All Things Russia & Ukraine

[old salt]

Fine. I'm done, happily.

Because actually exchanging ideas is a bridge too far for you?

It's too bad we lost all those conversations we had in the early years of laxpower...you and I had NO PROBLEM doing that.

I could show you how much you've changed.

You don't get to tell me how or what to post. You have the same option you have always had: I'll treat you how you treat me, and treat others. Act nice, get nice. Act pompous, get pompous. Be condescending, you get it right back. Make partisan posts, you get 'em right back. Troll, and I troll back.

Same as it ever was. You control the postings, my man. It's up to you......

In other words, you won't troll or hector, so long as I tell you what you want to hear.
The whole tone & tenor here is markedly different than it was on LP. It has become anti-social media.
You think you're not pompous & condescending & don't make partisan posts.

Well look who caught on! Good for you!

Why? Why am I pompous, condescending, and making partisan posts with you? Or Pete, when he was here?

(and you left out trolling)

That's right....the tone and tenor is different than it was on early LP. You didn't notice how much you changed since Trump arrived, like a frog getting slowly boiled in water on a stove.

It's up to YOU how I post. I return fire. That's it. Nothing more. Don't like being fired on? Don't shoot.....simple.

I haven't changed. Trump was the first Pres candidate since Pat Buchanan & Ross Perot who agreed with the policies which were most important to me. Despite the fact that he's a despicable human, Trump was legitimately elected. The way he was sabotaged & undermined was a revelation to me & altered my perspective toward the govt-media establishment. I've always held these views about Russia, NATO & post-cold war peaceful coexistence. Nobody else paid attention until Russia invaded a year ago.

When you say "don't shoot", you mean don't post anything you disagree with.
You might ask yourself if Trump has impacted the way you attack others.
I know you miss Rush, but you still need someone to vent about.

[MDlaxfan76]

Trump is not simply a despicable human being, he earned the suspicion he drew about his dealings with Russia, by lying about such so vociferously and so frequently, while brazenly calling for support from Russia.

At the same time, Russia was actively seeking to create division in America and found an immensely useful tool in Trump.

NONE of that was made up by those who were suspicious.

Salty is willfully blind to all this because it undercuts the notion all of his supposed "policy" preferences on a host of issues, whether foreign or domestic.

The policy positions, whether Confederate monuments or isolationism of pro- nationalist authoritarian movements around the world (but not China), are ugly and wrong IMO on their own basis, but Trump's embrace of these were seductive to Salty.

So...we get all the Deep State nonsense...undercut media, undercut trust in government institutions, undercut law enforcement institutions, all in favor of the 'strong man' alternative, are the authoritarian playbook...and Salty has been an eager participant.

[Farfromgeneva]

He didn't want to confront NATO until it was further divided and weakened, as influenced by Trump.

Those are not my words. That's what happens when you chop up others' posts.

And folks complain about your use of shades of color too.....too hard to read, and yields posts that are miles long.

Happy to apologize for the mistake, though. I'm sorry about that mistake.

I’ll pile in here as I think breaking up an argument into pieces is problematic as it can distort the essence fog eh entirety of a thought.

Don’t like the color in someone else’s post either.

Then again Peter Vanilla Nut Taps Brown cried on his way out as a flamer about the length of stories I drop in here so we’re all guilty of something.

[Farfromgeneva]

He didn't want to confront NATO until it was further divided and weakened, as influenced by Trump.

Those are not my words. That's what happens when you chop up others' posts.

And folks complain about your use of shades of color too.....too hard to read, and yields posts that are miles long.

Happy to apologize for the mistake, though. I'm sorry about that mistake.

Stop chopping up my posts & I won't have to resort to a different color to respond.
They'll be shorter if you stop responding to my every post & repeating the same points & arguments I've already answered.
Stop hectoring me & I won't have to respond. Let me express my opinion as I do with you.
Stop posting what you think I think or say, using me to vent your angst against Fox & others, & I won't need to respond.

That’s BS because you just did it on a complete post to MD. “I’ll have to resort to..”

[Farfromgeneva]

Trump is not simply a despicable human being, he earned the suspicion he drew about his dealings with Russia, by lying about such so vociferously and so frequently, while brazenly calling for support from Russia.

At the same time, Russia was actively seeking to create division in America and found an immensely useful tool in Trump.

NONE of that was made up by those who were suspicious.

Salty is willfully blind to all this because it undercuts the notion all of his supposed "policy" preferences on a host of issues, whether foreign or domestic.

The policy positions, whether Confederate monuments or isolationism of pro- nationalist authoritarian movements around the world (but not China), are ugly and wrong IMO on their own basis, but Trump's embrace of these were seductive to Salty.

So...we get all the Deep State nonsense...undercut media, undercut trust in government institutions, undercut law enforcement institutions, all in favor of the 'strong man' alternative, are the authoritarian playbook...and Salty has been an eager participant.

Soros, govt-media conspiracy etc. it’s dumb and petty and nonsensical.

[MDlaxfan76]

I disagree.
I think Putin had expected to 'take' Ukraine without spilling significant Russian blood, just needed to be patient.

This is plainly wrong.

If Putin wanted Ukraine this whole time, the time to do it was during the cakewalk that was Crimea. Take a sharp right with his troops, and boom, he's in Kiev. He had already shown his hand, so why the F not? Ukraine was all but unarmed.

And his toady was running things in Ukraine at the time, correct? And no one had armed or trained them.

He didn't want to confront NATO until it was further divided and weakened, as influenced by Trump.

You have two choices: you have to follow logic for Putin's actions. )r, if you prefer, admit we have no clue why Putin did what, when...because he's an idiot.

So if you chose that he's rational:

1. He invaded Crimea in 2014. NATO did nothing. This gets rid of the idea that Putin had plans on Ukraine. He obviously didn't. If he did, he would have invaded Ukraine at the same time, or shortly after he invaded Crimea. The man's not gonna live forever, and if the plan is to restore Soviet glory, he doesn't have time to mess around. So, unless you can explain why he didn't do that in 2014-----yet he did in 2022? Putin didn't PLAN on invading Ukraine from the outset.

Further, Putin's toady was running Ukraine at the time. It makes ZERO sense, therefore, for Putin to not turn his tanks toward Kiev, and take what he wants.

2. Given that he didn't do that, that tells you that Ukraine wasn't part of his overall plan. So you then have to ask: what changed that prompted Putin to go for Ukraine?

It's obvious that it was when America started arming them that Putin decided to act. There's no other answer. Losing an election to Zelensky just isn't a big deal....Putin still had power in Ukraine. And if was Zelensky that was the trigger, he would have invaded way back in 2019. If threats of NATO was the the trigger, Putin would have invaded at any point during his tenure....because that was on deck at any time.

Therefore, it was the prospect of US Arms and a US puppet government that got Putin to invade. Well that, and the fact that he's an idiot.

How's the ol GDP doin', Vladimir? Whoops.

Again, I disagree.

You are creating a straw man logic that deals in absolutes, not reality, IMO. It's not a straw man. You (and old salt) are telling us thaty you KNOW what prompted Putin to invade. If you're going to do that, you have to give us a reason that fits everything that happened. Neither of you can.

Neither of you can tell me why Putin didn't invade Ukraine at the same time that he took Crimea. OS tells us that it's all the same country...but apprarently not, or Putin would have driven straight through Ukraine in a line of tanks, and have dinner with his Puppet in Kiev before nightfall.
Neither of you can tell me why he didn't do that.....so sorry, you're both wrong.

Neither of us can prove either view, If that what you and OS want to concede? Great. Then stop telling us why Putin did what he did. Because neither of you know if I can't know. but it seems to me that Vlad has been moving piece by piece but did not want to trigger direct military action...as long as he had non military means to achieve his objectives of restoring the Russian Empire.

Which he did have happening, piece by piece. Until Zelensky plus Biden. It was then clear the 'operation' to undermine democracy was not going to happen in time.

Military action is enormously expensive, in all sorts of ways, and I don't think Vlad is a dummy nor crazy, albeit his 'dream' is delusional. So, that was his preferred path...until he grew impatient...and/or needed to control his ultranationalists with more direct action.

But of course Ukraine was always part of his expansion plan, he said so more than a decade ago and every time he's gone deep on the topic since. According to him, it's Russian territory...ALL of it.

I think I've answered this repeatedly.

IMO, Putin purposely avoided military conflict when taking Crimea.

The 'little green men' deniability was hardly Russian tanks rolling into Ukraine, guns ablazing.

Putin knew that military action was extremely expensive, so he took the limited action...and was immensely successful.

Remember, the gameplan was to undermine and divide NATO as much as possible, while 'taking' more and more of the prior Russian Empire into his fold. Political hegemony being much less expensive than tanks.

Part of that strategy was to increase European dependency on Russian commodities, especially energy, and to build as large a financial war chest as possible. That was working really, really well, and spooking the Europeans with a direct military invasion could have spooked that effort (as it ultimately did).

