It’s Official: US Abandoning Ukraine | Scheerpost

[impartialobserver]

on the surface,, it seems ok for the US to stop helping Ukraine in their battle against Russia. Not sure that they will win no matter how much money we siphon that way 

[Scott75]

On 1/29/2025 at 4:03 PM, DUI_Offender said:

On 1/29/2025 at 2:12 PM, Scott75 said:

World War II started before Germany's attack on Britain. From what I understand, the official start was when it invaded Poland. There were some major differences between this event and Russia's military operation in Ukraine though:

1- Poland wasn't killing ethnic Germans and German speakers in some part of Poland for 8 years prior to Germany's invasion of the country.

2- Poland certainly hadn't agreed to not one, but 2 treaties stipulating that the ethnic Germans and German speakers residing therein were to be treated with respect.

The last straw, ofcourse, was when Ukraine once again attacked the self proclaimed Donbass Republics in the Donbass region of Ukraine to kill yet more ethnic Russians and Russian speakers living there.

I think Former Swiss Intelligence Officer captured Putin's predicament quite well in the days leading up to his decision to start a military operation in Ukraine:

**

In fact, as early as February 16, Joe Biden knows that the Ukrainians began to shell the civilian populations of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: to help Donbass militarily and create an international problem or to sit idle and watch Russian speakers from the Donbass being run over.

If he decides to intervene, Vladimir Putin can invoke the international obligation of “  Responsibility To Protect  ” (R2P). But he knows that whatever its nature or scale, the intervention will trigger a shower of sanctions. Therefore, whether its intervention is limited to the Donbass or whether it goes further to put pressure on the West for the status of Ukraine, the price to be paid will be the same. This is what he explains in his speech on February 21.

That day, he acceded to the request of the Duma and recognized the independence of the two Republics of Donbass and, in the process, he signed treaties of friendship and assistance with them.

The Ukrainian artillery bombardments on the populations of Donbass continued and, on February 23, the two Republics requested military aid from Russia. On the 24th, Vladimir Putin invokes Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which provides for mutual military assistance within the framework of a defensive alliance.

In order to make the Russian intervention totally illegal in the eyes of the public we deliberately obscure the fact that the war actually started on February 16th. The Ukrainian army was preparing to attack the Donbass as early as 2021, as certain Russian and European intelligence services were well aware… The lawyers will judge.

**

Full article:

https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/

If you want to spread BS, the least you can do, is not source some irrelevant nobody. I searched Google for "Jacques Baud," and found literally nothing (except a bunch of YouTube videos, and him promoting his book).

That just speaks badly for google. I use duckduckgo, and the first link that came up was his french Wikipedia page, which can be seen here:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Baud

Google Chrome can translate it if, like me, french isn't a language you are fluent in.

The second link that came up was one of his books:

The Russian Art of War: How the West Led Ukraine to Defeat | Amazon

The title of the book is remeniscent of something American Professor John Mearsheimer said long before Russia's military operation in Ukraine. Quoting from an article that brings him and others up who warned the west that their path would get Uraine wrecked years before it happened:

**

It is not as if no one knew about the dangers. From Henry Kissinger to Zbigniew Brzezinski to George Kennan, experienced American statesmen have warned that even talking about Westernizing Ukraine through NATO might be fatal to peace. As John Mearsheimer cautioned us in September 2015, “the West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path, and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.” Mearsheimer’s prescient speech has received 21 million views on YouTube, almost half in the last few weeks, with Washington insiders and media poohbahs excoriating him as a Putin apologist, even as a petition campaign was launched to get Mearsheimer fired from the University of Chicago. We would have better off heeding his warning.

Compounding the damage, Washington’s loud championing of the Ukrainian cause has recently been accompanied by contrary signs of weakness and appeasement, from the humiliating botch of the NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan last summer to President Biden’s hint that a “minor incursion” into Ukraine might not occasion a decisive response. Like Chamberlain veering between irrational extremes in 1938-1939, the West’s Ukraine policy has blatantly provoked Russian anxieties and offered Ukrainians the false promise of an American security umbrella, while doing nowhere near enough to actually deter Russia. Ukraine may not suffer as badly as Poland did from 1939 to 1945, but much of the country has already gotten wrecked.

