Biden/Harris parting gift to the world: A World War

[User]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I mean, the Soviets rolled into Hungary & Czechoslovakia. and NATO didn't do anything about it

The Soviets already controlled Hungary and Czechoslovakia after WWII. They rolled in only in as much as to squash their respective rebellionsuprisings. 

NATO did not do anything significant about it... like start a world war to stop it. Sure. Not sure what your point is here. 

3 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

You quoted 3 sentences I wrote. What in them do you think is "bogus"?

The same point you made earlier about this I responded to already. 

[gatomontes99]

51 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

No, Trump's track record of a transactional approach is well documented. There are a lot of quotes of his to show he favours that approach over any loyalty to allies. But, if he lets the Ukraine war end in a lop-sided deal that favours Putin, then Putin will have won and the US will have lost. I'm not sure that would sit well with Trump.

There isn't one single iota of evidence for your speculation.

[Nationalist]

7 minutes ago, User said:

The Soviets already controlled Hungary and Czechoslovakia after WWII. They rolled in only in as much as to squash their respective rebellionsuprisings. 

NATO did not do anything significant about it... like start a world war to stop it. Sure. Not sure what your point is here. 

The same point you made earlier about this I responded to already. 

There was no rebellion in Czech.

[User]

3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

There was no rebellion in Czech.

Well, I included "uprising" but more technically we can call it the Prague Spring, the point remains the same, the Soviet union invaded only in as much as much to keep a country under their control. 

 

[WestCanMan]

9 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

When I started to look into all of this, mainly at the start of Russia's military operation in Ukraine, I too was rather confused as to what was going on. The more I read, however, the more I became convinced that people like Jacques Baud had it right, and that the western mainstream media was mainly in the business of concealing some very sordid facts about the west's cupability in all of this. Perhaps the most sordid of all was the United States' involvement in Euromaidan. The call between then Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt was particularly illuminating, as Victoria seemed to in essence be choreographing who would replace then elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Perhaps more importantly, what she suggested should happen actually happened. The BBC wrote an article on it:

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

Darker still is the role of what I call the Euromaidan Massacre in creating the conditions for Yanukovych's ouster. I've seen no hard evidence that the U.S. government played a role in it, but the fact that American military operative Brian Christopher Boyenger played a key role in it suggests that it may well have done so. My go to article for a while on the Euromaidan Massacre has been this one:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hidden-truth-about-ukraine-italian-documentary-bombshell-evidence-kiev-euromaidan-snipers-kill-demonstrators/5619684

Some people don't like the Global Research site, but the article actually relies heavily on an Italian documentary on the event. It's also not the only article that brings up said Italian documentary and Brian Christopher Boyenger. Here's another I just found:

https://gordonhahn.com/2017/11/17/foreign-involvement-in-february-2014-maidan-terrorist-sniper-attack/

 

I just finished listening to an article from Mearsheimer on audible.com that was originally published in Foreign Affairs 10 years ago. For anyone who hasn't heard of him, I think Wikipedia's introduction of the man is good:

**

John Joseph Mearsheimer (/ˈmɪərʃaɪmər/; born December 14, 1947)^[3] is an American political scientist and international relations scholar. He is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago.

**

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer

He published his Foreign Affairs article months after Euromaidan and Russia's annexation of Crimea. Even then, he put the blame for the crisis squarely on the West. His article can be seen here:

Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault : The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin

Here's the introduction to his article:

**

According to the prevailing wisdom in the West, the Ukraine crisis can be blamed almost entirely on Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin, the argument goes, annexed Crimea out of a long-standing desire to resuscitate the Soviet empire, and he may eventually go after the rest of Ukraine, as well as other countries in eastern Europe. In this view, the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 merely provided a pretext for Putin’s decision to order Russian forces to seize part of Ukraine.

But this account is wrong: the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. At the same time, the EU’s expansion eastward and the West’s backing of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine—beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004—were critical elements, too. Since the mid1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president—which he rightly labeled a “coup”—was the )nal straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West.

**

I don't know where he got this notion that Russia was "working to destabilize Ukraine", but apart from that, I think he was on the nose. Even 10 years ago, the issue of Ukraine joining NATO was clearly something that Russia adamantly didn't want happening. He addresses this too, and I think was quite prescient as to where this would lead:

**

One also hears the claim that Ukraine has the right to determine whom it wants to ally with and the Russians have no right to prevent Kiev from joining the West. This is a dangerous way for Ukraine to think about its foreign policy choices. The sad truth is that might often makes right when great-power politics are at play. Abstract rights such as self-determination are largely meaningless when powerful states get into brawls with weaker states. Did Cuba have the right to form a military alliance with the Soviet Union during the Cold War? The United States certainly did not think so, and the Russians think the same way about Ukraine joining the West. It is in Ukraine’s interest to understand these facts of life and tread carefully when dealing with its more powerful neighbor.