Putin was also building alliances with various players, including strange bedfellows like the authoritarians in Saudi Arabia and the authoritarians in Iran...and with Israel as well...

And he was investing financially in the support of right wing authoritarianism in eastern Europe and even here in the US. Undermining democracies.

But with Trump's loss a major element of that strategy was lost, and indeed NATO had already become more cohesive as Biden shored up relationships.

Meanwhile, Putin had progressively cracked down on all domestic opposition, jailing, killing any political opposition, and crushing any open media. That's a process, even in Russia, so not accomplished overnight...but in the past couple of years he'd managed to tighten the screws way down versus where he was in 2014.

The Europeans had been shocked by the Trump years and remained divided though mollified by Biden to some extent. Putin grossly miscalculated by invading, but I think the isolation of Covid, the financial damage done, and the frustration of not being able to make more progress in flipping Ukraine politically, led to the decision to do what I think he really thought would be such a quick strike and win that he could get away with it before the West could respond effectively.

I think he expected sanctions, but knew his sovereign wealth fund deep pockets could withstand those pressures...and he expected European energy dependence to overwhelm any stronger reaction.

He was partly right as our reactions were pretty weak at first. But he didn't understand how inept his own forces were and he didn't understand Ukrainian resolve with Zelensky's leadership (which he'd underestimated)...and once that became evident, the West, especially with Biden's leadership, stepped up.

[Typical Lax Dad]

He didn't want to confront NATO until it was further divided and weakened, as influenced by Trump.

Those are not my words. That's what happens when you chop up others' posts.

And folks complain about your use of shades of color too.....too hard to read, and yields posts that are miles long.

Happy to apologize for the mistake, though. I'm sorry about that mistake.

Stop chopping up my posts & I won't have to resort to a different color to respond.
They'll be shorter if you stop responding to my every post & repeating the same points & arguments I've already answered.
Stop hectoring me & I won't have to respond. Let me express my opinion as I do with you.
Stop posting what you think I think or say, using me to vent your angst against Fox & others, & I won't need to respond.

That’s BS because you just did it on a complete post to MD. “I’ll have to resort to..”

His history belies his contemporary comments.

[PizzaSnake]

FWIW, it's a good thing I didn't accept that full-ride NROTC scholarship, because there is no way I would have put up with such a bunch of sniveling ass-clowns as what seems to populate the US Navy. That and my father warned me about what a bunch of stuffed-shirt twats Academy boys were. He was a non-Academy flag officer. How about you, swabbie, you command a ship? Or did you catch a ride on someone else's ship? Then maybe commanded a desk? Or maybe you saw yourself as an Admiral Holloway (III) type? That it?

:lol: ...I don't know how we got by without you. I went to sea, flying from the decks of frigates & destroyers. They were commanded by Surface Warfare Officers, not by Naval Aviators. I spent my entire career in operational flying billets, flying aircraft, not desks. Thanks for asking.
NROTC scholarships are not full rides. You have to pay your own room & board. Depends on the school attended, as those provisions are often granted by the institution. I sent a $25 dorm deposit to Georgia Tech before I got a telegram from USNA. I was also accepted & approved for admission at Purdue & RPI, but Boddy Dodd sent me an invitation to come our for freshman football at GT.

Yeah, I can see the Navy has been quite the bang-up fcuking success. Can't even run it vessels (little problems navigating without collision) or its acquisitions (Littoral Combat Shites) for shite. Or, maybe the stellar behavior of its leadership evidenced by the Tailhook fiasco or its maintenance and operations (Fat Leonard).

You really want to go with the position that it has been anything other than a unmitigated disaster? Good thing the Soviet Union collapsed, otherwise we'd have been screwed.

But you're right. My presence couldn't have overcome the imbecilic inertia of the ring-knockers like you. Which is why I decided, rationally, not to involve myself with such a circus.

Why don't you entertain me and others here with a point-by-point refutation of my charges of incompetence and arrogance?

[DocBarrister]

Excellent interview with Gen. Petraeus.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/14/opinions ... index.html

DocBarrister

[cradleandshoot]

I disagree.
I think Putin had expected to 'take' Ukraine without spilling significant Russian blood, just needed to be patient.

This is plainly wrong.

If Putin wanted Ukraine this whole time, the time to do it was during the cakewalk that was Crimea. Take a sharp right with his troops, and boom, he's in Kiev. He had already shown his hand, so why the F not? Ukraine was all but unarmed.

And his toady was running things in Ukraine at the time, correct? And no one had armed or trained them.

He didn't want to confront NATO until it was further divided and weakened, as influenced by Trump.

You have two choices: you have to follow logic for Putin's actions. )r, if you prefer, admit we have no clue why Putin did what, when...because he's an idiot.

So if you chose that he's rational:

1. He invaded Crimea in 2014. NATO did nothing. This gets rid of the idea that Putin had plans on Ukraine. He obviously didn't. If he did, he would have invaded Ukraine at the same time, or shortly after he invaded Crimea. The man's not gonna live forever, and if the plan is to restore Soviet glory, he doesn't have time to mess around. So, unless you can explain why he didn't do that in 2014-----yet he did in 2022? Putin didn't PLAN on invading Ukraine from the outset.

Further, Putin's toady was running Ukraine at the time. It makes ZERO sense, therefore, for Putin to not turn his tanks toward Kiev, and take what he wants.

2. Given that he didn't do that, that tells you that Ukraine wasn't part of his overall plan. So you then have to ask: what changed that prompted Putin to go for Ukraine?

It's obvious that it was when America started arming them that Putin decided to act. There's no other answer. Losing an election to Zelensky just isn't a big deal....Putin still had power in Ukraine. And if was Zelensky that was the trigger, he would have invaded way back in 2019. If threats of NATO was the the trigger, Putin would have invaded at any point during his tenure....because that was on deck at any time.

Therefore, it was the prospect of US Arms and a US puppet government that got Putin to invade. Well that, and the fact that he's an idiot.

How's the ol GDP doin', Vladimir? Whoops.

Again, I disagree.

You are creating a straw man logic that deals in absolutes, not reality, IMO. It's not a straw man. You (and old salt) are telling us thaty you KNOW what prompted Putin to invade. If you're going to do that, you have to give us a reason that fits everything that happened. Neither of you can.

Neither of you can tell me why Putin didn't invade Ukraine at the same time that he took Crimea. OS tells us that it's all the same country...but apprarently not, or Putin would have driven straight through Ukraine in a line of tanks, and have dinner with his Puppet in Kiev before nightfall.
Neither of you can tell me why he didn't do that.....so sorry, you're both wrong.

Neither of us can prove either view, If that what you and OS want to concede? Great. Then stop telling us why Putin did what he did. Because neither of you know if I can't know. but it seems to me that Vlad has been moving piece by piece but did not want to trigger direct military action...as long as he had non military means to achieve his objectives of restoring the Russian Empire.

Which he did have happening, piece by piece. Until Zelensky plus Biden. It was then clear the 'operation' to undermine democracy was not going to happen in time.

Military action is enormously expensive, in all sorts of ways, and I don't think Vlad is a dummy nor crazy, albeit his 'dream' is delusional. So, that was his preferred path...until he grew impatient...and/or needed to control his ultranationalists with more direct action.

But of course Ukraine was always part of his expansion plan, he said so more than a decade ago and every time he's gone deep on the topic since. According to him, it's Russian territory...ALL of it.

I think I've answered this repeatedly.

IMO, Putin purposely avoided military conflict when taking Crimea.

The 'little green men' deniability was hardly Russian tanks rolling into Ukraine, guns ablazing.

Putin knew that military action was extremely expensive, so he took the limited action...and was immensely successful.

Remember, the gameplan was to undermine and divide NATO as much as possible, while 'taking' more and more of the prior Russian Empire into his fold. Political hegemony being much less expensive than tanks.

Part of that strategy was to increase European dependency on Russian commodities, especially energy, and to build as large a financial war chest as possible. That was working really, really well, and spooking the Europeans with a direct military invasion could have spooked that effort (as it ultimately did).

Putin was also building alliances with various players, including strange bedfellows like the authoritarians in Saudi Arabia and the authoritarians in Iran...and with Israel as well...

And he was investing financially in the support of right wing authoritarianism in eastern Europe and even here in the US. Undermining democracies.

But with Trump's loss a major element of that strategy was lost, and indeed NATO had already become more cohesive as Biden shored up relationships.

Meanwhile, Putin had progressively cracked down on all domestic opposition, jailing, killing any political opposition, and crushing any open media. That's a process, even in Russia, so not accomplished overnight...but in the past couple of years he'd managed to tighten the screws way down versus where he was in 2014.

The Europeans had been shocked by the Trump years and remained divided though mollified by Biden to some extent. Putin grossly miscalculated by invading, but I think the isolation of Covid, the financial damage done, and the frustration of not being able to make more progress in flipping Ukraine politically, led to the decision to do what I think he really thought would be such a quick strike and win that he could get away with it before the West could respond effectively.