**

Source:

https://americanmind.org/salvo/the-primrose-path-to-catastrophe/

Edited February 5 by Scott75

[NAME REMOVED]

23 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

on the surface,, it seems ok for the US to stop helping Ukraine in their battle against Russia. Not sure that they will win no matter how much money we siphon that way 

Ukraine would have drove out the Russians in 2023, had they been given the permission to use long range weapons to strike into Russian territory.

[WestCanMan]

23 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

That just speaks badly for google. I use duckduckgo, and the first link that came up was his french Wikipedia page, which can be seen here:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Baud

Google Chrome can translate it if, like me, french isn't a language you are fluent in.

The second link that came up was one of his books:

The Russian Art of War: How the West Led Ukraine to Defeat | Amazon

The title of the book is remeniscent of something American Professor John Mearsheimer said long before Russia's military operation in Ukraine. Quoting from an article that brings him and others up who warned the west that their path would get Uraine wrecked years before it happened:

**

 

• (from your post) "It is not as if no one knew about the dangers. From Henry Kissinger to Zbigniew Brzezinski to George Kennan, experienced American statesmen have warned that even talking about Westernizing Ukraine through NATO might be fatal to peace."

Leftists here are pretty immune to that line of reasoning. Their official party line is "THIS WAR JUST STARTED BECAUSE PUTIN IS A BULLY WHO WANTS TO TAKE OVER ALL OF EASTERN EUROPE!!!!" 

Edited February 5 by WestCanMan

[WestCanMan]

47 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

on the surface,, it seems ok for the US to stop helping Ukraine in their battle against Russia. Not sure that they will win no matter how much money we siphon that way 

I think from the dems' point of view it was a "win" if the war ends today.

Russia lost a lot of soldiers, they wasted a lot of ammo, lost a lot of tanks, etc. Mostly though, they lost a lot of face in that war.

I think that everyone in the western world thought that mighty Russia would steamroll Ukraine and it instead of a blitzkrieg it turned out to be a nasty war of attrition that they only nominally "won". Sure, they gained a bit of territory, but every inch of it was flattened by artillery. Whoever holds that territory will just spend the next 10 years rebuilding it.

And at the end of the day, the cost in human lives does not matter to the Dems. 

P.S.: and the warhawks in congress probably made out like bandits.

Edited February 5 by WestCanMan

[Scott75]

On 1/29/2025 at 4:03 PM, DUI_Offender said:

The only thing I managed too find in regards for this "Jacques Baud" was a French language Wikipedia entry. Apparently, he is some conspiracy nut, that nobody takes seriously:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Baud#Conspirationnisme_et_désinformation

Ah, so google finally coughed up that link, good. Like many Wikipedia pages, it has its flaws, but it does have some good information, such as the introduction to his biography:

**

Between 1983 and 1990, Jacques Baud was a member of the Swiss Strategic Intelligence Service , in charge of the Warsaw Pact forces east of the Iron Curtain and throughout the world ^1 , 2 .

In 1995, because of his knowledge of Africa and anti -personnel mines , he was assigned to a mission ^3 , 4 with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Goma (then in Zaire ), as head of security for Rwandan refugee camps in Zaire ⁵ , in order to prevent ethnic cleansing . In 1997, he was assigned to found a project to contribute to the fight against anti-personnel mines . He was sent as an expert ⁶ to the Mine Action Service of the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations in New York.

In 2002, he was hired ⁷ at the Centre for International Security Policy (CPSI) at the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs , a newly created Swiss institution. In 2005, the United Nations asked him ⁸ to head ⁹ the first multidisciplinary civil-military intelligence centre ( Joint Mission Analysis Centre (JMAC)) of the United Nations Mission in Sudan ( Khartoum ) ¹⁰ . In 2009-2011, he was called to New York as Chief of Policy and Doctrine ^{11 , 12 , 13} in the Office of Military Affairs of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO). There, he worked in particular on civil-military operations, improving operational intelligence, the integration of women in peacekeeping operations and the protection of civilians. In 2011, he was called by the African Union to head the Research Department ¹⁴ of the International Peace Support Training Centre (IPSTC) in Nairobi ( Kenya ). At the end of his mandate, he was appointed ¹⁵ Head of the fight against the proliferation of small arms and against mines ¹⁶ of the Political Affairs and Security Policy Division at NATO 17 ^, in Brussels.

