All Things Russia & Ukraine

[old salt]

A "failure of diplomacy".
Yes, true.

Putin's "diplomacy" was indeed a "failure".
...while western diplomacy was such a success in helping Ukraine develop as liberal democracy.
...by offering NATO & EU membership, while fomenting multiple internal revolutions & regime changes.

Again, obviously the West's fault is your position? Not that Putin is a kleptocrat, authoritarian dictator that the Ukrainians realized was the least attractive 'ally' they could have?

The West should have rejected them...

It goes back to before Russia moved into Crimea in 2014. 2x western fomented & funded revolutions & regime changes in 2004 & 2014 with promises of EU & NATO membership.

Belarus is an "ally" of the West??? I missed that.

I did not specify US or NATO allies. I said "allies" which could include Russian allies.
In this war, as a military ally, Belarus serves as Russia's W border (in fact). Freedom of movement & base for attack, transit, supply & intel.

They double the length of NATO's border with Russia (if you include allies like Ukraine & Belarus).

ok, sounded like you were implying that NATO's border was with Russia...Finland and the Swedes were already allied with NATO, so how does their joining NATO double the border (if you include allies like...)
Finland & Sweden did not have NATO Article 5 guarantees. This will double the length of the border with Russia under Article 5 guarantee. Russia's entire W border, when you include satellite ally Belarus.

"western encirclement"??? When are you going to stop spouting Russian propaganda as if reality?
When it ceases to be a reality. Look at a map. When you can't refute reality, call it propaganda.
You ok with Russian missiles in Cuba ?

Gee, does China count as encirclement? India? Southeast Asia?

Sure, Russia is surrounded on all sides...encirclement, by those they don't control...
No comparison. No treaty organizations like NATO w/Article 5 gusrantees.
Numerous allied & compliant former Soviet Republics as buffer states.


I don't know ANYONE, certainly not anyone on here, who is a "rah rah war enthusiast"...none of us wanted this war to happen.
You have repeatedly stated that you are opposed to any outcome short of restoration of Ukraine's 2014 borders, removal of Putin, & war crimes trials. That will require a protracted war with huge costs, destruction, displacement & loss of life.

I'm opposed? Nope, I've simply made clear that I don't think the Ukrainians should be forced, by us, to give up an inch of land or hegemony to the bully if they don't want to...and they don't want to. I'm also in agreement with holding the war criminals to account.

You apparently want us to force the Ukrainians to cede land, valuable territory and resources, to the bully and to stop whining about war crimes...under the absolutely ridiculous notion, IMO, that Putin will ever keep his word to back off at that point.

Get real. That was Team Biden's position at the start, encouraging Zelensky to leave & set up a govt in exile. We never expected Russia to give back all territory & we still don't, we just can't admit it. We were stunned by how inept Russia was & how well the Ukrainians resisted. We are seizing the opportunity to degrade Russia's military by funding & supplying our Ukrainian proxies who are doing the fighting & dying. Putin is not the only cynical player in extending this war.

The question, though, given Putin's "failure of diplomacy", is do we want Ukraine to win or to lose? Do we want Putin to win or to lose?
Ukraine has already won by thwarting Russia's invasion in the N & limiting their advance in the S, ensuring their survival as a viable nation. That was not assured at the start. They are now fighting to establish the cease fire line. Putin has already lost by degrading his military, revealing it's weakness & vulnerabilities, uniting & expanding NATO, while making Russia a pariah nation.
Your definition of winning is not realistic. It is a dangerous overreach to pursue it.

Maybe, but let's hope you're wrong because the Ukrainians are very, very clear that they want to fight to win.

I know which side I'm on.
The dogmatic, unattainable side.

And you're on the side of appeasement.

And you're happy to fight until the last Ukrainian's death. It's not our fight. It's not a threat to us. We have no treaty obligation. It's not appeasement to seek a cease fire on terms much better than expected when the war started, which guarantees Ukraine's survival & prevents further slaughter, destruction & displacement. We are not bystanders. We are prolonging this war to serve our own interests.