I think he expected sanctions, but knew his sovereign wealth fund deep pockets could withstand those pressures...and he expected European energy dependence to overwhelm any stronger reaction.

He was partly right as our reactions were pretty weak at first. But he didn't understand how inept his own forces were and he didn't understand Ukrainian resolve with Zelensky's leadership (which he'd underestimated)...and once that became evident, the West, especially with Biden's leadership, stepped up.

No disrespect MD. The points you opine about have become obsolete. Putin made the very same mistake that Hitler made. He chose a blitzkrieg like attack into Ukraine. He believed the ghost of Stalin was on his side. Stalemate is the obvious outcome. Putin knows he can't win and the Ukrainians know they can't win either.

[DocBarrister]

President Biden and NATO/EU were also firing a shot across China’s bow. In defending Ukraine, President Biden and the allies are defending international order. Those on this forum who doubt the utility of alliances and coalitions should take note.

No longer can Beijing simply assume that the West will never risk economic shocks over, say, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Beijing has just witnessed the United States and its European allies take on considerable national and global risks for Ukraine, an exponentially smaller and less global economy than Taiwan’s, which has the seventh largest economy in industrial Asia and provides a pivotal link in global supply chains. And Washington has greater historical, legal, and emotional ties with Taiwan than it does with Ukraine. China can no longer presume that the West will impose major sanctions only on marginal countries and marginal sanctions only on major countries.

Beijing has been surprised, too, by the ferocity of the Western response to Russia’s aggression. In the wake of the 2014 Donbas invasion, Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping walked away with the lesson that the West—and especially risk-averse U.S. allies, of which there are many in both Asia and Europe—would not support costly sanctions on behalf of a third party. This time, that lesson does not apply. When Moscow’s tanks charged toward Kyiv, the gloves came off. An escalation ladder that had taken 18 months in the sanctions campaign against Iran was collapsed into a weekend. Even Russia’s oil and gas exports, which had been seen as too important to touch in 2014, were sanctioned. The West has moved more quickly than many thought possible to wean itself off Russian oil, and the G-7 recently rolled out a price cap system aimed at depressing the price Russia receives for its crude oil and petroleum products elsewhere in the world, at the same time ensuring that energy markets are still well supplied.

These steps required sacrifices. And the West has borne real costs in the form of inflation, higher energy bills, and gas shortages. But so far, with help from a mild winter, the coalition has held. The lesson for policymakers in Beijing is unmistakable: a major threat to international order can incur a very painful economic response indeed, even if it comes with costs for the countries imposing the sanctions.

… Probably the most important sanctions lesson from the current conflict is the vital importance of coalitions. Washington has tremendous clout when it takes advantage of U.S. technology, financial markets, and the dollar. The sanctions on Russia, however, would have had a fraction of the bite (and Russia would have had numerous workarounds) had this not been a joint effort with Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the EU.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/wh ... kraine-war

DocBarrister

[MDlaxfan76]

I disagree.
I think Putin had expected to 'take' Ukraine without spilling significant Russian blood, just needed to be patient.

This is plainly wrong.

If Putin wanted Ukraine this whole time, the time to do it was during the cakewalk that was Crimea. Take a sharp right with his troops, and boom, he's in Kiev. He had already shown his hand, so why the F not? Ukraine was all but unarmed.

And his toady was running things in Ukraine at the time, correct? And no one had armed or trained them.

He didn't want to confront NATO until it was further divided and weakened, as influenced by Trump.

You have two choices: you have to follow logic for Putin's actions. )r, if you prefer, admit we have no clue why Putin did what, when...because he's an idiot.

So if you chose that he's rational:

1. He invaded Crimea in 2014. NATO did nothing. This gets rid of the idea that Putin had plans on Ukraine. He obviously didn't. If he did, he would have invaded Ukraine at the same time, or shortly after he invaded Crimea. The man's not gonna live forever, and if the plan is to restore Soviet glory, he doesn't have time to mess around. So, unless you can explain why he didn't do that in 2014-----yet he did in 2022? Putin didn't PLAN on invading Ukraine from the outset.

Further, Putin's toady was running Ukraine at the time. It makes ZERO sense, therefore, for Putin to not turn his tanks toward Kiev, and take what he wants.

2. Given that he didn't do that, that tells you that Ukraine wasn't part of his overall plan. So you then have to ask: what changed that prompted Putin to go for Ukraine?

It's obvious that it was when America started arming them that Putin decided to act. There's no other answer. Losing an election to Zelensky just isn't a big deal....Putin still had power in Ukraine. And if was Zelensky that was the trigger, he would have invaded way back in 2019. If threats of NATO was the the trigger, Putin would have invaded at any point during his tenure....because that was on deck at any time.

Therefore, it was the prospect of US Arms and a US puppet government that got Putin to invade. Well that, and the fact that he's an idiot.

How's the ol GDP doin', Vladimir? Whoops.

Again, I disagree.

You are creating a straw man logic that deals in absolutes, not reality, IMO. It's not a straw man. You (and old salt) are telling us thaty you KNOW what prompted Putin to invade. If you're going to do that, you have to give us a reason that fits everything that happened. Neither of you can.

Neither of you can tell me why Putin didn't invade Ukraine at the same time that he took Crimea. OS tells us that it's all the same country...but apprarently not, or Putin would have driven straight through Ukraine in a line of tanks, and have dinner with his Puppet in Kiev before nightfall.
Neither of you can tell me why he didn't do that.....so sorry, you're both wrong.

Neither of us can prove either view, If that what you and OS want to concede? Great. Then stop telling us why Putin did what he did. Because neither of you know if I can't know. but it seems to me that Vlad has been moving piece by piece but did not want to trigger direct military action...as long as he had non military means to achieve his objectives of restoring the Russian Empire.

Which he did have happening, piece by piece. Until Zelensky plus Biden. It was then clear the 'operation' to undermine democracy was not going to happen in time.

Military action is enormously expensive, in all sorts of ways, and I don't think Vlad is a dummy nor crazy, albeit his 'dream' is delusional. So, that was his preferred path...until he grew impatient...and/or needed to control his ultranationalists with more direct action.

But of course Ukraine was always part of his expansion plan, he said so more than a decade ago and every time he's gone deep on the topic since. According to him, it's Russian territory...ALL of it.

I think I've answered this repeatedly.

IMO, Putin purposely avoided military conflict when taking Crimea.

The 'little green men' deniability was hardly Russian tanks rolling into Ukraine, guns ablazing.

Putin knew that military action was extremely expensive, so he took the limited action...and was immensely successful.

Remember, the gameplan was to undermine and divide NATO as much as possible, while 'taking' more and more of the prior Russian Empire into his fold. Political hegemony being much less expensive than tanks.

Part of that strategy was to increase European dependency on Russian commodities, especially energy, and to build as large a financial war chest as possible. That was working really, really well, and spooking the Europeans with a direct military invasion could have spooked that effort (as it ultimately did).

Putin was also building alliances with various players, including strange bedfellows like the authoritarians in Saudi Arabia and the authoritarians in Iran...and with Israel as well...

And he was investing financially in the support of right wing authoritarianism in eastern Europe and even here in the US. Undermining democracies.

But with Trump's loss a major element of that strategy was lost, and indeed NATO had already become more cohesive as Biden shored up relationships.

Meanwhile, Putin had progressively cracked down on all domestic opposition, jailing, killing any political opposition, and crushing any open media. That's a process, even in Russia, so not accomplished overnight...but in the past couple of years he'd managed to tighten the screws way down versus where he was in 2014.

The Europeans had been shocked by the Trump years and remained divided though mollified by Biden to some extent. Putin grossly miscalculated by invading, but I think the isolation of Covid, the financial damage done, and the frustration of not being able to make more progress in flipping Ukraine politically, led to the decision to do what I think he really thought would be such a quick strike and win that he could get away with it before the West could respond effectively.

I think he expected sanctions, but knew his sovereign wealth fund deep pockets could withstand those pressures...and he expected European energy dependence to overwhelm any stronger reaction.

He was partly right as our reactions were pretty weak at first. But he didn't understand how inept his own forces were and he didn't understand Ukrainian resolve with Zelensky's leadership (which he'd underestimated)...and once that became evident, the West, especially with Biden's leadership, stepped up.

No disrespect MD. The points you opine about have become obsolete. Putin made the very same mistake that Hitler made. He chose a blitzkrieg like attack into Ukraine. He believed the ghost of Stalin was on his side. Stalemate is the obvious outcome. Putin knows he can't win and the Ukrainians know they can't win either.

And no disrespect to you, cradle, but you've entered a conversation that is more complex than your simple assertion addresses.

We were discussing the decision processes that we think were influencing Putin.

As to what Putin "knows", he may now have realized his error and he may well now believe that 'winning' will not be what he'd originally hoped (easy, fast, no severe repercussions or at least none he couldn't withstand), but I'm not so sure he doesn't still think the West will crack and fail to support Ukraine, enabling him to consolidate gains, regroup... and then 'win' through political maneuvering as the Zelensky government falls apart.