**

As with many Wikipedia pages, it also has some shoddy research, but that's frequently par for the course when it comes to Wikipedia.

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

What a shameless, lying piece of sh1t you are. 

That post is 100% revisionist history BS, to the point where no part of it is even worth addressing specifically. 

Sorry, dipshit, they may not have covered this in your infobubble, but it's history in the books. Enjoy your denial.

Edited February 5 by Hodad

[robosmith]

16 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I support Russia's defense of the people of the Donbass, which I believe was the main reason Russia started its military operation when it did to begin with. Putin himself mentioned the people of the Donbass in the speech he gave on the day he started the military operation in Ukraine. Quoting from it:

**

This brings me to the situation in Donbass. We can see that the forces that staged the coup in Ukraine in 2014 have seized power, are keeping it with the help of ornamental election procedures and have abandoned the path of a peaceful conflict settlement. For eight years, for eight endless years we have been doing everything possible to settle the situation by peaceful political means. Everything was in vain.

As I said in my previous address, you cannot look without compassion at what is happening there. It became impossible to tolerate it. We had to stop that atrocity, that genocide of the millions of people who live there and who pinned their hopes on Russia, on all of us. It is their aspirations, the feelings and pain of these people that were the main motivating force behind our decision to recognise the independence of the Donbass people’s republics.

[snip]

Let me remind you that in 2000–2005 we used our military to push back against terrorists in the Caucasus and stood up for the integrity of our state. We preserved Russia. In 2014, we supported the people of Crimea and Sevastopol. In 2015, we used our Armed Forces to create a reliable shield that prevented terrorists from Syria from penetrating Russia. This was a matter of defending ourselves. We had no other choice.

The same is happening today. They did not leave us any other option for defending Russia and our people, other than the one we are forced to use today. In these circumstances, we have to take bold and immediate action. The people’s republics of Donbass have asked Russia for help.

In this context, in accordance with Article 51 (Chapter VII) of the UN Charter, with permission of Russia’s Federation Council, and in execution of the treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic, ratified by the Federal Assembly on February 22, I made a decision to carry out a special military operation.

The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime. To this end, we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation.

**

Full transcript:

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/statements/67843

 

What I'd like to know is what you know of the Ukrainian civil war prior to Russia's military operation in Ukraine. I highly suspect you haven't seen the following documentary from a german team of journalists:

 

Why not give it a try? Or, if you'd prefer to only read articles on the subject, I recommend the following one from Canadian American journalist Eva Bartlett:

https://www.mintpressnews.com/under-fire-from-ukraine-everyday-life-in-the-donetsk-peoples-republic/262363/

It's cute that you believe Putin is concerned about Donbas "Russians" when he's really after the huge gas reserves off the Southern coast of Ukraine to cement his monopoly over European gas supplies.

Afterall, he is the world's richest kleptocrat.

[robosmith]

11 hours ago, ironstone said:

Now just who was in charge when the US withdrew from Afghanistan?

Trump was in charge when the surrender was negotiated. You've been told before, that there were not enough US troops left in Afghanistan to hold out when the ANA turned tail and ran.

11 hours ago, ironstone said:

Back to Ukraine. The Biden/Harris administration did send an enormous amount of aid to Ukraine, but as it turns out, a lot of it cannot be accounted for. Who is saying that? Volodymyr Zelensky.

It seems that certain people may have become fabulously wealthy from all this aid that may not have had enough strings attached.

The aid sent to Ukraine was mostly ARMS NOT cash.

[robosmith]

10 hours ago, ironstone said:

And we all know how that went don't we?

No comment on all that missing aid money designated for Ukraine? Are you not interested in that?

NOT CASH, ARMS.

10 hours ago, ironstone said:

This topic is about abandoning Ukraine so I think this is an appropriate place to discuss tens of billions in missing aid money that supposedly went to that country. 

Once again, specifically...billions in Ukraine aid money....unaccounted for.  

You're not even curious in the slightest about this?

Where is your PROOF that "tens of $BILLIONS" in cash was sent to Ukraine?

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

What a shameless, lying piece of sh1t you are. 