[MDlaxfan76]

A "failure of diplomacy".
Yes, true.

Putin's "diplomacy" was indeed a "failure".
...while western diplomacy was such a success in helping Ukraine develop as liberal democracy.
...by offering NATO & EU membership, while fomenting multiple internal revolutions & regime changes.

Again, obviously the West's fault is your position? Not that Putin is a kleptocrat, authoritarian dictator that the Ukrainians realized was the least attractive 'ally' they could have?

The West should have rejected them...

It goes back to before Russia moved into Crimea in 2014. 2x western fomented & funded revolutions & regime changes in 2004 & 2014 with promises of EU & NATO membership.

Nope, it 'began' with Putin's Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008. And the West's failure to support Georgia, because "they don't have Article 5 protection" That sent the signal that any former Soviet vassal was vulnerable, absent joining NATO. They've all been trying to figure it out ever since.

Belarus is an "ally" of the West??? I missed that.

I did not specify US or NATO allies. I said "allies" which could include Russian allies.
In this war, as a military ally, Belarus serves as Russia's W border (in fact). Freedom of movement & base for attack, transit, supply & intel.

They double the length of NATO's border with Russia (if you include allies like Ukraine & Belarus).

ok, sounded like you were implying that NATO's border was with Russia...Finland and the Swedes were already allied with NATO, so how does their joining NATO double the border (if you include allies like...)
Finland & Sweden did not have NATO Article 5 guarantees. This will double the length of the border with Russia under Article 5 guarantee. Russia's entire W border, when you include satellite ally Belarus.

Yup, they "did not have NATO Article 5 guarantees"...now, they know how important it is to have them, given Putin's "diplomacy".

"western encirclement"??? When are you going to stop spouting Russian propaganda as if reality?
When it ceases to be a reality. Look at a map. When you can't refute reality, call it propaganda.
You ok with Russian missiles in Cuba ?

Gee, does China count as encirclement? India? Southeast Asia?

Sure, Russia is surrounded on all sides...encirclement, by those they don't control...
No comparison. No treaty organizations like NATO w/Article 5 gusrantees.
Numerous allied & compliant former Soviet Republics as buffer states.

No comparison? with what? What do you think "encirclement" means? They've not encircled, they'd threatened (destroyed, murdered thousands) neighbors to their west and NATO, which is on their west, is being sought for Article 5 protection...boo hoo Russia, lesson? Don't invade neighbors.


I don't know ANYONE, certainly not anyone on here, who is a "rah rah war enthusiast"...none of us wanted this war to happen.
You have repeatedly stated that you are opposed to any outcome short of restoration of Ukraine's 2014 borders, removal of Putin, & war crimes trials. That will require a protracted war with huge costs, destruction, displacement & loss of life.

I'm opposed? Nope, I've simply made clear that I don't think the Ukrainians should be forced, by us, to give up an inch of land or hegemony to the bully if they don't want to...and they don't want to. I'm also in agreement with holding the war criminals to account.

You apparently want us to force the Ukrainians to cede land, valuable territory and resources, to the bully and to stop whining about war crimes...under the absolutely ridiculous notion, IMO, that Putin will ever keep his word to back off at that point.

Get real. That was Team Biden's position at the start, encouraging Zelensky to leave & set up a govt in exile. We never expected Russia to give back all territory & we still don't, we just can't admit it. We were stunned by how inept Russia was & how well the Ukrainians resisted. We are seizing the opportunity to degrade Russia's military by funding & supplying our Ukrainian proxies who are doing the fighting & dying. Putin is not the only cynical player in extending this war.

Ok, so now you're gonna sell that the US (under Biden) wanted Ukraine to fall? Zelensky "in exile" (yes, that was discussed rather than his murder). Sure, "we" thought that Russia was stronger and the Ukrainians would be unable to stop them. Yes, we were surprised at Ukraine's resolve and effectiveness, though we knew that we'd trained their military well, armed them with the tactics to fight effectively.