At least that's what I'd imagine he's thinking his 'best' outcome at this point is...but that's merely a temporary road bump to his ambitions.

I quite disagree that "Ukrainians know they can't win". I think they very much believe they will drive the Russians out and that they won't stop until they do or are themselves defeated.

And I too think they can, and will, 'win', as long as we provide the weaponry and training. I think our capabilities are vastly superior to the Russians and I think the motivation and general competence of the Ukrainians is much, much greater than the Russians.

So, "stalemate" is not likely to persist, IMO.
This has been a brutal winter for the Russian military in failed offensive after failed offensive, massive casualties, leaving bodies behind... and it ain't over...and the Ukrainians have not really gone on the offensive yet. My view is that we should arm and train them to do so when they're fully ready...perhaps late spring or summer.

[cradleandshoot]

I disagree.
I think Putin had expected to 'take' Ukraine without spilling significant Russian blood, just needed to be patient.

This is plainly wrong.

If Putin wanted Ukraine this whole time, the time to do it was during the cakewalk that was Crimea. Take a sharp right with his troops, and boom, he's in Kiev. He had already shown his hand, so why the F not? Ukraine was all but unarmed.

And his toady was running things in Ukraine at the time, correct? And no one had armed or trained them.

He didn't want to confront NATO until it was further divided and weakened, as influenced by Trump.

You have two choices: you have to follow logic for Putin's actions. )r, if you prefer, admit we have no clue why Putin did what, when...because he's an idiot.

So if you chose that he's rational:

1. He invaded Crimea in 2014. NATO did nothing. This gets rid of the idea that Putin had plans on Ukraine. He obviously didn't. If he did, he would have invaded Ukraine at the same time, or shortly after he invaded Crimea. The man's not gonna live forever, and if the plan is to restore Soviet glory, he doesn't have time to mess around. So, unless you can explain why he didn't do that in 2014-----yet he did in 2022? Putin didn't PLAN on invading Ukraine from the outset.

Further, Putin's toady was running Ukraine at the time. It makes ZERO sense, therefore, for Putin to not turn his tanks toward Kiev, and take what he wants.

2. Given that he didn't do that, that tells you that Ukraine wasn't part of his overall plan. So you then have to ask: what changed that prompted Putin to go for Ukraine?

It's obvious that it was when America started arming them that Putin decided to act. There's no other answer. Losing an election to Zelensky just isn't a big deal....Putin still had power in Ukraine. And if was Zelensky that was the trigger, he would have invaded way back in 2019. If threats of NATO was the the trigger, Putin would have invaded at any point during his tenure....because that was on deck at any time.

Therefore, it was the prospect of US Arms and a US puppet government that got Putin to invade. Well that, and the fact that he's an idiot.

How's the ol GDP doin', Vladimir? Whoops.

Again, I disagree.

You are creating a straw man logic that deals in absolutes, not reality, IMO. It's not a straw man. You (and old salt) are telling us thaty you KNOW what prompted Putin to invade. If you're going to do that, you have to give us a reason that fits everything that happened. Neither of you can.

Neither of you can tell me why Putin didn't invade Ukraine at the same time that he took Crimea. OS tells us that it's all the same country...but apprarently not, or Putin would have driven straight through Ukraine in a line of tanks, and have dinner with his Puppet in Kiev before nightfall.
Neither of you can tell me why he didn't do that.....so sorry, you're both wrong.

Neither of us can prove either view, If that what you and OS want to concede? Great. Then stop telling us why Putin did what he did. Because neither of you know if I can't know. but it seems to me that Vlad has been moving piece by piece but did not want to trigger direct military action...as long as he had non military means to achieve his objectives of restoring the Russian Empire.

Which he did have happening, piece by piece. Until Zelensky plus Biden. It was then clear the 'operation' to undermine democracy was not going to happen in time.

Military action is enormously expensive, in all sorts of ways, and I don't think Vlad is a dummy nor crazy, albeit his 'dream' is delusional. So, that was his preferred path...until he grew impatient...and/or needed to control his ultranationalists with more direct action.

But of course Ukraine was always part of his expansion plan, he said so more than a decade ago and every time he's gone deep on the topic since. According to him, it's Russian territory...ALL of it.

I think I've answered this repeatedly.

IMO, Putin purposely avoided military conflict when taking Crimea.

The 'little green men' deniability was hardly Russian tanks rolling into Ukraine, guns ablazing.

Putin knew that military action was extremely expensive, so he took the limited action...and was immensely successful.

Remember, the gameplan was to undermine and divide NATO as much as possible, while 'taking' more and more of the prior Russian Empire into his fold. Political hegemony being much less expensive than tanks.

Part of that strategy was to increase European dependency on Russian commodities, especially energy, and to build as large a financial war chest as possible. That was working really, really well, and spooking the Europeans with a direct military invasion could have spooked that effort (as it ultimately did).

Putin was also building alliances with various players, including strange bedfellows like the authoritarians in Saudi Arabia and the authoritarians in Iran...and with Israel as well...

And he was investing financially in the support of right wing authoritarianism in eastern Europe and even here in the US. Undermining democracies.

But with Trump's loss a major element of that strategy was lost, and indeed NATO had already become more cohesive as Biden shored up relationships.

Meanwhile, Putin had progressively cracked down on all domestic opposition, jailing, killing any political opposition, and crushing any open media. That's a process, even in Russia, so not accomplished overnight...but in the past couple of years he'd managed to tighten the screws way down versus where he was in 2014.

The Europeans had been shocked by the Trump years and remained divided though mollified by Biden to some extent. Putin grossly miscalculated by invading, but I think the isolation of Covid, the financial damage done, and the frustration of not being able to make more progress in flipping Ukraine politically, led to the decision to do what I think he really thought would be such a quick strike and win that he could get away with it before the West could respond effectively.

I think he expected sanctions, but knew his sovereign wealth fund deep pockets could withstand those pressures...and he expected European energy dependence to overwhelm any stronger reaction.

He was partly right as our reactions were pretty weak at first. But he didn't understand how inept his own forces were and he didn't understand Ukrainian resolve with Zelensky's leadership (which he'd underestimated)...and once that became evident, the West, especially with Biden's leadership, stepped up.

No disrespect MD. The points you opine about have become obsolete. Putin made the very same mistake that Hitler made. He chose a blitzkrieg like attack into Ukraine. He believed the ghost of Stalin was on his side. Stalemate is the obvious outcome. Putin knows he can't win and the Ukrainians know they can't win either.

And no disrespect to you, cradle, but you've entered a conversation that is more complex than your simple assertion addresses.

We were discussing the decision processes that we think were influencing Putin.

As to what Putin "knows", he may now have realized his error and he may well now believe that 'winning' will not be what he'd originally hoped (easy, fast, no severe repercussions or at least none he couldn't withstand), but I'm not so sure he doesn't still think the West will crack and fail to support Ukraine, enabling him to consolidate gains, regroup... and then 'win' through political maneuvering as the Zelensky government falls apart.

At least that's what I'd imagine he's thinking his 'best' outcome at this point is...but that's merely a temporary road bump to his ambitions.

I quite disagree that "Ukrainians know they can't win". I think they very much believe they will drive the Russians out and that they won't stop until they do or are themselves defeated.

And I too think they can, and will, 'win', as long as we provide the weaponry and training. I think our capabilities are vastly superior to the Russians and I think the motivation and general competence of the Ukrainians is much, much greater than the Russians.

So, "stalemate" is not likely to persist, IMO.
This has been a brutal winter for the Russian military in failed offensive after failed offensive, massive casualties, leaving bodies behind... and it ain't over...and the Ukrainians have not really gone on the offensive yet. My view is that we should arm and train them to do so when they're fully ready...perhaps late spring or summer.

I understand the complexities of the situation very well. The poker player in me understands Putin went all in on his hand. How do we arm and train them? What arms are we talking about and do US advisors do the training? The Ukrainians army is tenacious and has no quit in them. The Russian Army has proven to be a dysfunctional paper tiger. You speak of a spring offensive by the Ukrainian Army. They are doing a pretty damn good job of fighting a defensive war. I don't believe as of yet their military is strong enough to sustain an effective offensive campaign against the Russians. That is if you believe the Ukrainian Army can drive the Russians out of their country. The Russians are just beginning their own massive offensive in Ukraine. If it fails then all bets are off for Putin. I don't think failure is an option for Putin.

[MDlaxfan76]

I disagree.
I think Putin had expected to 'take' Ukraine without spilling significant Russian blood, just needed to be patient.

This is plainly wrong.

If Putin wanted Ukraine this whole time, the time to do it was during the cakewalk that was Crimea. Take a sharp right with his troops, and boom, he's in Kiev. He had already shown his hand, so why the F not? Ukraine was all but unarmed.