That post is 100% revisionist history BS, to the point where no part of it is even worth addressing specifically. 

When your source is FOS LIES, it is you who has been duped into LYING. 🤮

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

• (from your post) "It is not as if no one knew about the dangers. From Henry Kissinger to Zbigniew Brzezinski to George Kennan, experienced American statesmen have warned that even talking about Westernizing Ukraine through NATO might be fatal to peace."

Leftists here are pretty immune to that line of reasoning. Their official party line is "THIS WAR JUST STARTED BECAUSE PUTIN IS A BULLY WHO WANTS TO TAKE OVER ALL OF EASTERN EUROPE!!!!" 

Nope, the war started because Putin wants Ukrainian gas reserves like you were told before. Duh

[Scott75]

20 hours ago, Barquentine said:

On 2/4/2025 at 8:57 AM, Scott75 said:

I believe they won the Cold War because the Soviet system wasn't as good as the American one.

Hence the ability to bankrupt them by outspending.

Fine, but the Soviet Union no longer exists. Russia has definitely made some improvements to its structure. That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement, but it -does- mean that the Russians learned humility after the breakup of the USSR and have been acting in a way that supports a multi polar world at this point. The U.S. has yet to have its fall, and so still thinks it can essentially do what it pleases.

20 hours ago, Barquentine said:

On 2/4/2025 at 8:57 AM, Scott75 said:

The way I see it, the U.S. really only has 2 choices- it can accept this new reality and join this new system or it can go kicking and screaming as its full spectrum dominance fantasy diminishes.

By almost every metric the US and its allies are so far beyond Russia and China

I'm curious to know what metrics you're using. Care to share? Here's some metrics I think you should be aware of:

**

Statistics published by FAS estimated Russia's total nuclear inventory, which includes stockpiled and retired weapons, to be 5,889, while the U.S. has 5,244 warheads.

The next-closest nation is China with 410, followed by France (290), the United Kingdom (225), Pakistan (170), India (164), Israel (90) and North Korea (30).

[snip]

Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of Russia's Security Council, said during a recent appearance at a national expo in Moscow that Russia's nuclear prowess bests all other nations. He touted the national security benefits "for decades to come."

"For the first time in the history of the existence of nuclear missile weapons, our country is ahead of its competitors in this domain," Patrushev said, according to the state-owned RT television channel.

**

Source:

https://www.newsweek.com/russias-nuclear-weapons-stockpile-compared-us-1841936

 

Economically, BRICS has around half as much clout as NATO at this point, but over 3 times its population:

**

Comparative Analysis

Feature	NATO	BRICS
Type	Military Alliance	Economic Cooperation Bloc
Established	1949	2006 (as BRIC), expanded in 2010
Members	31 countries	10 countries
Total GDP	~$38 trillion	~$17 trillion
Population	~900 million	~3 billion
Focus	Collective defence	Economic growth and cooperation
Demographics	Ageing populations	Younger populations

**

Source:

https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/brics-vs-nato-countries-who-is-more-powerful-check-details-here-1738319004-1

BRICS has only been around for less than 2 decades, however, and its membership continues to grow. It's also important to note that being a member of BRICS doesn't preclude one from being a member of NATO. Furthermore, their focus is economic, not military. Some more information on the differences between BRICS and NATO from the same article:

**

• Formation: Initially formed as BRIC in 2006, with South Africa joining in 2010 to create BRICS. The group aims to enhance the economic and political influence of emerging economies.
• Membership: As of 2024, BRICS includes ten countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Indonesia, and the UAE—representing a significant portion of the world’s population (around 42.58%) and approximately 22% of global GDP.
• Economic Focus: Unlike NATO's military emphasis, BRICS focuses on economic cooperation among its members to promote trade, investment, and development. The bloc seeks to challenge Western dominance in global financial institutions.
• Demographic Advantage: BRICS nations have younger populations compared to many NATO countries. This demographic trend may lead to faster economic growth as BRICS harnesses its large labour force.

