Ukranian Conflict

[Uscg Ast]

Several members have reached out and asked me for an assessment of Ukraine. 

On Wednesday, 23 February 2022, Russia invaded the Ukraine. During the early parts of the invasion, it appeared that this would be mostly a regional conflict. However, since this time, several very concerning developments have taken place. 

To begin with, here is a quick history of the Ukranian conflict.

- In 2014, Putin marched into Crimea with military apparatus and took control of the region. Eventually the Minsk agreements were forged, bringing peace once again between the Ukraine and Russia. This agreement had 13 points, one of which was the promise that Ukraine would remain neutral and not join the EU or NATO. Neither side has stuck to their side of the agreement and Ukraine and Russia have remained at war since this time. It should be noted that the United States still views the Crimean region as belonging to Ukraine. It should also be noted that many within Crimea wanted to breakaway from the Ukraine which formed following the fall of the USSR. As such, Crimea was a relatively peaceful takeover for Russia as many within the region were already fighting Ukraine for independence. This was the basis which Russia used to move troops into the region. 

- Since 2014, the Ukraine has been undergoing massive shifts demographically. Western Ukraine has enjoyed an increasingly high standard of living, while two regions in the Eastern part of Ukraine have been consistently fighting for their freedom to break away and move back towards Russia (Donetsk and Lahunsk - in the NE region of Ukraine). This is part of the reasoning put forth by Putin for marching into the Ukraine. 

- However, what is the real reasoning for Putin walking into the Ukraine? Much of it has to do with the fact that Ukraine was attempting to join NATO and NATO was appearing very receptive. To join NATO, several criteria must be met, and Ukraine was rather close to meeting this criteria. Over the past couple of years, Putin had been warning that this was a red line for his country. It appears he meant it. 

Now that we have a brief history and understanding of the conflict, let us run through some developments:

- Russia started out targeting military installations solely. However, this has changed. 

- Russia was not using many destructive weapons (infrastructure wise). However, this has changed. 

- Russia has confirmed a loss of troops of over 4,200 souls (as of 2 days ago). To put this into perspective, American Servicemen lost in Afghanistan during the 2 decades the US was involved in the conflict was 2,401 (Iraq was nearly double this and lasted less than a decade). 

- Putin is yet to take a Ukranian city of achieve air superiority over the Ukraine 

- Western Intelligence agencies are warning that Putin is becoming increasingly frustrated with the lack of progress.  

- Western Countries have hammered down with economic sanctions, completely isolating Russia; even from China (though we have no idea what is happening behind the scenes)

Now to the concerning developments 

- On Sunday, Russia released a memo stating that the entire medical community within Russia was to be on alert and ready to deploy anywhere in the country (and perhaps outside of it as well) at a moment's notice. They required a registration of personnel. This is very concerning for it means one two things. Either they are expecting a devastating hit at home in Russia (which begs the question of why they are expecting this - what are they planning to incur this type of retaliation) or they are expecting a devastating hit in the Ukraine involving civilians. Part of these personnel who were specifically asked for included pediatric surgeons. 

- Western countries are supplying ammunition, weapons, Fighter Aircraft, large explosive devices and more to Ukraine. Putin has warned that those who supply these weapons will be considered at a de facto state of war with Russia. All of the EU and NATO - including the US and UK - have supplied these weapons as well as finances. 

- Even Sweden (neutral Sweden) has joined in on the sanctions and have decided to not allow transactions to take place with Russian economic partners (these sanctions have simply shut off the banks from Russia which is absolutely devastating to their economy. Imagine if no bank allowed America to process transactions). 

- Putin has increased his nuclear forces to an escalated alert. Though saber rattling, this significantly increases the threshold for potential miscalculation. 

- Turkey has closed their straits to Russian Warships, setting up a confrontation with Turkey (a NATO member) and Russia. Turkey also has nuclear weaponry (granted they are technically the United States' weapons)

- Russia has fired upon Japanese, a Turkish and a Moldovan civilian merchant ships in recent days. 

- Putin is indiscriminately shelling densely populated areas of Ukraine (as of this post) with no regard for human casualties. The weapons being used are exceedingly powerful and are killing civilians, en masse. 

- The Ukraine is begging for increasing assistance, including foreign fighters as well as foreign weaponry and financial aid

- President Zelenskyy has become somewhat of a legend, meaning the civilian population itself has become deeply involved in fighting this war. 

Assessment: 

At this time, the world is engaged in a global conflict, even though the world is not physically fighting at this time. As the war drags on, Putin knows that he must quickly achieve the upper hand, or else he risks losing the home front (though this is likely quite a ways off if it were to happen). At the same time, the rhetoric is increasing, and quickly. All the meanwhile, Ukraine is becoming increasingly dangerous for civilians. While Ukraine has put up a stiff resistance, a Russian convoy over 40 miles long was headed for the capital (Kyiv) as of this writing and it is highly unlikely that any restraint will be exercised in this battle. All of this put together means that the escalation continues, with less and less off ramps being afforded to either side. The US and other Western countries have so far been content to stay out of the physical fight, however, they have pulled the economic sanction lever all the way down. Therefore, Putin knows that there is not much more of a deterrent that the West has within their arsenal, save direct kinetic conflict between the West and Russia, which neither have the appetite for at this time. However, Putin is backed into a corner. He has an objective: Subjugate Ukraine. He will stop at nothing to get this done; he feels this is a critical national security interest for Russia. Meanwhile, the US has announced that they are looking at plans to use massive cyber attacks to shut down parts of the Russian Grid as well as to immobilize Russian mass transportation. Airspaces throughout the world have already closed to Russia, however, this is outside of Russia. Should one of these cyber attacks prove successful, this would mark a stark escalation in this conflict, with a high likelihood of Putin interpreting this as a direct -physical- act of aggression by the West. 