And his toady was running things in Ukraine at the time, correct? And no one had armed or trained them.

He didn't want to confront NATO until it was further divided and weakened, as influenced by Trump.

You have two choices: you have to follow logic for Putin's actions. )r, if you prefer, admit we have no clue why Putin did what, when...because he's an idiot.

So if you chose that he's rational:

1. He invaded Crimea in 2014. NATO did nothing. This gets rid of the idea that Putin had plans on Ukraine. He obviously didn't. If he did, he would have invaded Ukraine at the same time, or shortly after he invaded Crimea. The man's not gonna live forever, and if the plan is to restore Soviet glory, he doesn't have time to mess around. So, unless you can explain why he didn't do that in 2014-----yet he did in 2022? Putin didn't PLAN on invading Ukraine from the outset.

Further, Putin's toady was running Ukraine at the time. It makes ZERO sense, therefore, for Putin to not turn his tanks toward Kiev, and take what he wants.

2. Given that he didn't do that, that tells you that Ukraine wasn't part of his overall plan. So you then have to ask: what changed that prompted Putin to go for Ukraine?

It's obvious that it was when America started arming them that Putin decided to act. There's no other answer. Losing an election to Zelensky just isn't a big deal....Putin still had power in Ukraine. And if was Zelensky that was the trigger, he would have invaded way back in 2019. If threats of NATO was the the trigger, Putin would have invaded at any point during his tenure....because that was on deck at any time.

Therefore, it was the prospect of US Arms and a US puppet government that got Putin to invade. Well that, and the fact that he's an idiot.

How's the ol GDP doin', Vladimir? Whoops.

Again, I disagree.

You are creating a straw man logic that deals in absolutes, not reality, IMO. It's not a straw man. You (and old salt) are telling us thaty you KNOW what prompted Putin to invade. If you're going to do that, you have to give us a reason that fits everything that happened. Neither of you can.

Neither of you can tell me why Putin didn't invade Ukraine at the same time that he took Crimea. OS tells us that it's all the same country...but apprarently not, or Putin would have driven straight through Ukraine in a line of tanks, and have dinner with his Puppet in Kiev before nightfall.
Neither of you can tell me why he didn't do that.....so sorry, you're both wrong.

Neither of us can prove either view, If that what you and OS want to concede? Great. Then stop telling us why Putin did what he did. Because neither of you know if I can't know. but it seems to me that Vlad has been moving piece by piece but did not want to trigger direct military action...as long as he had non military means to achieve his objectives of restoring the Russian Empire.

Which he did have happening, piece by piece. Until Zelensky plus Biden. It was then clear the 'operation' to undermine democracy was not going to happen in time.

Military action is enormously expensive, in all sorts of ways, and I don't think Vlad is a dummy nor crazy, albeit his 'dream' is delusional. So, that was his preferred path...until he grew impatient...and/or needed to control his ultranationalists with more direct action.

But of course Ukraine was always part of his expansion plan, he said so more than a decade ago and every time he's gone deep on the topic since. According to him, it's Russian territory...ALL of it.

I think I've answered this repeatedly.

IMO, Putin purposely avoided military conflict when taking Crimea.

The 'little green men' deniability was hardly Russian tanks rolling into Ukraine, guns ablazing.

Putin knew that military action was extremely expensive, so he took the limited action...and was immensely successful.

Remember, the gameplan was to undermine and divide NATO as much as possible, while 'taking' more and more of the prior Russian Empire into his fold. Political hegemony being much less expensive than tanks.

Part of that strategy was to increase European dependency on Russian commodities, especially energy, and to build as large a financial war chest as possible. That was working really, really well, and spooking the Europeans with a direct military invasion could have spooked that effort (as it ultimately did).

Putin was also building alliances with various players, including strange bedfellows like the authoritarians in Saudi Arabia and the authoritarians in Iran...and with Israel as well...

And he was investing financially in the support of right wing authoritarianism in eastern Europe and even here in the US. Undermining democracies.

But with Trump's loss a major element of that strategy was lost, and indeed NATO had already become more cohesive as Biden shored up relationships.

Meanwhile, Putin had progressively cracked down on all domestic opposition, jailing, killing any political opposition, and crushing any open media. That's a process, even in Russia, so not accomplished overnight...but in the past couple of years he'd managed to tighten the screws way down versus where he was in 2014.

The Europeans had been shocked by the Trump years and remained divided though mollified by Biden to some extent. Putin grossly miscalculated by invading, but I think the isolation of Covid, the financial damage done, and the frustration of not being able to make more progress in flipping Ukraine politically, led to the decision to do what I think he really thought would be such a quick strike and win that he could get away with it before the West could respond effectively.

I think he expected sanctions, but knew his sovereign wealth fund deep pockets could withstand those pressures...and he expected European energy dependence to overwhelm any stronger reaction.

He was partly right as our reactions were pretty weak at first. But he didn't understand how inept his own forces were and he didn't understand Ukrainian resolve with Zelensky's leadership (which he'd underestimated)...and once that became evident, the West, especially with Biden's leadership, stepped up.

No disrespect MD. The points you opine about have become obsolete. Putin made the very same mistake that Hitler made. He chose a blitzkrieg like attack into Ukraine. He believed the ghost of Stalin was on his side. Stalemate is the obvious outcome. Putin knows he can't win and the Ukrainians know they can't win either.

And no disrespect to you, cradle, but you've entered a conversation that is more complex than your simple assertion addresses.

We were discussing the decision processes that we think were influencing Putin.

As to what Putin "knows", he may now have realized his error and he may well now believe that 'winning' will not be what he'd originally hoped (easy, fast, no severe repercussions or at least none he couldn't withstand), but I'm not so sure he doesn't still think the West will crack and fail to support Ukraine, enabling him to consolidate gains, regroup... and then 'win' through political maneuvering as the Zelensky government falls apart.

At least that's what I'd imagine he's thinking his 'best' outcome at this point is...but that's merely a temporary road bump to his ambitions.

I quite disagree that "Ukrainians know they can't win". I think they very much believe they will drive the Russians out and that they won't stop until they do or are themselves defeated.

And I too think they can, and will, 'win', as long as we provide the weaponry and training. I think our capabilities are vastly superior to the Russians and I think the motivation and general competence of the Ukrainians is much, much greater than the Russians.

So, "stalemate" is not likely to persist, IMO.
This has been a brutal winter for the Russian military in failed offensive after failed offensive, massive casualties, leaving bodies behind... and it ain't over...and the Ukrainians have not really gone on the offensive yet. My view is that we should arm and train them to do so when they're fully ready...perhaps late spring or summer.

I understand the complexities of the situation very well. The poker player in me understands Putin went all in on his hand. How do we arm and train them? What arms are we talking about and do US advisors do the training? The Ukrainians army is tenacious and has no quit in them. The Russian Army has proven to be a dysfunctional paper tiger. You speak of a spring offensive by the Ukrainian Army. They are doing a pretty damn good job of fighting a defensive war. I don't believe as of yet their military is strong enough to sustain an effective offensive campaign against the Russians. That is if you believe the Ukrainian Army can drive the Russians out of their country. The Russians are just beginning their own massive offensive in Ukraine. If it fails then all bets are off for Putin. I don't think failure is an option for Putin.

The US has been actively training Ukrainians from early in the war and of course we're continuing to so, as are various NATO allies.

Not sure why you wouldn't think that's the case.

We've been increasing the 'offensive' capabilities we are providing, most recently with tanks. Fast attack troop carriers, and longer range artillery preceded, and longer range missiles and advanced fighter jets are yet to be released. The Brits are training them on jets now, we're focused on long range artillery and missile capabilities, etc. But we could be green lighting jets soon.

I agree that Ukraine isn't ready yet for the multi-faceted assault that will be necessary to drive the Russians out and I agree that the Russian assault's failure will leave the Russians exhausted in various ways, potentially with absolutely horrible morale...and, thus, all the more vulnerable to a cohesive push by Ukraine.

But I don't think they should do that until actually ready. Meanwhile, making it extremely painful for the Russian military is job one.

As to Putin, yup, he'll keep attacking until there's an alternative that enables him to consolidate and prepare for another form of attack...he can be more patient, if necessary, as long as he maintains his iron grip domestically.

But as to existential, that's Ukraine's motivation.

[old salt]

Trump is not simply a despicable human being, he earned the suspicion he drew about his dealings with Russia, by lying about such so vociferously and so frequently, while brazenly calling for support from Russia.
That was a joke, mocking Clinton & her fabrication of the collusion narrative.
Now that you know about her Steele disinformation op. Do you get the joke ?

At the same time, Russia was actively seeking to create division in America and found an immensely useful tool in Trump.
That's funny, now that we know about HRC's use of Russians in her collusion disinformation op.
NONE of that was made up by those who were suspicious. Russia didn't nominate Trump. He earned it himself with his tweets, his policies & his divide & conquer attacks on his other opponents.