Ok, so you simply want to call the Biden Admin "cynical"...

The question, though, given Putin's "failure of diplomacy", is do we want Ukraine to win or to lose? Do we want Putin to win or to lose?
Ukraine has already won by thwarting Russia's invasion in the N & limiting their advance in the S, ensuring their survival as a viable nation. That was not assured at the start. They are now fighting to establish the cease fire line. Putin has already lost by degrading his military, revealing it's weakness & vulnerabilities, uniting & expanding NATO, while making Russia a pariah nation.

This is such BS. Ukraine will have "lost" badly, Putin will have "won" major territorial gains, bullies beat weaker neighbors, and they'll simply be back for more...where you are unrealistic is that there's no way Ukraine will agree to let Russia stay in Ukraine...and they shouldn't have to do so, just because Russia has nuclear weapons.

Your definition of winning is not realistic. It is a dangerous overreach to pursue it.

Maybe, but let's hope you're wrong because the Ukrainians are very, very clear that they want to fight to win.

I know which side I'm on.
The dogmatic, unattainable side.

And you're on the side of appeasement.

And you're happy to fight until the last Ukrainian's death. It's not our fight. It's not a threat to us. We have no treaty obligation. It's not appeasement to seek a cease fire on terms much better than expected when the war started, which guarantees Ukraine's survival & prevents further slaughter, destruction & displacement. We are not bystanders. We are prolonging this war to serve our own interests.

BS, again. I'm not "happy" about a darn thing, much less the brutality the Ukrainians are undergoing in defense of their country and their lives.

[DocBarrister]

A "failure of diplomacy".
Yes, true.

Putin's "diplomacy" was indeed a "failure".
...while western diplomacy was such a success in helping Ukraine develop as liberal democracy.
...by offering NATO & EU membership, while fomenting multiple internal revolutions & regime changes.

Again, obviously the West's fault is your position? Not that Putin is a kleptocrat, authoritarian dictator that the Ukrainians realized was the least attractive 'ally' they could have?

The West should have rejected them...

It goes back to before Russia moved into Crimea in 2014. 2x western fomented & funded revolutions & regime changes in 2004 & 2014 with promises of EU & NATO membership.

Belarus is an "ally" of the West??? I missed that.

I did not specify US or NATO allies. I said "allies" which could include Russian allies.
In this war, as a military ally, Belarus serves as Russia's W border (in fact). Freedom of movement & base for attack, transit, supply & intel.

They double the length of NATO's border with Russia (if you include allies like Ukraine & Belarus).

ok, sounded like you were implying that NATO's border was with Russia...Finland and the Swedes were already allied with NATO, so how does their joining NATO double the border (if you include allies like...)
Finland & Sweden did not have NATO Article 5 guarantees. This will double the length of the border with Russia under Article 5 guarantee. Russia's entire W border, when you include satellite ally Belarus.

"western encirclement"??? When are you going to stop spouting Russian propaganda as if reality?
When it ceases to be a reality. Look at a map. When you can't refute reality, call it propaganda.
You ok with Russian missiles in Cuba ?

Gee, does China count as encirclement? India? Southeast Asia?

Sure, Russia is surrounded on all sides...encirclement, by those they don't control...
No comparison. No treaty organizations like NATO w/Article 5 gusrantees.
Numerous allied & compliant former Soviet Republics as buffer states.


I don't know ANYONE, certainly not anyone on here, who is a "rah rah war enthusiast"...none of us wanted this war to happen.
You have repeatedly stated that you are opposed to any outcome short of restoration of Ukraine's 2014 borders, removal of Putin, & war crimes trials. That will require a protracted war with huge costs, destruction, displacement & loss of life.

I'm opposed? Nope, I've simply made clear that I don't think the Ukrainians should be forced, by us, to give up an inch of land or hegemony to the bully if they don't want to...and they don't want to. I'm also in agreement with holding the war criminals to account.