As such, all of this being put together for me means that someone needs to de-escalate the situation. We are not out of control, however, we are in global conflict. The trick is to keep the conflict from becoming hot between the West and Russia. Ukranian President Zelenskyy may be able to do this by opting for peace and agreeing to remain neutral in the years to come. Otherwise, I do not see many off ramps here. The West does not want to fight Russia physically, however, they are acting as if they can indiscriminately fund and supply Ukraine with weapons. Agree or not, this is going to become a sticking point for Putin; essentially he is going to say -and pretty much has- that those who continue to supply Ukraine will be considered physically attacking Russian soldiers as the weapon itself will count as much -if not more- than a troop. 

The Ukraine has started a global conflict. The trick is to keep it a proxy war and not a hot global war. I am not so sure this can be done. We are in some very deep waters here. If you adhere to a faith, now is the time to exercise it. 

 

[1816]

You're spot on about zelensky. And really all the Ukrainians. By fighting so hard and the spirit they are showing they have made a lot if people fall in love with them.  Especially here, we love an underdog like a fat kid loves a cupcake. 

This bully thing putin is doing rubs us the wrong way so hard. We love underdogs and we also hate bullies. That's why its gonna be hard to get away from this. Wish they would give up and go home but not gonna happen. 

Thanks for the write up

Edited March 1, 2022 by 1816

[1816]

 

"The West does not want to fight Russia physically, however, they are acting as if they can indiscriminately fund and supply Ukraine with weapons."

 

 

This seems like the West wanting to stand up to the bullying and defend Ukraine but being unwilling to commit fully for the fear of nuclear escalation. Clearly the support has made a huge difference so far, particularly Intel but weapons too of course. Some of the volunteer groups going in are going to have some EXTREMELY skilled and experienced operators who can make a huge difference with insurgency efforts. Real force multiplier kind of people.

I think Putin knows that once he tries to call this out and makes threats based on these efforts, that's going to be the end of the road. Decision time. For now he's not willing to go that far.  Not sure if it will change eventually but probably will if they keep getting their asses embarrassed this way. Half measures rarely work but time will tell. I'm so sad for the Ukrainian people and what they are going through but so proud of their spirit and fight.  Zelensky has been stellar. 

Edited March 1, 2022 by 1816

[Tater]

10 hours ago, 1816 said:

This bully thing putin is doing rubs us the wrong way so hard. We love underdogs and we also hate bullies. That's why its gonna be hard to get away from this. Wish they would give up and go home but not gonna happen. 

The US just wants bullies it controls. The US has been the leading supporter of regime change around the world since WWII. Just in the past 25 years we've had military involvement, financing, or weapon assistance in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Belarus with an eye towards regime change (and which of those countries do you now think is better off as a result our "help"?). It's easy to look at Putin as the aggressor, but from a Russian perspective, the US and NATO have been directly responsible for one humanitarian crisis after another while suffering no consequences as no one is big enough to stop them. Well, that is until Russia put a stop to the regime changes in Syria and Belarus. Russia is also smarting from the US/EU-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014 (which is when they reacted by taking over Crimea, which hosts an important Russian military base at Sevastapol). It does us good to look at things from another's perspective, and there are many folks who view the US as the world's biggest bully.

No matter what perspective you have, Russia has drawn a line in the sand and made it clear they will defend it. As @Uscg Ast pointed out, this is already a global conflict and is dangerously near a world war. WWI started over less. The danger the world is in cannot be overstated.

This video by John Mearsheimer has gone viral recently, even though it is six years old, as it was remarkably prescient. Unfortunately nobody listened then, and I'm not sure the right folks are listening now. But I recommend y'all watch it if you haven't already.

[1816]

14 minutes ago, Tater said:

The US just wants bullies it controls. The US has been the leading supporter of regime change around the world since WWII. Just in the past 25 years we've had military involvement, financing, or weapon assistance in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Belarus with an eye towards regime change (and which of those countries do you now think is better off as a result our "help"?). It's easy to look at Putin as the aggressor, but from a Russian perspective, the US and NATO have been directly responsible for one humanitarian crisis after another while suffering no consequences as no one is big enough to stop them. Well, that is until Russia put a stop to the regime changes in Syria and Belarus. Russia is also smarting from the US/EU-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014 (which is when they reacted by taking over Crimea, which hosts an important Russian military base at Sevastapol). It does us good to look at things from another's perspective, and there are many folks who view the US as the world's biggest bully.

No matter what perspective you have, Russia has drawn a line in the sand and made it clear they will defend it. As @Uscg Ast pointed out, this is already a global conflict and is dangerously near a world war. WWI started over less. The danger the world is in cannot be overstated.

This video by John Mearsheimer has gone viral recently, even though it is six years old, as it was remarkably prescient. Unfortunately nobody listened then, and I'm not sure the right folks are listening now. But I recommend y'all watch it if you haven't already.