Salty is willfully blind to all this because it undercuts the notion all of his supposed "policy" preferences on a host of issues, whether foreign or domestic. supposed ? say what you mean.

The policy positions, whether Confederate monuments or isolationism of pro- nationalist authoritarian movements around the world (but not China), are ugly and wrong IMO on their own basis, but Trump's embrace of these were seductive to Salty.
Confederate memorials are just a small part of the woke war on history. btw -- I was for renaming bases.
pro-nationalist authoritarian movements around the world ? I simply recognize our inability to successfully meddle in the internal affairs of other nations.

So...we get all the Deep State nonsense...undercut media, undercut trust in government institutions, undercut law enforcement institutions, all in favor of the 'strong man' alternative, are the authoritarian playbook...and Salty has been an eager participant.
strong man alternative ? You prefer the EvIita Clinton model ? or the doddering old fool who pizzed away 20 years of sacrifice in Afghanistan & is now fueling the worst war in Europe since WW-II, while marching us into WW-III.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Trump is not simply a despicable human being, he earned the suspicion he drew about his dealings with Russia, by lying about such so vociferously and so frequently, while brazenly calling for support from Russia.
That was a joke, mocking Clinton & her fabrication of the collusion narrative.
Now that you know about her Steele disinformation op. Do you get the joke ?

At the same time, Russia was actively seeking to create division in America and found an immensely useful tool in Trump.
That's funny, now that we know about HRC's use of Russians in her collusion disinformation op.
NONE of that was made up by those who were suspicious. Russia didn't nominate Trump. He earned it himself with his tweets, his policies & his divide & conquer attacks on his other opponents.

Salty is willfully blind to all this because it undercuts the notion all of his supposed "policy" preferences on a host of issues, whether foreign or domestic. supposed ? say what you mean.

The policy positions, whether Confederate monuments or isolationism of pro- nationalist authoritarian movements around the world (but not China), are ugly and wrong IMO on their own basis, but Trump's embrace of these were seductive to Salty.
Confederate memorials are just a small part of the woke war on history. btw -- I was for renaming bases.
pro-nationalist authoritarian movements around the world ? I simply recognize our inability to successfully meddle in the internal affairs of other nations.

So...we get all the Deep State nonsense...undercut media, undercut trust in government institutions, undercut law enforcement institutions, all in favor of the 'strong man' alternative, are the authoritarian playbook...and Salty has been an eager participant.
strong man alternative ? You prefer the EvIita Clinton model ? or the doddering old fool who pizzed away 20 years of sacrifice in Afghanistan & is now fueling the worst war in Europe since WW-II, while marching us into WW-III.

Elections have consequences.

[a fan]

I haven't changed.
Oh, yes you have.

You would NEVER have told us that Federal corruption was no big deal, and NEVER mocked us for calling out said corruption, calling us crybabies before Trump arrived.

Would NEVER had told us that a grown man isn't responsible for lying to Federal agents.

You would NEVER have told us that the FBI shouldn't investigate a candidate who hires someone that was on Putin's payroll...doubly so when they guy is found guilty of trying to hide that he was on Putin's payroll. Or who lie nonstop. Or who

You would have NEVER told me that it's just no big deal to meet with a Russian spy, hoping to get dirt on your political opponent. And then sit back and say NOTHING when the obviously morally compromised individuals were given top security clearances. Not one Republican voter or Congressmen lifted a finger to remove those clearances, and demand that Kush get the F away from our government. Shame on you for that. There's NO WAY you would put up with Joe Biden giving Hunter clearances, and sending him to the ME to secure more conflict of interest deals ala Kushner.

I could go on and on. These things have NOTHING to do with policy. These things have to do with honor, and basic decency. And not only did you let all of it go without complaining---you mocked anyone who dared share their disdain on the matter.

Remember your sooper-cool catch phrase? "So what, that's not illegal"? And yet you're telling me with a straight face that Trump didn't change you? You NEVER said that when Obama was in office. Know why? Because you weren't a moron, that's why.

But I LOVE that you're telling us that you let other share their opinions without mocking them...and that I'm somehow the bad guy.

When you say "don't shoot", you mean don't post anything you disagree with.
Buffalo bagels. I treat Cradleandshoot with respect and kindness, because that's what he gives me. I don't agree with EASILY half his posts. We get along just fine. He doesn't look down his nose at me because I didn't serve. And he doesn't give people a pass because they have a R by their name. You do. Every day...and you didn't do that before Trump.

You might ask yourself if Trump has impacted the way you attack others.Without question!

I watched millions and millions of former conservatives go full on nutjob right before my eyes, abandoning their principles and values....all in the name of Republicanism. Nothing Trump idd was wrong for your crew. It was PAINFUL to watch. And your party will likely NEVER recover. Republicans on a national level have stopped governing completely.

I'm LIVID at what Trump and FoxNation did to reasonable, fantastic American conservatives. And yep, when I see Trumpism "Flynn was tricked into lying"....I'm OVERJOYED to admit that I react poorly. As I should, when confronted with adults behaving like toddlers, and putting party before country.

[cradleandshoot]

I disagree.
I think Putin had expected to 'take' Ukraine without spilling significant Russian blood, just needed to be patient.

This is plainly wrong.

If Putin wanted Ukraine this whole time, the time to do it was during the cakewalk that was Crimea. Take a sharp right with his troops, and boom, he's in Kiev. He had already shown his hand, so why the F not? Ukraine was all but unarmed.

And his toady was running things in Ukraine at the time, correct? And no one had armed or trained them.

He didn't want to confront NATO until it was further divided and weakened, as influenced by Trump.

You have two choices: you have to follow logic for Putin's actions. )r, if you prefer, admit we have no clue why Putin did what, when...because he's an idiot.

So if you chose that he's rational:

1. He invaded Crimea in 2014. NATO did nothing. This gets rid of the idea that Putin had plans on Ukraine. He obviously didn't. If he did, he would have invaded Ukraine at the same time, or shortly after he invaded Crimea. The man's not gonna live forever, and if the plan is to restore Soviet glory, he doesn't have time to mess around. So, unless you can explain why he didn't do that in 2014-----yet he did in 2022? Putin didn't PLAN on invading Ukraine from the outset.

Further, Putin's toady was running Ukraine at the time. It makes ZERO sense, therefore, for Putin to not turn his tanks toward Kiev, and take what he wants.

2. Given that he didn't do that, that tells you that Ukraine wasn't part of his overall plan. So you then have to ask: what changed that prompted Putin to go for Ukraine?

It's obvious that it was when America started arming them that Putin decided to act. There's no other answer. Losing an election to Zelensky just isn't a big deal....Putin still had power in Ukraine. And if was Zelensky that was the trigger, he would have invaded way back in 2019. If threats of NATO was the the trigger, Putin would have invaded at any point during his tenure....because that was on deck at any time.

Therefore, it was the prospect of US Arms and a US puppet government that got Putin to invade. Well that, and the fact that he's an idiot.

How's the ol GDP doin', Vladimir? Whoops.

Again, I disagree.

You are creating a straw man logic that deals in absolutes, not reality, IMO. It's not a straw man. You (and old salt) are telling us thaty you KNOW what prompted Putin to invade. If you're going to do that, you have to give us a reason that fits everything that happened. Neither of you can.

Neither of you can tell me why Putin didn't invade Ukraine at the same time that he took Crimea. OS tells us that it's all the same country...but apprarently not, or Putin would have driven straight through Ukraine in a line of tanks, and have dinner with his Puppet in Kiev before nightfall.
Neither of you can tell me why he didn't do that.....so sorry, you're both wrong.

Neither of us can prove either view, If that what you and OS want to concede? Great. Then stop telling us why Putin did what he did. Because neither of you know if I can't know. but it seems to me that Vlad has been moving piece by piece but did not want to trigger direct military action...as long as he had non military means to achieve his objectives of restoring the Russian Empire.

Which he did have happening, piece by piece. Until Zelensky plus Biden. It was then clear the 'operation' to undermine democracy was not going to happen in time.

Military action is enormously expensive, in all sorts of ways, and I don't think Vlad is a dummy nor crazy, albeit his 'dream' is delusional. So, that was his preferred path...until he grew impatient...and/or needed to control his ultranationalists with more direct action.

But of course Ukraine was always part of his expansion plan, he said so more than a decade ago and every time he's gone deep on the topic since. According to him, it's Russian territory...ALL of it.

I think I've answered this repeatedly.

IMO, Putin purposely avoided military conflict when taking Crimea.

The 'little green men' deniability was hardly Russian tanks rolling into Ukraine, guns ablazing.

Putin knew that military action was extremely expensive, so he took the limited action...and was immensely successful.

Remember, the gameplan was to undermine and divide NATO as much as possible, while 'taking' more and more of the prior Russian Empire into his fold. Political hegemony being much less expensive than tanks.

Part of that strategy was to increase European dependency on Russian commodities, especially energy, and to build as large a financial war chest as possible. That was working really, really well, and spooking the Europeans with a direct military invasion could have spooked that effort (as it ultimately did).