You apparently want us to force the Ukrainians to cede land, valuable territory and resources, to the bully and to stop whining about war crimes...under the absolutely ridiculous notion, IMO, that Putin will ever keep his word to back off at that point.

Get real. That was Team Biden's position at the start, encouraging Zelensky to leave & set up a govt in exile. We never expected Russia to give back all territory & we still don't, we just can't admit it. We were stunned by how inept Russia was & how well the Ukrainians resisted. We are seizing the opportunity to degrade Russia's military by funding & supplying our Ukrainian proxies who are doing the fighting & dying. Putin is not the only cynical player in extending this war.

The question, though, given Putin's "failure of diplomacy", is do we want Ukraine to win or to lose? Do we want Putin to win or to lose?
Ukraine has already won by thwarting Russia's invasion in the N & limiting their advance in the S, ensuring their survival as a viable nation. That was not assured at the start. They are now fighting to establish the cease fire line. Putin has already lost by degrading his military, revealing it's weakness & vulnerabilities, uniting & expanding NATO, while making Russia a pariah nation.
Your definition of winning is not realistic. It is a dangerous overreach to pursue it.

Maybe, but let's hope you're wrong because the Ukrainians are very, very clear that they want to fight to win.

I know which side I'm on.
The dogmatic, unattainable side.

And you're on the side of appeasement.

And you're happy to fight until the last Ukrainian's death. It's not our fight. It's not a threat to us. We have no treaty obligation. It's not appeasement to seek a cease fire on terms much better than expected when the war started, which guarantees Ukraine's survival & prevents further slaughter, destruction & displacement. We are not bystanders. We are prolonging this war to serve our own interests.

You think Putin would actually accept a cease-fire where he has to guarantee Ukraine’s survival?

Has your pro-Putin, pro-Russian perspective blinded you so completely to reality?

Putin, and Putin alone, is the main reason this war goes on.

DocBarrister

[Brooklyn]

Known to whom???

Google is your best pal: https://www.google.com/search?q=ukraine ... e&ie=UTF-8


130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling approximately 1,700 warheads remained on Ukrainian territory.

[Brooklyn]

And you're happy to fight until the last Ukrainian's death. It's not our fight. It's not a threat to us. We have no treaty obligation. It's not appeasement to seek a cease fire on terms much better than expected when the war started, which guarantees Ukraine's survival & prevents further slaughter, destruction & displacement. We are not bystanders. We are prolonging this war to serve our own interests.

The plain truth that so many pro war types cannot seem to grasp. They want another war, ostensibly to prevent "appeasement" when in reality it is to fatten up their military industrial complex portfolios.

Key board warriors who want a war are free to join the Ukraine Legion which is an option none ever choose as it is not ideally convenient.

[dislaxxic]

..

[MDlaxfan76]

Known to whom???

Google is your best pal: https://www.google.com/search?q=ukraine ... e&ie=UTF-8


130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling approximately 1,700 warheads remained on Ukrainian territory.

If you're gonna cite something, you gotta read it.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine held about one third of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, the third largest in the world at the time, as well as significant means of its design and production.[2] 130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling approximately 1,700 warheads remained on Ukrainian territory.[3] Formally, these weapons were controlled by the Commonwealth of Independent States.[4] In 1994, Ukraine agreed to destroy the weapons, and to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).[5][6]

It goes on to describe Ukraine's denuclearization. Including Russia's and the West's promises in exchange.

[Brooklyn]

If you're gonna cite something, you gotta read it.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine held about one third of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, the third largest in the world at the time, as well as significant means of its design and production.[2] 130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling approximately 1,700 warheads remained on Ukrainian territory.[3] Formally, these weapons were controlled by the Commonwealth of Independent States.[4] In 1994, Ukraine agreed to destroy the weapons, and to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).[5][6]

It goes on to describe Ukraine's denuclearization. Including Russia's and the West's promises in exchange.

As Will Rogers said, all I know is what I read in the newspapers.

And as I think about it, I'm sure that Biden will provide a few nukes in his $40 billion relief package for them. Based on the news I've read Ukes are winning their war so there's nothing to worry about.