All I can say is you're entitled to your opinion. Not looking for a back and forth. I for one am not seeing anything from russia's perspective. No excuse for it. 

Edited March 1, 2022 by 1816

[1816]

"Chechen 'hit-squad' ordered to kill Zelenskyy reportedly 'elimated'

A Chechen "hit squad" that was reportedly sent to Ukraine in an attempt to assassinate Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was "eliminated by Ukrainian forces.

Secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council Oleksiy Danilov told Ukrainian television that Chechen forces that “came to kill our president” were "eliminated," according to reporting from the New York Post.

The Ukrainian official said two Chechen units were sent to Ukraine, with one being captured and the other being engaged by members of the Ukrainian armed forces."

 

Ukrainians are some badassses but they can't do this. 

 

Indicator of western sof on the ground in Ukraine. The best of the best from somewhere. SAS. CAG. DEVGRU. Someone like that. 

 

Every time you hear about Nigerian or Mali special forces conducting some kind of successful hit, yeah it was these guys. Looks like they're watching out for zelensky. 

[Tater]

22 hours ago, 1816 said:

I for one am not seeing anything from russia's perspective. No excuse for it. 

And this is exactly how the US got into the last world war. Our leaders refuse to look at things from the other side. We had severe economic sanctions on Japan in 1940 and refused to negotiate in any meaningful way, leading them to feel that they had to attack us to secure essential commodities for themselves. We've now had extensive sanctions on Russia since the Ukraine revolution in 2014 (a revolution directly supported by the US and Europe to drive Ukraine away from Russia to the West). Russia has a lot of systems in place to deal with these sanctions, but any barriers to free trade mean a decrease in wealth. Russia repeatedly tried to get the West to negotiate, and the West refused. Numerous geopolitical experts from around the world have warned about the dangers of these dynamics, but our leadership didn't care.

This invasion didn't happen overnight. Looking back, it's easy to see the preparations that the Russians were making for this (such as dumping most of their dollar holdings in early 2018). In December last year, Russia put forth a list of demands to lower tensions in Europe, particularly over Ukraine. You can read more about that in this Guardian piece. The Russians were serious about this, and they tried to emphasize that. As usual, the West ignored them. Now the West knew they were serious. US military intelligence was warning about a Russian invasion as early as October and have been carefully tracking Russian military movements. So why did they ignore Russia? The cold, hard truth is that none of your leaders care about Ukraine. Ukraine is a pawn in the geopolitical chess board, and the players of the game don't care about it, though they will both try to use it to their own advantage. This fight isn't about Ukraine. It's about Russia vs. the West.

I'm not here to apologize for Russia or condone what they are doing. The fact is that Russia has been ignored for a long time, and they have finally snapped. They will not back down any more than Japan backed down. The only way I see that Ukraine can "win" is (1) if the Russian populace can apply enough pressure to their government to force them to back down (which is a slow process and highly unlikely) or (2) Ukraine causes catastrophic military losses for Russia and they are forced to withdraw in disgrace (also highly unlikely as Ukraine has had much of their military infrastructure taken out and are massively hampered in their ability to wage war). For Russia to win, they not only need concessions from the Ukrainian government, they also need concessions from the US and NATO. Remember this isn't about Ukraine. And so far, the West has only been interested in escalating this proxy war.

Americans like to think that they are superior and the other side doesn't matter (this applies everywhere, whether in geopolitics, national/state politics, sports teams, or Ford vs Chevy). The military will teach you otherwise: no matter your technical, moral, or financial superiority, the enemy always gets a vote.

So far, this conflict has been very tame. Russia tried to reach out diplomatically in December and January while clearly building up a military force across the border, and the West said "There is no change, there will be no change," (US Secretary of State Antony Blinken). Russia took out a bunch of military targets and started a slow advance, deliberately trying to minimize civilian casualties. Still the West refused to negotiate. Yesterday we started seeing more civilian targets getting hit. And the West seems only interested in escalating. As long as the West is escalating, so will Russia. Western leaders should have high level delegations going to talk with Russia yesterday, but instead we're severing all diplomatic ties and actively trying to make things worse (ie supplying weapons to Ukraine to prolong the misery).

I hope I'm wrong. I hope that negotiations tomorrow between the two sides results in an immediate ceasefire and that subsequent talks lead to everyone going home and living happily ever after. But as many wags have said, hope is not a strategy. This has the hallmarks of a proxy war that gets much worse, and we're already several steps down the path to "much worse" while doing nothing to improve the situation. Even the rosiest of scenarios has serious consequences for the entire world. We were already in a precarious situation with world food, fertilizer, and energy supplies, and that has already been made much worse. Even if the hostilities end immediately, there will be political blowback in Russia and Ukraine (and likely other places). The financial plumbing of the world has been struggling since 2008, and severe sanctions on a major economy is already having ripple effects. And millions in Ukraine have had a tremendous disruption to their lives that cannot just go back to normal. As @Uscg Ast said in his first post, this is a global conflict. And most folks, myself included, do not have any idea of just how far-reaching these consequences will be, even in a best-case scenario.

