointed out and Putin did choose this path as the aggressor. Its past the point of blaming who did this or that now.

What bothers me is if we can get through this I hope we dont have that it's just all black and white there side is just all bad type of thinking when it comes to solutions.

Because if we can't truly invade and conquer them then we are going to have to work something out with them eventually.

But that's my feelings ultimately what do I know when it comes to this type of stuff if you compared me to it on a military scale I would just be a grunt. Nowhere near a commanding officer or leader. What do I know? Think I'm going to check out now let others with more knowledge do the talking.

Get off this phone and just appreciate the sh$t out of everything that is relevant to me with my family and in my life. Take a break from this stuff for awhile. I'm not helping anything if I drive myself nuts over this

Really appreciate the time and patience some of you took to answer my questions I had a lot buzzing around in my head over this

 

[haraldo]

Thanks for the clarity of what I thought I heard earlier. Wonderful news. Every soldier giving up is a win. wonder what they are telling intelligent agents, what they know.

What really shows who and what Putler is is that he wants to cremate his dead in the background and bury them at night, if that and threaten family not to talk about it.
He did this in 2014/5. Hopefully the International agency that has a whole lot of Russian dead will not capitulate to him and publicly take them back to Russia, hand them over to family.

WOW.... just WOW.... is there no limit for Putler!

 

[haraldo]

As far as I know it happened yesterday.....

A team of parachute troopers were release over a Ukrainian forest, but the truth was, there was no forest there at all, the maps the russians had were incorrect so there were no places to hide. They were an easy catch for the Ukrainian soldiers so they were all captured.