[a fan]

It's not our fight. It's not a threat to us. We have no treaty obligation. It's not appeasement to seek a cease fire on terms much better than expected when the war started, which guarantees Ukraine's survival & prevents further slaughter, destruction & displacement. We are not bystanders.

Agree with all of this.

We are prolonging this war to serve our own interests

Disagree. We're doing the best we can without getting Putin to use nuclear weapons. Our hands are tied because of this.

If Putin didn't have nukes? We'd roll in and crush the Russian forces. Or lob missiles into Moscow until they surrendered. Or any number of alternatives like that.

[old salt]

It's not our fight. It's not a threat to us. We have no treaty obligation. It's not appeasement to seek a cease fire on terms much better than expected when the war started, which guarantees Ukraine's survival & prevents further slaughter, destruction & displacement. We are not bystanders.

Agree with all of this.

We are prolonging this war to serve our own interests

Disagree. We're doing the best we can without getting Putin to use nuclear weapons. Our hands are tied because of this.

If Putin didn't have nukes? We'd roll in and crush the Russian forces. Or lob missiles into Moscow until they surrendered. Or any number of alternatives like that.

...& if pigs had wings they would fly. Putin would not have invaded if he did not have a nuclear deterrent.

You think our massive amount of military & financial aid + tactical intell is not prolonging this war ?

[old salt]

You think Putin would actually accept a cease-fire where he has to guarantee Ukraine’s survival?

A cease fire in place is not a final settlement. Frozen conflict.

[MDlaxfan76]

If you're gonna cite something, you gotta read it.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine held about one third of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, the third largest in the world at the time, as well as significant means of its design and production.[2] 130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling approximately 1,700 warheads remained on Ukrainian territory.[3] Formally, these weapons were controlled by the Commonwealth of Independent States.[4] In 1994, Ukraine agreed to destroy the weapons, and to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).[5][6]

It goes on to describe Ukraine's denuclearization. Including Russia's and the West's promises in exchange.

As Will Rogers said, all I know is what I read in the newspapers.

And as I think about it, I'm sure that Biden will provide a few nukes in his $40 billion relief package for them. Based on the news I've read Ukes are winning their war so there's nothing to worry about.

Am I to understand that you're saying, "oops", I now realize that Ukraine gave up all its nukes (they never actually had operational control, but they did have physical possession) back in 1994 in exchange for promises of protection from both Russia and the West?

Oops?

Nope, I don't think Biden, the US, or anyone else in NATO wants Ukraine to have nuclear weapons, but it's why Ukraine wants to be aligned with, under the umbrella of, NATO. Same for Finland and Sweden.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Putin is threatening to use their nukes to subdue Ukraine if they can't otherwise pound them into submission.

Also of benefit for any of these countries concerned with Russian aggression, is the conventional support NATO could bring to bear, swiftly and overwhelmingly, should they choose to do...and are obligated to do so for any NATO member.

Message, don't attack your neighbor, a-holes.

[MDlaxfan76]

You think Putin would actually accept a cease-fire where he has to guarantee Ukraine’s survival?

A cease fire in place is not a final settlement. Frozen conflict.

Great for re-arming, re-positioning.

[MDlaxfan76]

It's not our fight. It's not a threat to us. We have no treaty obligation. It's not appeasement to seek a cease fire on terms much better than expected when the war started, which guarantees Ukraine's survival & prevents further slaughter, destruction & displacement. We are not bystanders.

Agree with all of this.

We are prolonging this war to serve our own interests

Disagree. We're doing the best we can without getting Putin to use nuclear weapons. Our hands are tied because of this.

If Putin didn't have nukes? We'd roll in and crush the Russian forces. Or lob missiles into Moscow until they surrendered. Or any number of alternatives like that.

...& if pigs had wings they would fly. Putin would not have invaded if he did not have a nuclear deterrent.

You think our massive amount of military & financial aid + tactical intell is not prolonging this war ?