Putin was also building alliances with various players, including strange bedfellows like the authoritarians in Saudi Arabia and the authoritarians in Iran...and with Israel as well...

And he was investing financially in the support of right wing authoritarianism in eastern Europe and even here in the US. Undermining democracies.

But with Trump's loss a major element of that strategy was lost, and indeed NATO had already become more cohesive as Biden shored up relationships.

Meanwhile, Putin had progressively cracked down on all domestic opposition, jailing, killing any political opposition, and crushing any open media. That's a process, even in Russia, so not accomplished overnight...but in the past couple of years he'd managed to tighten the screws way down versus where he was in 2014.

The Europeans had been shocked by the Trump years and remained divided though mollified by Biden to some extent. Putin grossly miscalculated by invading, but I think the isolation of Covid, the financial damage done, and the frustration of not being able to make more progress in flipping Ukraine politically, led to the decision to do what I think he really thought would be such a quick strike and win that he could get away with it before the West could respond effectively.

I think he expected sanctions, but knew his sovereign wealth fund deep pockets could withstand those pressures...and he expected European energy dependence to overwhelm any stronger reaction.

He was partly right as our reactions were pretty weak at first. But he didn't understand how inept his own forces were and he didn't understand Ukrainian resolve with Zelensky's leadership (which he'd underestimated)...and once that became evident, the West, especially with Biden's leadership, stepped up.

No disrespect MD. The points you opine about have become obsolete. Putin made the very same mistake that Hitler made. He chose a blitzkrieg like attack into Ukraine. He believed the ghost of Stalin was on his side. Stalemate is the obvious outcome. Putin knows he can't win and the Ukrainians know they can't win either.

And no disrespect to you, cradle, but you've entered a conversation that is more complex than your simple assertion addresses.

We were discussing the decision processes that we think were influencing Putin.

As to what Putin "knows", he may now have realized his error and he may well now believe that 'winning' will not be what he'd originally hoped (easy, fast, no severe repercussions or at least none he couldn't withstand), but I'm not so sure he doesn't still think the West will crack and fail to support Ukraine, enabling him to consolidate gains, regroup... and then 'win' through political maneuvering as the Zelensky government falls apart.

At least that's what I'd imagine he's thinking his 'best' outcome at this point is...but that's merely a temporary road bump to his ambitions.

I quite disagree that "Ukrainians know they can't win". I think they very much believe they will drive the Russians out and that they won't stop until they do or are themselves defeated.

And I too think they can, and will, 'win', as long as we provide the weaponry and training. I think our capabilities are vastly superior to the Russians and I think the motivation and general competence of the Ukrainians is much, much greater than the Russians.

So, "stalemate" is not likely to persist, IMO.
This has been a brutal winter for the Russian military in failed offensive after failed offensive, massive casualties, leaving bodies behind... and it ain't over...and the Ukrainians have not really gone on the offensive yet. My view is that we should arm and train them to do so when they're fully ready...perhaps late spring or summer.

I understand the complexities of the situation very well. The poker player in me understands Putin went all in on his hand. How do we arm and train them? What arms are we talking about and do US advisors do the training? The Ukrainians army is tenacious and has no quit in them. The Russian Army has proven to be a dysfunctional paper tiger. You speak of a spring offensive by the Ukrainian Army. They are doing a pretty damn good job of fighting a defensive war. I don't believe as of yet their military is strong enough to sustain an effective offensive campaign against the Russians. That is if you believe the Ukrainian Army can drive the Russians out of their country. The Russians are just beginning their own massive offensive in Ukraine. If it fails then all bets are off for Putin. I don't think failure is an option for Putin.

The US has been actively training Ukrainians from early in the war and of course we're continuing to so, as are various NATO allies.

Not sure why you wouldn't think that's the case.

We've been increasing the 'offensive' capabilities we are providing, most recently with tanks. Fast attack troop carriers, and longer range artillery preceded, and longer range missiles and advanced fighter jets are yet to be released. The Brits are training them on jets now, we're focused on long range artillery and missile capabilities, etc. But we could be green lighting jets soon.

I agree that Ukraine isn't ready yet for the multi-faceted assault that will be necessary to drive the Russians out and I agree that the Russian assault's failure will leave the Russians exhausted in various ways, potentially with absolutely horrible morale...and, thus, all the more vulnerable to a cohesive push by Ukraine.

But I don't think they should do that until actually ready. Meanwhile, making it extremely painful for the Russian military is job one.

As to Putin, yup, he'll keep attacking until there's an alternative that enables him to consolidate and prepare for another form of attack...he can be more patient, if necessary, as long as he maintains his iron grip domestically.

But as to existential, that's Ukraine's motivation.

I know and understand how many nations are giving military aid and training to the Ukrainian military. My point, that I may have made poorly, is Putin expected his version of blitzkrieg to succeed in a short amount of time. Now he is bogged down in a hopeless fight against the Ukrainian military that is putting up a remarkably fierce resistance to defend their country. I don't think the average Russian infantryman has the slightest idea why they are fighting and dying. The average Ukrainian infantryman understands exactly why they are fighting and dying. This is turning into a horrific debacle for the vaunted Russian military. I don't see Putin being able to achieve anything in Ukraine outside of decimating some of his best soldiers. This stupid venture into Ukraine IMO will be Putins downfall. I think his own people have seen enough and understand the futility of the present situation.

[MDlaxfan76]

Trump is not simply a despicable human being, he earned the suspicion he drew about his dealings with Russia, by lying about such so vociferously and so frequently, while brazenly calling for support from Russia.
That was a joke, mocking Clinton & her fabrication of the collusion narrative.
Now that you know about her Steele disinformation op. Do you get the joke ?

At the same time, Russia was actively seeking to create division in America and found an immensely useful tool in Trump.
That's funny, now that we know about HRC's use of Russians in her collusion disinformation op.
NONE of that was made up by those who were suspicious. Russia didn't nominate Trump. He earned it himself with his tweets, his policies & his divide & conquer attacks on his other opponents.

Salty is willfully blind to all this because it undercuts the notion all of his supposed "policy" preferences on a host of issues, whether foreign or domestic. supposed ? say what you mean.

The policy positions, whether Confederate monuments or isolationism of pro- nationalist authoritarian movements around the world (but not China), are ugly and wrong IMO on their own basis, but Trump's embrace of these were seductive to Salty.
Confederate memorials are just a small part of the woke war on history. btw -- I was for renaming bases.
pro-nationalist authoritarian movements around the world ? I simply recognize our inability to successfully meddle in the internal affairs of other nations.

So...we get all the Deep State nonsense...undercut media, undercut trust in government institutions, undercut law enforcement institutions, all in favor of the 'strong man' alternative, are the authoritarian playbook...and Salty has been an eager participant.
strong man alternative ? You prefer the EvIita Clinton model ? or the doddering old fool who pizzed away 20 years of sacrifice in Afghanistan & is now fueling the worst war in Europe since WW-II, while marching us into WW-III.

This what you wrote; no, I don't see the "joke".
Nor do I buy that Clinton was the source of the suspicions about Trump, as they were entirely my own and those of millions of others, no "Steele dossier" required. Same for the FBI, no dossier required.

I haven't changed. Trump was the first Pres candidate since Pat Buchanan & Ross Perot who agreed with the policies which were most important to me. Despite the fact that he's a despicable human, Trump was legitimately elected. The way he was sabotaged & undermined was a revelation to me & altered my perspective toward the govt-media establishment. I've always held these views about Russia, NATO & post-cold war peaceful coexistence. Nobody else paid attention until Russia invaded a year ago.

When you say "don't shoot", you mean don't post anything you disagree with.
You might ask yourself if Trump has impacted the way you attack others.
I know you miss Rush, but you still need someone to vent about.

And yes, I prefer democracy, imperfect as it may be, to your preference for authoritarians, and this misguided attraction of lots of men, especially older white men, for "strong man" personas.

I didn't vote for Clinton, but if I had it to do over again, you betcha I would have.
And, I'm damn glad Biden is in office, not Trump.

Unfortunately, my party is giving us darn little to root for these days.

"woke"...yup, that was your reaction and we all knew what that meant. "tearing down history".."woke".
And I do NOT recall you being in favor of changing the base names, I recall you making fun of doing so.

[MDlaxfan76]

I disagree.
I think Putin had expected to 'take' Ukraine without spilling significant Russian blood, just needed to be patient.

This is plainly wrong.

If Putin wanted Ukraine this whole time, the time to do it was during the cakewalk that was Crimea. Take a sharp right with his troops, and boom, he's in Kiev. He had already shown his hand, so why the F not? Ukraine was all but unarmed.

And his toady was running things in Ukraine at the time, correct? And no one had armed or trained them.

He didn't want to confront NATO until it was further divided and weakened, as influenced by Trump.

You have two choices: you have to follow logic for Putin's actions. )r, if you prefer, admit we have no clue why Putin did what, when...because he's an idiot.