[Psu1313]

Tater, "they were ignored for so long and finally snapped." That is an odd read of history. IF they hadn't taken parts of Georgia, Ukraine, Chechnya, and are supporting a proxy war in Moldova, not to mention their recent actions in Syria and Kazakhstan, I might stop to think twice. Russia's way of negotiating is to say, "We want capitulation or in this case, we want to change the leadership to someone more like Aleksandr Lukashenko." Yes, there are issues in the dynamics of the relationship, but that is inherent in what American's and the Kremlin's values. The US has made mistakes including Iraq and arming Afghanistan in the 70's and 80's when there was zero reason to be involved which ended up being disastrous for the country. With all of that said, each situation is different and needs to be explored in its spectrum.

Putin's demand of Ukraine to never join NATO is a farce. He showed his hand when he stated that Ukraine has no right to be a country. The Ukraine should have every right to control their destiny as a country and for Russia to be arming rebels in the Donbas and then to come back and say, well "the west wasn't listening" is mindboggling. 

Yes, this is a world conflict now, with it hopefully remaining more financial instead of spilling into a direct physical conflict. Also yes, I agree good and bad is so much more complex than we try to make it out to be.

With all that said, I'm glad to be on the side which allows people to have an anti-war protest without throwing them all in jail. Putin is a pariah. Unlike Afghanistan who were of no semblance a Democracy, the people of Ukraine just want to be free. We can argue the semantics of freedom, but in talking to folks in the Balkans who lived under Soviet rule, they would rather die than go back and my belief is that the Ukrainian people have a similar feel. The best that can be hoped for in the long term is that Ukraine can somehow come up with a peace agreement and/or Putin gets ousted due to the backlash of pissed off mom's who just had their child come back in a body bag from a war that never should have been initiated. 

[Uscg Ast]

We have escalated further. 

As of an hour ago, Russia has sent a list of demands to both Sweden and Finland that the two nations send Russia security guarantees that -among other things- they will not join NATO. This comes on the heels of Russian foreign Minister Maria Zakharova stating that serious military-political repercussions" would come from Sweden and/or Finland attempting to join NATO. Russia has framed NATO as aggressive and has steadfastly opposed NATO expansion East; towards Russia. In this case, NATO would be encroaching on the Baltic Sea, a vital waterway for Russia. 

While the rhetoric is nothing new, this rhetoric -combined with what is taking place currently- and the formal request of security grantees from Russia paints a potentially bleak picture. In the months leading up to the Ukranian invasion, the same type of language was used regarding NATO. Now Finland and Sweden have received formal requests from Russia regarding their intent with regard to NATO. In the recent weeks, Sweden and Finland have both publicly explored sed the idea of joining NATO. It appears that Putin has taken this seriously and considers this a national security threat. 

The US is not willing to fight -kinetically- for the Ukraine, however, the calculus is likely much different with Finland and especially Sweden. Likewise, so would Europe. As well, neither Finland nor Sweden are part of NATO, however, they are both part of the EU. As such, "The Treaty of Lisbon strengthens the solidarity between EU countries in dealing with external threats by introducing a mutual defense clause (Article  42(7) of the Treaty on European Union). This clause provides that if an EU country is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other EU countries have an obligation to aid and assist it by all means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter." This means that essentially every Western Nation would be drawn into the conflict, with the exception of the UK and the USA. Yet, the UK and USA would most likely eventually be brought in. While Sweden and Finland are not NATO, most EU member states are. Should the EU have to engage in Article 51, eventually troops from NATO countries would be fired upon. This would be a bit of a grey area as Article 5 of NATO states that a NATO country would have to be attacked in order for all of NATO to marshal its forces, however, and NATO country troops entering a war for an EU member state may not count as a direct attack. Yet -either way- one can see the further escalation here. 

Things continue to escalate. Once again, this is a global conflict. 

[1816]

4 hours ago, Uscg Ast said:

We have escalated further. 

As of an hour ago, Russia has sent a list of demands to both Sweden and Finland that the two nations send Russia security guarantees that -among other things- they will not join NATO. This comes on the heels of Russian foreign Minister Maria Zakharova stating that serious military-political repercussions" would come from Sweden and/or Finland attempting to join NATO. Russia has framed NATO as aggressive and has steadfastly opposed NATO expansion East; towards Russia. In this case, NATO would be encroaching on the Baltic Sea, a vital waterway for Russia. 

While the rhetoric is nothing new, this rhetoric -combined with what is taking place currently- and the formal request of security grantees from Russia paints a potentially bleak picture. In the months leading up to the Ukranian invasion, the same type of language was used regarding NATO. Now Finland and Sweden have received formal requests from Russia regarding their intent with regard to NATO. In the recent weeks, Sweden and Finland have both publicly explored sed the idea of joining NATO. It appears that Putin has taken this seriously and considers this a national security threat. 

The US is not willing to fight -kinetically- for the Ukraine, however, the calculus is likely much different with Finland and especially Sweden. Likewise, so would Europe. As well, neither Finland nor Sweden are part of NATO, however, they are both part of the EU. As such, "The Treaty of Lisbon strengthens the solidarity between EU countries in dealing with external threats by introducing a mutual defense clause (Article  42(7) of the Treaty on European Union). This clause provides that if an EU country is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other EU countries have an obligation to aid and assist it by all means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter." This means that essentially every Western Nation would be drawn into the conflict, with the exception of the UK and the USA. Yet, the UK and USA would most likely eventually be brought in. While Sweden and Finland are not NATO, most EU member states are. Should the EU have to engage in Article 51, eventually troops from NATO countries would be fired upon. This would be a bit of a grey area as Article 5 of NATO states that a NATO country would have to be attacked in order for all of NATO to marshal its forces, however, and NATO country troops entering a war for an EU member state may not count as a direct attack. Yet -either way- one can see the further escalation here. 