Versus Ukraine simply losing fast?

Sure. We're "prolonging the war"...

Putin wouldn't have invaded if he didn't have a nuclear deterrent...and Ukraine doesn't...yup. Does that mean that Russia simply rolls anyone not in NATO and without a nuclear deterrent of their own?

[old salt]

You think Putin would actually accept a cease-fire where he has to guarantee Ukraine’s survival?

A cease fire in place is not a final settlement. Frozen conflict.

Great for re-arming, re-positioning.

For both sides. Which would keep the conflict frozen. Ukraine would have more time to incorporate western weapons systems.

[old salt]

Putin wouldn't have invaded if he didn't have a nuclear deterrent...and Ukraine doesn't...yup. Does that mean that Russia simply rolls anyone not in NATO and without a nuclear deterrent of their own?

He does not need to. His other neighbors are compliant supplicants. That's why Finland is rushing into NATO>

[MDlaxfan76]

You think Putin would actually accept a cease-fire where he has to guarantee Ukraine’s survival?

A cease fire in place is not a final settlement. Frozen conflict.

Great for re-arming, re-positioning.

For both sides. Which would keep the conflict frozen. Ukraine would have more time to incorporate western weapons systems.

Where they getting those?
I thought we needed to cut them off in order to force them to the table...

Sure, it would be great if Russia withdrew and there was a "ceasefire" ...then...But, there are an awful lot of civilians left in those areas they currently hold they can rape and murder under a "cease fire".

And there's no way either side is gonna stop shooting as long as either side thinks they can win, much less as long as the Ukrainians (rightfully) believe they are fighting to save the lives of their fellow countrymen.

There can never be any trust in Putin's word. Never.

[MDlaxfan76]

Putin wouldn't have invaded if he didn't have a nuclear deterrent...and Ukraine doesn't...yup. Does that mean that Russia simply rolls anyone not in NATO and without a nuclear deterrent of their own?

He does not need to. His other neighbors are compliant supplicants. That's why Finland is rushing into NATO>

That's "rolled"...gotta be a "compliant supplicant" else we'll roll the tanks, bomb your cities, rape your women, commit mass murder...

Listen, we were all hoping that Russia would stop with their former Soviet empire ways, but Putin's not letting go.

[old salt]

You think Putin would actually accept a cease-fire where he has to guarantee Ukraine’s survival?

A cease fire in place is not a final settlement. Frozen conflict.

Great for re-arming, re-positioning.

For both sides. Which would keep the conflict frozen. Ukraine would have more time to incorporate western weapons systems.

Where they getting those?
I thought we needed to cut them off in order to force them to the table...

Sure, it would be great if Russia withdrew and there was a "ceasefire" ...then...But, there are an awful lot of civilians left in those areas they currently hold they can rape and murder under a "cease fire".

And there's no way either side is gonna stop shooting as long as either side thinks they can win, much less as long as the Ukrainians (rightfully) believe they are fighting to save the lives of their fellow countrymen.

There can never be any trust in Putin's word. Never.

I never said we should stop the aid. We should use it as leverage to force the Ukrainians to reduce their demands & negotiate a cease fire in place rather than echoing the unattainable goal of recovering all lost territory. That is an open ended, unrealistic condition & obligation.

[old salt]

Putin wouldn't have invaded if he didn't have a nuclear deterrent...and Ukraine doesn't...yup. Does that mean that Russia simply rolls anyone not in NATO and without a nuclear deterrent of their own?

He does not need to. His other neighbors are compliant supplicants. That's why Finland is rushing into NATO>

That's "rolled"...gotta be a "compliant supplicant" else we'll roll the tanks, bomb your cities, rape your women, commit mass murder...

Listen, we were all hoping that Russia would stop with their former Soviet empire ways, but Putin's not letting go.

...& you think we're going to change that by prolonging the war until much of Ukraine is destroyed.
The effects of this war are damaging the west as well as Russia.

What's next on your agenda ? US fomented color revolutions & regime changes in Belarus & the 'stans ?