**

 

One final thing I'd like to mention is the energy crisis in Europe, which is a direct result of its sanctions on Russia:

Europe Grapples With Energy Crisis, Three Years After Ukraine Invasion | The New York Times

Some have already realized what this means for Russia's war in Ukraine:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-01-31/europe-s-splits-may-help-putin-with-trump-over-war-in-ukraine

Edited February 5 by Scott75
Added information

[Scott75]

15 hours ago, godzilla said:

19 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Let's not leave Russia out of things. And yes, you're right. A lot of the world is tired of the United States' "full-spectrum dominance" arrogance and is in favour of a more multi polar world, as exemplified by the growing support of BRICS. The way I see it, the U.S. really only has 2 choices- it can accept this new reality and join this new system or it can go kicking and screaming as its full spectrum dominance fantasy diminishes. The only real danger is that as it has its tantrums that it takes a good chunk of humanity with it, vis a vis nuclear weapons. Guess we'll see what happens.

i'm sorry... what fabricated political ideological belief system are you coming from?

The United States' military doctrine of full-spectrum dominance is no fabrication. Quoting from Wikipedia's article on the matter:

**

Full-spectrum dominance also known as full-spectrum superiority, is a military entity's achievement of control over all dimensions of the battlespace, effectively possessing an overwhelming diversity of resources in such areas as terrestrial, aerial, maritime, subterranean, extraterrestrial, psychological, and bio- or cyber-technological warfare.

[snip]

US military doctrine

As early as April 2001 the United States Department of Defense defined "full-spectrum superiority" (FSS) as:^[1]

The cumulative effect of dominance in the air, land, maritime, and space domains and information environment, which includes cyberspace, that permits the conduct of joint operations without effective opposition or prohibitive interference.

[snip]

Critics of US imperialism have referred to the term as proof of the ambitions of policymakers in the US and their alleged desire for total control. Harold Pinter referred to the term in his 2005 Nobel Prize in Literature acceptance speech Art, Truth and Politics:^[4]

I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now defined as "full spectrum dominance". That is not my term, it is theirs. "Full spectrum dominance" means control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources.

**

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-spectrum_dominance

15 hours ago, godzilla said:

you're pushing for Make America Poor Again? is that it?

No, I'm pushing for the United States' to recognize the folly of its arrogance in thinking it can tell the world what to do, as well as my hope that the United States' reluctance to acknowledge the failure of this strategy doesn't result in nuclear armageddon. Like the Cuban missile crisis, the Ukraine world has already drawn as perilously close to this. A good example:

https://consortiumnews.com/2024/09/19/scott-ritter-72-hours/

[Scott75]

8 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

on the surface,, it seems ok for the US to stop helping Ukraine in their battle against Russia. Not sure that they will win no matter how much money we siphon that way 

Exactly. Like the United States during the Cuban Missile Crisis, I can't see Russia retreating from its main objectives in Ukraine. That, in turn, has led me to the following conclusion as to the most likely outcomes of this war:

Russia achieves its main objectives in Ukraine, or things escalate to the point of nuclear armageddon. I think most people would prefer the former result.

[Scott75]

21 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

22 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

on the surface,, it seems ok for the US to stop helping Ukraine in their battle against Russia. Not sure that they will win no matter how much money we siphon that way 

Ukraine would have drove out the Russians in 2023, had they been given the permission to use long range weapons to strike into Russian territory.

I sincerely doubt it. Ukraine has long range weapons now and all it's done is increase the likelihood that this war will spiral out of control. As with the United States during the Cuban Missile Crisis, I can't see Russia retreating from its main objectives in Ukraine. I -can- see western elites retreating from -its- main objectives in Ukraine, the primary one being to weaken Russia. I certainly hope they do, as I'd like to avoid nuclear armageddon.

21 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

• (from your post) "It is not as if no one knew about the dangers. From Henry Kissinger to Zbigniew Brzezinski to George Kennan, experienced American statesmen have warned that even talking about Westernizing Ukraine through NATO might be fatal to peace."

Leftists here are pretty immune to that line of reasoning. Their official party line is "THIS WAR JUST STARTED BECAUSE PUTIN IS A BULLY WHO WANTS TO TAKE OVER ALL OF EASTERN EUROPE!!!!" 

Yep. It gets so tiring, especially considering the fact that the writing has been on the wall for about a decade that Ukraine would get wrecked if western elites continued with their policies of trying to weaken Russia.