So if you chose that he's rational:

1. He invaded Crimea in 2014. NATO did nothing. This gets rid of the idea that Putin had plans on Ukraine. He obviously didn't. If he did, he would have invaded Ukraine at the same time, or shortly after he invaded Crimea. The man's not gonna live forever, and if the plan is to restore Soviet glory, he doesn't have time to mess around. So, unless you can explain why he didn't do that in 2014-----yet he did in 2022? Putin didn't PLAN on invading Ukraine from the outset.

Further, Putin's toady was running Ukraine at the time. It makes ZERO sense, therefore, for Putin to not turn his tanks toward Kiev, and take what he wants.

2. Given that he didn't do that, that tells you that Ukraine wasn't part of his overall plan. So you then have to ask: what changed that prompted Putin to go for Ukraine?

It's obvious that it was when America started arming them that Putin decided to act. There's no other answer. Losing an election to Zelensky just isn't a big deal....Putin still had power in Ukraine. And if was Zelensky that was the trigger, he would have invaded way back in 2019. If threats of NATO was the the trigger, Putin would have invaded at any point during his tenure....because that was on deck at any time.

Therefore, it was the prospect of US Arms and a US puppet government that got Putin to invade. Well that, and the fact that he's an idiot.

How's the ol GDP doin', Vladimir? Whoops.

Again, I disagree.

You are creating a straw man logic that deals in absolutes, not reality, IMO. It's not a straw man. You (and old salt) are telling us thaty you KNOW what prompted Putin to invade. If you're going to do that, you have to give us a reason that fits everything that happened. Neither of you can.

Neither of you can tell me why Putin didn't invade Ukraine at the same time that he took Crimea. OS tells us that it's all the same country...but apprarently not, or Putin would have driven straight through Ukraine in a line of tanks, and have dinner with his Puppet in Kiev before nightfall.
Neither of you can tell me why he didn't do that.....so sorry, you're both wrong.

Neither of us can prove either view, If that what you and OS want to concede? Great. Then stop telling us why Putin did what he did. Because neither of you know if I can't know. but it seems to me that Vlad has been moving piece by piece but did not want to trigger direct military action...as long as he had non military means to achieve his objectives of restoring the Russian Empire.

Which he did have happening, piece by piece. Until Zelensky plus Biden. It was then clear the 'operation' to undermine democracy was not going to happen in time.

Military action is enormously expensive, in all sorts of ways, and I don't think Vlad is a dummy nor crazy, albeit his 'dream' is delusional. So, that was his preferred path...until he grew impatient...and/or needed to control his ultranationalists with more direct action.

But of course Ukraine was always part of his expansion plan, he said so more than a decade ago and every time he's gone deep on the topic since. According to him, it's Russian territory...ALL of it.

I think I've answered this repeatedly.

IMO, Putin purposely avoided military conflict when taking Crimea.

The 'little green men' deniability was hardly Russian tanks rolling into Ukraine, guns ablazing.

Putin knew that military action was extremely expensive, so he took the limited action...and was immensely successful.

Remember, the gameplan was to undermine and divide NATO as much as possible, while 'taking' more and more of the prior Russian Empire into his fold. Political hegemony being much less expensive than tanks.

Part of that strategy was to increase European dependency on Russian commodities, especially energy, and to build as large a financial war chest as possible. That was working really, really well, and spooking the Europeans with a direct military invasion could have spooked that effort (as it ultimately did).

Putin was also building alliances with various players, including strange bedfellows like the authoritarians in Saudi Arabia and the authoritarians in Iran...and with Israel as well...

And he was investing financially in the support of right wing authoritarianism in eastern Europe and even here in the US. Undermining democracies.

But with Trump's loss a major element of that strategy was lost, and indeed NATO had already become more cohesive as Biden shored up relationships.

Meanwhile, Putin had progressively cracked down on all domestic opposition, jailing, killing any political opposition, and crushing any open media. That's a process, even in Russia, so not accomplished overnight...but in the past couple of years he'd managed to tighten the screws way down versus where he was in 2014.

The Europeans had been shocked by the Trump years and remained divided though mollified by Biden to some extent. Putin grossly miscalculated by invading, but I think the isolation of Covid, the financial damage done, and the frustration of not being able to make more progress in flipping Ukraine politically, led to the decision to do what I think he really thought would be such a quick strike and win that he could get away with it before the West could respond effectively.

I think he expected sanctions, but knew his sovereign wealth fund deep pockets could withstand those pressures...and he expected European energy dependence to overwhelm any stronger reaction.

He was partly right as our reactions were pretty weak at first. But he didn't understand how inept his own forces were and he didn't understand Ukrainian resolve with Zelensky's leadership (which he'd underestimated)...and once that became evident, the West, especially with Biden's leadership, stepped up.

No disrespect MD. The points you opine about have become obsolete. Putin made the very same mistake that Hitler made. He chose a blitzkrieg like attack into Ukraine. He believed the ghost of Stalin was on his side. Stalemate is the obvious outcome. Putin knows he can't win and the Ukrainians know they can't win either.

And no disrespect to you, cradle, but you've entered a conversation that is more complex than your simple assertion addresses.

We were discussing the decision processes that we think were influencing Putin.

As to what Putin "knows", he may now have realized his error and he may well now believe that 'winning' will not be what he'd originally hoped (easy, fast, no severe repercussions or at least none he couldn't withstand), but I'm not so sure he doesn't still think the West will crack and fail to support Ukraine, enabling him to consolidate gains, regroup... and then 'win' through political maneuvering as the Zelensky government falls apart.

At least that's what I'd imagine he's thinking his 'best' outcome at this point is...but that's merely a temporary road bump to his ambitions.

I quite disagree that "Ukrainians know they can't win". I think they very much believe they will drive the Russians out and that they won't stop until they do or are themselves defeated.

And I too think they can, and will, 'win', as long as we provide the weaponry and training. I think our capabilities are vastly superior to the Russians and I think the motivation and general competence of the Ukrainians is much, much greater than the Russians.

So, "stalemate" is not likely to persist, IMO.
This has been a brutal winter for the Russian military in failed offensive after failed offensive, massive casualties, leaving bodies behind... and it ain't over...and the Ukrainians have not really gone on the offensive yet. My view is that we should arm and train them to do so when they're fully ready...perhaps late spring or summer.

I understand the complexities of the situation very well. The poker player in me understands Putin went all in on his hand. How do we arm and train them? What arms are we talking about and do US advisors do the training? The Ukrainians army is tenacious and has no quit in them. The Russian Army has proven to be a dysfunctional paper tiger. You speak of a spring offensive by the Ukrainian Army. They are doing a pretty damn good job of fighting a defensive war. I don't believe as of yet their military is strong enough to sustain an effective offensive campaign against the Russians. That is if you believe the Ukrainian Army can drive the Russians out of their country. The Russians are just beginning their own massive offensive in Ukraine. If it fails then all bets are off for Putin. I don't think failure is an option for Putin.

The US has been actively training Ukrainians from early in the war and of course we're continuing to so, as are various NATO allies.

Not sure why you wouldn't think that's the case.

We've been increasing the 'offensive' capabilities we are providing, most recently with tanks. Fast attack troop carriers, and longer range artillery preceded, and longer range missiles and advanced fighter jets are yet to be released. The Brits are training them on jets now, we're focused on long range artillery and missile capabilities, etc. But we could be green lighting jets soon.

I agree that Ukraine isn't ready yet for the multi-faceted assault that will be necessary to drive the Russians out and I agree that the Russian assault's failure will leave the Russians exhausted in various ways, potentially with absolutely horrible morale...and, thus, all the more vulnerable to a cohesive push by Ukraine.

But I don't think they should do that until actually ready. Meanwhile, making it extremely painful for the Russian military is job one.

As to Putin, yup, he'll keep attacking until there's an alternative that enables him to consolidate and prepare for another form of attack...he can be more patient, if necessary, as long as he maintains his iron grip domestically.

But as to existential, that's Ukraine's motivation.

I know and understand how many nations are giving military aid and training to the Ukrainian military. My point, that I may have made poorly, is Putin expected his version of blitzkrieg to succeed in a short amount of time. Now he is bogged down in a hopeless fight against the Ukrainian military that is putting up a remarkably fierce resistance to defend their country. I don't think the average Russian infantryman has the slightest idea why they are fighting and dying. The average Ukrainian infantryman understands exactly why they are fighting and dying. This is turning into a horrific debacle for the vaunted Russian military. I don't see Putin being able to achieve anything in Ukraine outside of decimating some of his best soldiers. This stupid venture into Ukraine IMO will be Putins downfall. I think his own people have seen enough and understand the futility of the present situation.

We're in full agreement, though I think the iron fist of his rule in Russia and the propaganda machine make it hard for any resistance to succeed; those not in jail have fled the country...so, it's likely going to need to be from military folks, as the political ultranationalists are well entrenched.