Things continue to escalate. Once again, this is a global conflict. 

Ignoring and continuing to live in fear of a bully has never and will never work out. Regardless of how much a well meaning parent or teacher tells a child to ignore them or stop antagonizing them, bully still gonna bully. Only one thing will stop them. Anyone with any sense has seen this their whole life long and knows it as fact. 

Only way to end this is to call their BLUFF. Every day that goes by and the rest of the world stands by and allows Russia to commit genocide because they are afraid of nuclear Armageddon only emboldens the bully and makes it more difficult later. 

As tough as it is for most people to swallow, the correct amswer to this problem is confronting the bully and that's scary. Too scary for most, which is why there are so many bullies out there. 

There's no point in having a nuclear arsenal to deter another world war and then standing by and letting the atrocities happen anyway because of fear. Someone, preferably the US president, would go on air on every channel in the world and tell the Russians they have 12 hours to get the fuck back inside their borders and stop killing civilians. Shut down the airspace. A conventional war against their forces would be a joke, their military sucks - that has been on display for over a week now. Tell him if he wants to launch nukes we are ready as well. And our nukes probably work a lot better than theirs considering the condition of the rest of their stuff. 

If that brings the world to nuclear war, then that just means it was inevitable anyway. Would you rather just wait until more families are torn apart, lives destroyed? Do you want to wait until it's your family personally? Until they are killing women and children in the US instead of Europe? 

There's no indication that anyone is ready to stand up to them now. It's not going to stop. Waiting until later is just prolonging the inevitable. The only hope is that the Russian people stop him but at that point what stops him from launching anyway if there is a rebellion. No one in the military or inner circle will stop him. He probably had anyone willing and able to do that killed long ago. 

No country has a perfect history or a clean record including the US. But if we don't stand up to this bully it's going to go on until who knows when. Our current political leadership is taking the wait it out approach and it's just fueling the fire. 

[HVSNOWSTORM]

On 3/1/2022 at 2:29 PM, 1816 said:

All I can say is you're entitled to your opinion. Not looking for a back and forth. I for one am not seeing anything from russia's perspective. No excuse for it. 

You have to understand, how would the US react if Mexico was considering going into alliance Russia or China where they would be putting Russian troops (or Chinese) military bases, and Russian misels in Mexico, on the USA border... because Ukraine wants to join NATO, US troops and military would be in Ukraine if they joined. Right on Russias border. 

The US would never allow that, at least under any somewhat strong leadership.

[1816]

1 minute ago, HVSNOWSTORM said:

You have to understand, how would the US react if Mexico was considering going into alliance Russia or China where they would be putting Russian troops (or Chinese) military bases, and Russian misels in Mexico, on the USA border... because Ukraine wants to join NATO, US troops and military would be in Ukraine if they joined. Right on Russias border. 

The US would never allow that, at least under any somewhat strong leadership.

I never understand this argument. It's a total red herring. The nukes can fly across the whole planet in a matter of minutes. It doesn't matter where they are. There's always submarines with nukes hanging out all over the damn place. What difference does it make? Unless you desire to conquer lands beyond your borders, it doesn't.  

All the blood spilled and talk about freedom and democracy is meaningless when a sovereign nation is destroyed when they choose self determination over compliance to the bully. No protection for freedom or democracy in this case I guess. Because end of world scary. 

If Mexico wanted to become a Russian province and was done by vote and legal means and not by force then in my opinion we would have to live with that. Doesn't affect the nuclear calculus though.  

[HVSNOWSTORM]

26 minutes ago, 1816 said:

I never understand this argument. It's a total red herring. The nukes can fly across the whole planet in a matter of minutes. It doesn't matter where they are. There's always submarines with nukes hanging out all over the damn place. What difference does it make? Unless you desire to conquer lands beyond your borders, it doesn't.  

All the blood spilled and talk about freedom and democracy is meaningless when a sovereign nation is destroyed when they choose self determination over compliance to the bully. No protection for freedom or democracy in this case I guess. Because end of world scary. 

If Mexico wanted to become a Russian province and was done by vote and legal means and not by force then in my opinion we would have to live with that. Doesn't affect the nuclear calculus though.  

Lol I understand your opinion but that wouldn't happen and that's just simply not how the world works lol. If China ir Russia would take over Mexico or have military bases there it wouldn't go over just like "oh yeah that sucks for the US, but we should be all good". It's a lot easier to attack when your right next to them regardless if rockets can fly across the world. Its just the reality of our relationship with countries like Russia ir China.  We are seen as threats by each other from a military standpoint. The closer tou get the bigger the threat.

I'm not defending what Russia is doing, I'm just explaing both perspectives and I understand why Russia feels threatened by Ukraine joining NATO. I think its pretty understandable why they feel threatened is all I'm saying.

[Psu1313]

Let me first start by saying I appreciate the debate. It's nice to have a respectable conversation these days without it devolving into name calling or insinuations. 