Edited February 5 by Scott75

[Scott75]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

20 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I support Russia's defense of the people of the Donbass, which I believe was the main reason Russia started its military operation when it did to begin with. Putin himself mentioned the people of the Donbass in the speech he gave on the day he started the military operation in Ukraine. Quoting from it:

**

This brings me to the situation in Donbass. We can see that the forces that staged the coup in Ukraine in 2014 have seized power, are keeping it with the help of ornamental election procedures and have abandoned the path of a peaceful conflict settlement. For eight years, for eight endless years we have been doing everything possible to settle the situation by peaceful political means. Everything was in vain.

As I said in my previous address, you cannot look without compassion at what is happening there. It became impossible to tolerate it. We had to stop that atrocity, that genocide of the millions of people who live there and who pinned their hopes on Russia, on all of us. It is their aspirations, the feelings and pain of these people that were the main motivating force behind our decision to recognise the independence of the Donbass people’s republics.

[snip]

Let me remind you that in 2000–2005 we used our military to push back against terrorists in the Caucasus and stood up for the integrity of our state. We preserved Russia. In 2014, we supported the people of Crimea and Sevastopol. In 2015, we used our Armed Forces to create a reliable shield that prevented terrorists from Syria from penetrating Russia. This was a matter of defending ourselves. We had no other choice.

The same is happening today. They did not leave us any other option for defending Russia and our people, other than the one we are forced to use today. In these circumstances, we have to take bold and immediate action. The people’s republics of Donbass have asked Russia for help.

In this context, in accordance with Article 51 (Chapter VII) of the UN Charter, with permission of Russia’s Federation Council, and in execution of the treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic, ratified by the Federal Assembly on February 22, I made a decision to carry out a special military operation.

The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime. To this end, we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation.

**

Full transcript:

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/statements/67843

 

What I'd like to know is what you know of the Ukrainian civil war prior to Russia's military operation in Ukraine. I highly suspect you haven't seen the following documentary from a german team of journalists:

 

Why not give it a try? Or, if you'd prefer to only read articles on the subject, I recommend the following one from Canadian American journalist Eva Bartlett:

https://www.mintpressnews.com/under-fire-from-ukraine-everyday-life-in-the-donetsk-peoples-republic/262363/

It's cute that you believe Putin is concerned about Donbas "Russians" when he's really after the huge gas reserves off the Southern coast of Ukraine to cement his monopoly over European gas supplies.

Afterall, he is the world's richest kleptocrat.

I've seen no reason to disbelieve Putin's professed concern for the people of Donbass. That being said, I will grant you that had the plight of the Donbass people been his only concern, he may have refrained from starting his military operation in Ukraine. However, he made it clear that this wasn't the case. In the very first sentence of the speech he gave on the day he launched his military operation in Ukraine, he mentioned another reason as well, the security of Russia. Quoting:

**

I consider it necessary today to speak again about the tragic events in Donbass and the key aspects of ensuring the security of Russia.

**

He elaborates on this point in the following paragraphs:

**

I will begin with what I said in my address on February 21, 2022. I spoke about our biggest concerns and worries, and about the fundamental threats which irresponsible Western politicians created for Russia consistently, rudely and unceremoniously from year to year. I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border.

It is a fact that over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns. Its military machine is moving and, as I said, is approaching our very border.

Why is this happening? Where did this insolent manner of talking down from the height of their exceptionalism, infallibility and all-permissiveness come from? What is the explanation for this contemptuous and disdainful attitude to our interests and absolutely legitimate demands?

The answer is simple. Everything is clear and obvious. In the late 1980s, the Soviet Union grew weaker and subsequently broke apart. That experience should serve as a good lesson for us, because it has shown us that the paralysis of power and will is the first step towards complete degradation and oblivion. We lost confidence for only one moment, but it was enough to disrupt the balance of forces in the world.

As a result, the old treaties and agreements are no longer effective. Entreaties and requests do not help. Anything that does not suit the dominant state, the powers that be, is denounced as archaic, obsolete and useless. At the same time, everything it regards as useful is presented as the ultimate truth and forced on others regardless of the cost, abusively and by any means available. Those who refuse to comply are subjected to strong-arm tactics.