Even if one rejects this analysis, however, and believes that Ukraine has the right to petition to join the EU and NATO, the fact remains that the United States and its European allies have the right to reject these requests. There is no reason that the West has to accommodate The United States and its allies should abandon their plan to westernize Ukraine and instead aim to make it a neutral bu!er. John J. Mearsheimer 12 FOREIGN AFFAIRS Ukraine if it is bent on pursuing a wrong-headed foreign policy, especially if its defense is not a vital interest for them. Indulging the dreams of some Ukrainians is not worth the animosity and strife it will cause, especially for the Ukrainian people.

**

 

Lots there to think about. 
 

some of it is news to me, and a lot to just suddenly start believing, but a lot of it is known to be true. 
 

Ill have to ruminate on this a bit. 

[Dougie93]

3 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

I think you're right that Russia underestimated Ukraine's will and capability to fight.

the initial invasion wasn't even a military operation

they didn't conduct reconnaissance, they didn't have any force protection, they didn't manoeuvre in formations

they didn't operate in combined arms, they didn't have coordinated fire support

the army actually went in without the air force, they had no air cover and no air support

they literally just drove down the highways in columns,

without even resupply; some of their tanks actually ran out of gas on the side of the road

it's like they were expecting no resistance whatsoever

Edited November 26, 2024 by Dougie93

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

it's like they were expecting no resistance whatsoever

Maybe he was thinking "Austria in 1938". 

[Scott75]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Maybe he was thinking "Austria in 1938". 

For those who are unfamiliar with Austria's annexation of Austria into Nazi Germany in 1938:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Maybe he was thinking "Austria in 1938". 

indeed, something like that

although the Wehrmacht was met right at the Austrian border crossings by cheering throngs of Nazi saluting Austrians

so it was pretty clear for the Germans what they were rolling into,  in the first hour 

and in fact the Austrian government ordered its army not to resist, from the get go

[Scott75]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

indeed, something like that

although the Wehrmacht was met right at the Austrian border crossings by cheering throngs of Nazi saluting Austrians

so it was pretty clear for the Germans what they were rolling into,  in the first hour 

and in fact the Austrian government ordered its army not to resist, from the get go

The thing with Ukraine, on the other hand, is it was a mixed bag. The Donbass region definitely welcomed Russia with open arms, in fact Donbass Republics were the ones that asked for their help against the western Ukrainian army in the first place. It was something else entirely with western Ukrainians.

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

The thing with Ukraine, on the other hand, is it was a mixed bag. The Donbass region definitely welcomed Russia with open arms, in fact Donbass Republics were the ones that asked for their help against the western Ukrainian army in the first place. It was something else entirely with western Ukrainians.

yeah, the Donbass is the Russian region

but a lot of those Russians are anti-Putin, it's not like all Russians in Ukraine are for Putin

the most Russian city in Ukraine is Kharkiv, and the Russians couldn't take it

but considering how bitter the fighting was in the Donbass for so many years beforehand

I'm not getting how the Kremlin thought it would be an absolute cake walk to drive into Kiev

Edited November 26, 2024 by Dougie93

[User]

1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

The thing with Ukraine, on the other hand, is it was a mixed bag. The Donbass region definitely welcomed Russia with open arms, in fact Donbass Republics were the ones that asked for their help against the western Ukrainian army in the first place. It was something else entirely with western Ukrainians.

This is right out of the Russian propaganda playbook. 

Russia took advantage of the Ukrainian "revolution of dignity" and after they seized Crimea, they sent in military specialists to capture Ukrainian government buildings and then continued to fund and supply separatists that were basically Russian commando forces, as well as outright sending in Russian regular military forces. 

Russia created that mess, funded that mess, and outright participated in it. 

The Donbas did not need help from Russia. Russia created that war and Ukraine was fighting them. 

 

[Scott75]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

3 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

The thing with Ukraine, on the other hand, is it was a mixed bag. The Donbass region definitely welcomed Russia with open arms, in fact Donbass Republics were the ones that asked for their help against the western Ukrainian army in the first place. It was something else entirely with western Ukrainians.

yeah, the Donbass is the Russian region

but a lot of those Russians are anti-Putin, it's not like all Russians in Ukraine are for Putin

the most Russian city in Ukraine is Kharkiv, and the Russians couldn't take it

Did they put much effort into takng that one? I certainly didn't hear they had.

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

but considering how bitter the fighting was in the Donbass for so many years beforehand

I'm not getting how the Kremlin thought it would be an absolute cake walk to drive into Kiev

From what I remember, it seems that -everyone- thought Russia was going to win in Ukraine super fast. Then people started realizing that this wasn't going to happen. Anyway, as I believe you may have said, Russia's intent was never to hold on to all of Ukraine. Perhaps their main goal at first was to simply persuade Ukraine to accept the peace deal they offered in the first few weeks. They also seemed to be overconfident in terms of what it would take to hold on to Lugansk, so they lost a lot of ground there not too long after the war started. By 2023, though, they were more then ready for Ukrane "spring offensive". Barring a nuclear war at which point who knows what'll happen, and not just in Ukraine, I don't see Russia losing much if any more ground in Ukraine again.