2 hours ago, HVSNOWSTORM said:

Lol I understand your opinion but that wouldn't happen and that's just simply not how the world works lol. If China ir Russia would take over Mexico or have military bases there it wouldn't go over just like "oh yeah that sucks for the US, but we should be all good". It's a lot easier to attack when your right next to them regardless if rockets can fly across the world. Its just the reality of our relationship with countries like Russia ir China.  We are seen as threats by each other from a military standpoint. The closer tou get the bigger the threat.

I'm not defending what Russia is doing, I'm just explaing both perspectives and I understand why Russia feels threatened by Ukraine joining NATO. I think its pretty understandable why they feel threatened is all I'm saying.

Here is where I have to disagree and it all is based in putting missiles in Ukraine. NATO did not put nuclear weapons or a military base in the Baltics (though yes, NATO can use existing bases). You're right about being much easier to attack from a close in location, but that would be glossing over the fact that many NATO countries had been reducing military levels prior to this event. Russia knows that NATO does not want to fight, but Putin wants to have carte blanche on controlling the states around him. If the Kremlin were to be welcoming to the world, the Russian people would benefit. Putin knows that a thriving Democracy on his doorstep is bad for autocracy when A) Russia's economy is weak, and B) Putin's popularity has been waning over the years. The biggest threat to Russia is culture and finance, and that is what crumbled the Soviet Union. Putin did not want a repeat, but he may have just set himself up for one. 

Let's also look at what would happen if Mexico were to become friends with Russia and host troops. The US may provide some bluster, but in no way would the US attack Mexico and push for regime change. The US did not attack Cuba and it would be no different now. There's a gulf between not being happy and attacking a country to install a puppet. 

[1816]

15 minutes ago, Psu1313 said:

Let me first start by saying I appreciate the debate. It's nice to have a respectable conversation these days without it devolving into name calling or insinuations. 

Here is where I have to disagree and it all is based in putting missiles in Ukraine. NATO did not put nuclear weapons or a military base in the Baltics (though yes, NATO can use existing bases). You're right about being much easier to attack from a close in location, but that would be glossing over the fact that many NATO countries had been reducing military levels prior to this event. Russia knows that NATO does not want to fight, but Putin wants to have carte blanche on controlling the states around him. If the Kremlin were to be welcoming to the world, the Russian people would benefit. Putin knows that a thriving Democracy on his doorstep is bad for autocracy when A) Russia's economy is weak, and B) Putin's popularity has been waning over the years. The biggest threat to Russia is culture and finance, and that is what crumbled the Soviet Union. Putin did not want a repeat, but he may have just set himself up for one. 

Let's also look at what would happen if Mexico were to become friends with Russia and host troops. The US may provide some bluster, but in no way would the US attack Mexico and push for regime change. The US did not attack Cuba and it would be no different now. There's a gulf between not being happy and attacking a country to install a puppet. 

Thank you. Well said. Also there is a big difference if there was popular support for Mexico to go Russian amongst its people and the proper ts were crossed and is dotted through the government to make it so. We wouldn't be able to do much about that. 

 Versus invading and murdering the citizens who are 100 percent against this move and fighting to the last man which is what russia is doing in ukraine. This effort to make Russia moving in next door to us analogous to what's happening in Ukraine is disingenuous. Ukraine doesn't want Russia there. A better analogy would be if we held "exercises" in Texas then invaded and started leveling mexican cities who didn't want to become part of America.  If we did that then I wouldn't be surprised if the world wanted to stop us by any means necessary.  They better!

[HVSNOWSTORM]

47 minutes ago, Psu1313 said:

Let me first start by saying I appreciate the debate. It's nice to have a respectable conversation these days without it devolving into name calling or insinuations. 

Here is where I have to disagree and it all is based in putting missiles in Ukraine. NATO did not put nuclear weapons or a military base in the Baltics (though yes, NATO can use existing bases). You're right about being much easier to attack from a close in location, but that would be glossing over the fact that many NATO countries had been reducing military levels prior to this event. Russia knows that NATO does not want to fight, but Putin wants to have carte blanche on controlling the states around him. If the Kremlin were to be welcoming to the world, the Russian people would benefit. Putin knows that a thriving Democracy on his doorstep is bad for autocracy when A) Russia's economy is weak, and B) Putin's popularity has been waning over the years. The biggest threat to Russia is culture and finance, and that is what crumbled the Soviet Union. Putin did not want a repeat, but he may have just set himself up for one. 

Let's also look at what would happen if Mexico were to become friends with Russia and host troops. The US may provide some bluster, but in no way would the US attack Mexico and push for regime change. The US did not attack Cuba and it would be no different now. There's a gulf between not being happy and attacking a country to install a puppet. 

I'm not saying we'd attack Mexico and again I'm not saying I agree with Putin. I'm just laying out his view point. You do not know how Putin views NATO, nobody really does, but what we do know is he's obviously has some fear over them on his border he's made that extremely clear, and in his mind that puts Russia at risk security wise. That's his view that's I'm saying. If Russia was kn Mexico, the US may handle it differently but they wouldn't likely do nothing. That'd be the biggest risk in the history of the US to the mainland. Obviously the US wouldn't indiscriminately fire rockets into Mexico, they may consider selective strikes yes, but that's not even the point. Again you just gotta understand how he sees the threat to him. I AM DEFINITELY NOT AGREEING WITH THE WAY HES HANDLING THE SITUATION. 