What I am saying now does not concern only Russia, and Russia is not the only country that is worried about this. This has to do with the entire system of international relations, and sometimes even US allies. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to a redivision of the world, and the norms of international law that developed by that time – and the most important of them, the fundamental norms that were adopted following WWII and largely formalised its outcome – came in the way of those who declared themselves the winners of the Cold War.

Of course, practice, international relations and the rules regulating them had to take into account the changes that took place in the world and in the balance of forces. However, this should have been done professionally, smoothly, patiently, and with due regard and respect for the interests of all states and one’s own responsibility. Instead, we saw a state of euphoria created by the feeling of absolute superiority, a kind of modern absolutism, coupled with the low cultural standards and arrogance of those who formulated and pushed through decisions that suited only themselves. The situation took a different turn.

**

He then goes on to list several wars that the U.S. and its NATO allies have been involved in recently, starting with NATO's war against Serbia and continuing with the wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria, making a persuasive case that Russia and others have gotten tired of the West's notion that it can do as it pleases wherever it pleases. Putin made it clear in his speech that when it came to Ukraine, western elites had gone too far:

**

Even now, with NATO’s eastward expansion the situation for Russia has been becoming worse and more dangerous by the year. Moreover, these past days NATO leadership has been blunt in its statements that they need to accelerate and step up efforts to bring the alliance’s infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders. In other words, they have been toughening their position. We cannot stay idle and passively observe these developments. This would be an absolutely irresponsible thing to do for us.

Any further expansion of the North Atlantic alliance’s infrastructure or the ongoing efforts to gain a military foothold of the Ukrainian territory are unacceptable for us. Of course, the question is not about NATO itself. It merely serves as a tool of US foreign policy. The problem is that in territories adjacent to Russia, which I have to note is our historical land, a hostile “anti-Russia” is taking shape. Fully controlled from the outside, it is doing everything to attract NATO armed forces and obtain cutting-edge weapons.

For the United States and its allies, it is a policy of containing Russia, with obvious geopolitical dividends. For our country, it is a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a nation. This is not an exaggeration; this is a fact. It is not only a very real threat to our interests but to the very existence of our state and to its sovereignty. It is the red line which we have spoken about on numerous occasions. They have crossed it.

**

Edited February 5 by Scott75

[Barquentine]

3 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Economically, NATO countries have around half as much clout as BRICS

Wha??????

And does it really matter that Russia has 500 more nukes, when we're talking about 5500 or so?

And you can't believe Russia  leads the Us in military might, or in any other important way.

[Scott75]

3 hours ago, Barquentine said:

7 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Economically, NATO countries have around half as much clout as BRICS

Wha??????

Sorry, got that mixed up. It now reads "Economically, BRICS has around half as much clout as NATO at this point, but over 3 times its population."

3 hours ago, Barquentine said:

And does it really matter that Russia has 500 more nukes, when we're talking about 5500 or so?

No, not really. The point is that when it comes to nukes, Russia and its allies are definitely not "so far behind", as you put it. The term for the state of affairs here during the cold war was Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD for short. Wikipedia has an article on it here:

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

The idea being that neither the U.S. or Russia would be so foolish as to initiate initiate a hot conflict with the other, knowing that when if push ever came to shove, everyone would die. The Biden Administration was really testing the limits of just how far it could escalate things before such a result, though. Scott Ritter wrote a very good article about how the Biden Administration tested that limit back in September 2024. It can be seen here:

https://consortiumnews.com/2024/09/19/scott-ritter-72-hours/

That certainly wasn't the only time they tested Russia's resolve, but it may have been the most dangerous period. I wonder if that's actually not true though, due to the fact that further down the line, the United States approved helping Ukraine bomb Russia. Even Trump, who I hardly think of as a genius, had the good sense to denounce the idiocy if this move:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-denounces-biden-decision-let-202630128.html

 

3 hours ago, Barquentine said:

And you can't believe Russia  leads the Us in military might, or in any other important way.

The nukes is more than sufficient.

[WestCanMan]

12 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Ah, so google finally coughed up that link, good. Like many Wikipedia pages, it has its flaws, but it does have some good information, such as the introduction to his biography:

**

Between 1983 and 1990, Jacques Baud was a member of the Swiss Strategic Intelligence Service , in charge of the Warsaw Pact forces east of the Iron Curtain and throughout the world ^1 , 2 .