[Scott75]

2 hours ago, User said:

3 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

The thing with Ukraine, on the other hand, is it was a mixed bag. The Donbass region definitely welcomed Russia with open arms, in fact Donbass Republics were the ones that asked for their help against the western Ukrainian army in the first place. It was something else entirely with western Ukrainians.

This is right out of the Russian propaganda playbook. 

No, this is the truth. But you need to read certain articles, many of which aren't in the mainstream media (though some are). I recommend articles like these:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hidden-truth-about-ukraine-italian-documentary-bombshell-evidence-kiev-euromaidan-snipers-kill-demonstrators/5619684

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

https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/

Edited November 27, 2024 by phoenyx75

[Dougie93]

15 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

Anyway, as I believe you may have said, Russia's intent was never to hold on to all of Ukraine.

Russian strategy has always been to maintain a buffer zone between Moscow and Western Europe

thus I would suggest that they simply seek to prevent Ukraine from becoming an EU/NATO proxy

and perhaps install a government in Kiev which subordinate to the Kremlin's security concerns

particularly securing the Russian Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol

however, Russia simply lacks the resources to permanently occupy Ukraine by military force

Russia has too many other fronts to defend at the same time, from the Baltic to the South Caucasus

[Venandi]

On 11/26/2024 at 8:38 AM, DUI_Offender said:

Of course not.

What you omit to mention, is that each nation has internationally recognised boundaries, that must be respected. Crimea, throughout history, has mainly been included in the Ukraine, and has been since Ukraine declared independence in 1991. What is even more damning for Russia, is that Ukraine and Russia signed off on the Budapest Memorandum. In exchange for dismantling their nuclear arsenal, Ukraine was promised by Russia that the nation would respect it's sovereignty

Russia lied.

Russia is the clear aggressors in this conflict (similar to how the are also at fault in the conflict with Georgia). Any resistance by Ukraine against the Russian invasion, should be supported by the UN, NATO and the EU. 

As I recall, the Budapest Memorandum didn't anticipate or address aspirations to join NATO. I thought it even had a clause about neutrality... I won't argue the point though since I don't have time to look it up.

None the less, NATO has been less help to Ukraine than I expected, and certainly less (by far) than the minimum effort required to prevail. When viewed through that lens, I suppose you could say that NATO lied too.

My question remains though, did you really think that having both Ukraine and the home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet (Crimea) under a NATO banner would result in nothing more than a nod and a wink from a hot Russian milk maid?

I sure didn't.

I'd also point out that having a certain affinity for milk maids doesn't make me a Russian asset either...

Edited November 27, 2024 by Venandi

[NAME REMOVED]

On 11/26/2024 at 7:43 AM, Nationalist said:

There was no rebellion in Czech.

Prague Spring 1968

There is a reason Jaromir Jagr chose number 68, when playing in the NHL....

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

Prague Spring 1968

There is a reason Jaromir Jagr chose number 68, when playing in the NHL....

The Czechs celebrate Prague Spring but, it wasn't much of a "rebellion".

A lot of Czechs I know here, escaped Czech at that time.

Oh and...I met Jaromir once at a casino in Prague. He's a bit of a dick.

Edited November 27, 2024 by Nationalist

[Scott75]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Russian strategy has always been to maintain a buffer zone between Moscow and Western Europe

thus I would suggest that they simply seek to prevent Ukraine from becoming an EU/NATO proxy

and perhaps install a government in Kiev which subordinate to the Kremlin's security concerns

particularly securing the Russian Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol

however, Russia simply lacks the resources to permanently occupy Ukraine by military force

Russia has too many other fronts to defend at the same time, from the Baltic to the South Caucasus

I still think that Russia is -hoping- that Ukraine finally comes around and just makes a peace deal. Just today, RT came out with an article wherein Russia's Foreign Minister reitered what would be needed for such a deal. Quoting:

**

For a diplomatic solution to be achieved between Russia and Ukraine, “the root causes of the conflict must be eradicated,” he explained.

According to Lavrov, the causes include NATO’s eastward expansion and “systematic” violations of the rights of Russian speakers in Ukraine by the Kiev government.

“Another essential element of the political settlement must be demilitarization and denazification [of Ukraine], ensuring a non-aligned, neutral and non-nuclear status for the territories controlled by the Kiev regime,” he said.

No peace deal can also be reached without “recognition of the political and territorial realities, enshrined in the Russian constitution,” Lavrov said, referring to the status of Crimea, which reunited with Russia in 2014, and of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, and the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, which officially became part of the Russian state as a result of referendums in 2022.

**

Source:

https://www.rt.com/russia/608257-lavrov-ukraine-peace-putin/