[HVSNOWSTORM]

57 minutes ago, Psu1313 said:

Let me first start by saying I appreciate the debate. It's nice to have a respectable conversation these days without it devolving into name calling or insinuations. 

Here is where I have to disagree and it all is based in putting missiles in Ukraine. NATO did not put nuclear weapons or a military base in the Baltics (though yes, NATO can use existing bases). You're right about being much easier to attack from a close in location, but that would be glossing over the fact that many NATO countries had been reducing military levels prior to this event. Russia knows that NATO does not want to fight, but Putin wants to have carte blanche on controlling the states around him. If the Kremlin were to be welcoming to the world, the Russian people would benefit. Putin knows that a thriving Democracy on his doorstep is bad for autocracy when A) Russia's economy is weak, and B) Putin's popularity has been waning over the years. The biggest threat to Russia is culture and finance, and that is what crumbled the Soviet Union. Putin did not want a repeat, but he may have just set himself up for one. 

Let's also look at what would happen if Mexico were to become friends with Russia and host troops. The US may provide some bluster, but in no way would the US attack Mexico and push for regime change. The US did not attack Cuba and it would be no different now. There's a gulf between not being happy and attacking a country to install a puppet. 

Also give me a break the US has been one of the only countries pushing regime change on a consistent basis in this world. It's what we do in basically every war. There is absolutely no way you can say the US wouldn't put in a different leader in any situation. History has proved over and over the USA does do that. Now let's hope we've learned our lesson about these wars. But the military industrial complex will always push war, so eventually we will be in another one.

Edited March 3, 2022 by HVSNOWSTORM

[1816]

@HVSNOWSTORM 

I think its pretty risky to assign fear of nato proximity as putin's motivation for this debacle. It seems more likely to me that this is your run of the mill megalomaniacal psychopathy with delusions of grandeur. More like he wants to add territory to mother Russia than fear of nato. Land grab. 

If he wanted regime change why couldn't he just assassinate the leader or run a complex operation via the intelligence services like we do? After all, what is the Fsb even for? 

[HVSNOWSTORM]

8 minutes ago, 1816 said:

@HVSNOWSTORM 

I think its pretty risky to assign fear of nato proximity as putin's motivation for this debacle. It seems more likely to me that this is your run of the mill megalomaniacal psychopathy with delusions of grandeur. More like he wants to add territory to mother Russia than fear of nato. Land grab. 

If he wanted regime change why couldn't he just assassinate the leader or run a complex operation via the intelligence services like we do? After all, what is the Fsb even for? 

Look none of us know what Putin is thinking. But it will cost him too much money amd military resorces to take the territory, and hold it. That's been known since the start so I don't think that's the motive. If he takes ukraine for terrirory, then hes on the NATO border. Hes already making a big deal about sweden wanting to join as they just have stated recently. The motive is NATO, there is zero doubt he is very very fearful of them being his nieghbor because then the US is right at his door (in his mind). He's made that very clear. Its been by the Russians said if Ukraine would commit to not joining NATO, that would be it and very likely wouldve avoided the war entirely. He doesn't look at the world the way we do here, that i do know. 

[Psu1313]

21 minutes ago, HVSNOWSTORM said:

Also give me a break the US has been one of the only countries pushing regime change on a consistent basis in this world. It's what we do in basically every war. There is absolutely no way you can say the US wouldn't put in a different leader in any situation. History has proved over and over the USA does do that. Now let's hope we've learned our lesson about these wars. But the military industrial complex will always push war, so eventually we will be in another one.

I'm not absolving the mistakes the US has made, the most blatant being the second war in Iraq. I'm also not saying we wouldn't try to put in a different leader in any situation. I'm stating that the US would not attack Mexico or Canada because they joined or were thinking about joining an Alliance. Putin is KGB and is good at deflecting and sowing chaos. He's using NATO as a reason to sow debate and division, but this time everyone is finally seeing through it. He wants to rebuild the USSR, through any means necessary. Lukashenko has basically handed Belarus to Russia and Kazakhstan is basically a puppet as well. 

Here is an assessment from the Wilson Center where they misjudged Ukrainian's will to fight, but lays out Putin's objectives. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/putins-goals-ukraine-and-their-consequences#:~:text=Assertions that President Putin wants to occupy another,to conquer Kyiv and install a Kremlin-friendly government.

HV - no one is arguing that you are saying that you agree with Putin, but rather I know I believe that you're misreading his intentions and the reasoning he is providing. I believe Putin misread the room if you will, in thinking that he could bluster and push and that NATO would appease. 

 

[HVSNOWSTORM]

1 minute ago, Psu1313 said:

I'm not absolving the mistakes the US has made, the most blatant being the second war in Iraq. I'm also not saying we wouldn't try to put in a different leader in any situation. I'm stating that the US would not attack Mexico or Canada because they joined or were thinking about joining an Alliance. Putin is KGB and is good at deflecting and sowing chaos. He's using NATO as a reason to sow debate and division, but this time everyone is finally seeing through it. He wants to rebuild the USSR, through any means necessary. Lukashenko has basically handed Belarus to Russia and Kazakhstan is basically a puppet as well. 

Here is an assessment from the Wilson Center where they misjudged Ukrainian's will to fight, but lays out Putin's objectives. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/putins-goals-ukraine-and-their-consequences#:~:text=Assertions that President Putin wants to occupy another,to conquer Kyiv and install a Kremlin-friendly government.