In 1995, because of his knowledge of Africa and anti -personnel mines , he was assigned to a mission ^3 , 4 with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Goma (then in Zaire ), as head of security for Rwandan refugee camps in Zaire ⁵ , in order to prevent ethnic cleansing . In 1997, he was assigned to found a project to contribute to the fight against anti-personnel mines . He was sent as an expert ⁶ to the Mine Action Service of the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations in New York.

In 2002, he was hired ⁷ at the Centre for International Security Policy (CPSI) at the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs , a newly created Swiss institution. In 2005, the United Nations asked him ⁸ to head ⁹ the first multidisciplinary civil-military intelligence centre ( Joint Mission Analysis Centre (JMAC)) of the United Nations Mission in Sudan ( Khartoum ) ¹⁰ . In 2009-2011, he was called to New York as Chief of Policy and Doctrine ^{11 , 12 , 13} in the Office of Military Affairs of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO). There, he worked in particular on civil-military operations, improving operational intelligence, the integration of women in peacekeeping operations and the protection of civilians. In 2011, he was called by the African Union to head the Research Department ¹⁴ of the International Peace Support Training Centre (IPSTC) in Nairobi ( Kenya ). At the end of his mandate, he was appointed ¹⁵ Head of the fight against the proliferation of small arms and against mines ¹⁶ of the Political Affairs and Security Policy Division at NATO 17 ^, in Brussels.

**

As with many Wikipedia pages, it also has some shoddy research, but that's frequently par for the course when it comes to Wikipedia.

It seems like he's just "some conspiracy nut, that nobody takes seriously" 🤣

I'm gonna go with the unsubstantiated opinion of the anonymous internet shit-poster over the head of blah blah blah and blah blah blah blah blah in all of those different countries and continents.

 

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I sincerely doubt it. Ukraine now has long range weapons now and all it's done is increase the likelihood that this war will spiral out of control.

Who the hell thought that it was a good idea to give Ukraine the ability to strike targets deep within Russia? Talk about 'poking the bear' ffs.

Maybe the US wanted to see if Russia's mach-12 missiles really worked or something. Well now they know.

[Deluge]

13 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Ukraine would have drove out the Russians in 2023, had they been given the permission to use long range weapons to strike into Russian territory.

Russia would've turned Ukraine into a parking lot if they did that. 

I get the feeling that Putin's been pulling his punches on this conflict. 

[Black Dog]

15 hours ago, ironstone said:

If they(Biden/Harris) didn't give Ukraine everything they promised, is that not also kind of leaving Ukraine hanging? Just as you guys are accusing Trump of doing?

Apparently, but you'll find no apologies for Biden from me.

Quote

I'm of the opinion that the best option is to end this war asap and neither Russia or Ukraine will end up getting what they want, but the slaughter should end.

Russia can end the war whenever they want.

[Scott75]

6 hours ago, Deluge said:

Russia would've turned Ukraine into a parking lot if they did that. 

I get the feeling that Putin's been pulling his punches on this conflict. 

Clearly. Unlike Ukraine, which has pined for nuclear weapons since before Russia's military operation even began, Russia has enough to destroy most of the world. Even from a conventional perspective, though, I remember a mainstream media outlet admitting that Putin was pulling his punches. He wasn't even initially hitting dual use infrastructure, such as the Ukrainian power grid. That changed after Ukraine bombed the Crimean bridge. And things intensified again when Ukraine started attacking what I like to call "Old Russia" itself. As I've said in the past, Russia has the capability and the motive to escalate this conflict all the way to armageddon levels. I suspect western elites know this and I -hope- that they won't escalate things to that point. At the same time, they don't want to admit that there's no way that western Ukraine can win. So the war grinds on even though I suspect most people in the intelligence community know how it must inevitably end.

 

Edited February 5 by Scott75

[Moonbox]

59 minutes ago, Deluge said:

I get the feeling that Putin's been pulling his punches on this conflict. 

That's why there are so many cities in Ukraine with no buildings left standing, and why Putin lost almost the entirety of his professional army.  That's why he had to enact conscription and why thousands of his peasant donkey-soldiers die weekly...because Putin's pulling his punches.  

🤣👌