HV - no one is arguing that you are saying that you agree with Putin, but rather I know I believe that you're misreading his intentions and the reasoning he is providing. I believe Putin misread the room if you will, in thinking that he could bluster and push and that NATO would appease. 

 

I disagree he has said that a red line is Ukraine joining NATO. And if they would have said they will not join this war would have been avoided. And idk where your coming up with we wouldn't attack another country that's was on our border if they aligned with Russia. Like I said we wouldn't discriminatly fire and attack random places but I don't think there is any doubt about it there would be selective strikes at an absolute minimum.

If you think the US would allow Russia to have military assets on our border then I thibk your just a little out of touch, no offense intended at all. That's just not acceptable In anyway whatsoever, the only reason someone like Russia would do that would be to spy and take America down.  That's there objective as well as China they have said this publicly. So to just allow that would mean our leadership is totally compromised, stupid, or not even weak because you'd have to be so beyond weak to allow a country to do that that has said they want to end America as we know it.

 

[HVSNOWSTORM]

8 minutes ago, Psu1313 said:

I'm not absolving the mistakes the US has made, the most blatant being the second war in Iraq. I'm also not saying we wouldn't try to put in a different leader in any situation. I'm stating that the US would not attack Mexico or Canada because they joined or were thinking about joining an Alliance. Putin is KGB and is good at deflecting and sowing chaos. He's using NATO as a reason to sow debate and division, but this time everyone is finally seeing through it. He wants to rebuild the USSR, through any means necessary. Lukashenko has basically handed Belarus to Russia and Kazakhstan is basically a puppet as well. 

Here is an assessment from the Wilson Center where they misjudged Ukrainian's will to fight, but lays out Putin's objectives. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/putins-goals-ukraine-and-their-consequences#:~:text=Assertions that President Putin wants to occupy another,to conquer Kyiv and install a Kremlin-friendly government.

HV - no one is arguing that you are saying that you agree with Putin, but rather I know I believe that you're misreading his intentions and the reasoning he is providing. I believe Putin misread the room if you will, in thinking that he could bluster and push and that NATO would appease. 

 

Id also say this whole Putin mis read with his military is a media misinformation by the MSM in the US and globally. It often takes weeks for invaders to make any real progress taking over territory as has been the case in previous US wars. Regardless of how big and mighty you are, going into a conventional ground war is never just a walk in the park. If you look at previous USA invasions, it takes time to take territory (and of course hold it), and our opponents were probably a lot weaker than Ukraine (arguably).

[Psu1313]

Just now, HVSNOWSTORM said:

I disagree he has said that a red line is Ukraine joining NATO. And if they would have said they will not join this war would have been avoided. And idk where your coming up with we wouldn't attack another country that's was on our border if they aligned with Russia. Like I said we wouldn't discriminatly fire and attack random places but I don't think there is any doubt about it there would be selective strikes at an absolute minimum.

If you think the US would allow Russia to have military assets on our border then I thibk your just a little out of touch, no offense intended at all. That's just not acceptable In anyway whatsoever, the only reason someone like Russia would do that would be to spy and take America down.  That's there objective as well as China they have said this publicly. So to just allow that would mean our leadership is totally compromised, stupid, or not even weak because you'd have to be so beyond weak to allow a country to do that that has said they want to end America as we know it.

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Look at Cuba. We're not crazy enough to start a World War. Now, a proxy war is not out of the question with arming a bunch of separatists that would be pro-US, but to say that the US would try to take over Mexico and would bomb their sovereign territory in your scenario is not plausible. 

Ukraine could have screamed neutrality from the rooftops, and Putin would still have eventually bore down on them. He wants Ukraine to be pro-Russia, period. 

[Psu1313]

1 minute ago, HVSNOWSTORM said:

Id also say this whole Putin mis read with his military is a media misinformation by the MSM in the US and globally. It often takes weeks for invaders to make any real progress taking over territory as has been the case in previous US wars. Regardless of how big and mighty you are, going into a conventional ground war is never just a walk in the park. If you look at previous USA invasions, it takes time to take territory (and of course hold it), and our opponents were probably a lot weaker than Ukraine (arguably).

I'm not saying he misread the room with his military. He misread the room in that NATO would coalesce around Ukraine. It's pretty obvious to me that Putin tried to be restrained in his attack to go for Kyiv and try to end the conflict quickly with as little civilian deaths as possible, though he gave a really faulty reasoning for attacking Kyiv in that he stated it was a special operation to protect the Donbas. Do you buy that? 

 

[1816]

Just now, Psu1313 said:

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Look at Cuba. We're not crazy enough to start a World War. Now, a proxy war is not out of the question with arming a bunch of separatists that would be pro-US, but to say that the US would try to take over Mexico and would bomb their sovereign territory in your scenario is not plausible. 

Ukraine could have screamed neutrality from the rooftops, and Putin would still have eventually bore down on them. He wants Ukraine to be pro-Russia, period. 

Also - spoiler alert. Ukraine is just the start. Even if they rolled over that's not the end of it.  I stand by what I stated this morning. Only way to end this is to smack the bully in the head with the baseball bat. Or your back to hoping his own people take him out before he can go out in his blaze of glory.