WW3 Please SAY NO!

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-...table-n1290831

"The fact that the NATO status question was not put on the table as Putin signaled that he was serious about an invasion — so plainly that the U.S. government was spelling it out with day-by-day updates — was an error, and potentially a catastrophic one. It may sound cruel to suggest that Ukraine could be barred, either temporarily or permanently, from entering a military alliance it wants to be in. But what’s more cruel is that Ukrainians might be paying with their lives for the United States’ reckless flirtation with Ukraine as a future NATO member without ever committing to its defense.

Analysts say it’s widely known that Ukraine had no prospect of entering NATO for many years, possibly decades, because of its need for major democracy and anti-corruption reforms and because NATO has no interest in going to war with Russia over Ukraine’s Donbas region, where Russia has meddled and backed armed conflict for years. But by dangling the possibility of Ukraine’s NATO membership for years but never fulfilling it, NATO created a scenario that emboldened Ukraine to act tough and buck Russia — without any intention of directly defending Ukraine with its firepower if Moscow decided Ukraine had gone too far."
_____________________________________

https://reason.com/2022/02/28/ukrain...urope-clinton/

"Let's start with the Clinton administration in the 1990s. As Reason's Eric Boehm pointed out, Clinton was the first U.S. president in decades to inherit a world that did not include the Soviet Union. Clinton could have completely revamped NATO now that its purpose—defending member nations against the expansion of the Soviet Union—was no longer applicable. Instead, Clinton, with the Republican Party's support, oversaw an expansion of NATO. Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland all joined. Years later, Putin would cite this enlargement of NATO as one of the West's "broken promises" that justified his Ukraine policy.

Again, Putin is dead wrong. Nothing justifies his Ukraine policy. But the purpose of NATO was defensive: to protect the world from Russian aggression. If NATO policy is antagonizing Russia and being used as a pretext for invasion, it clearly isn't serving that goal.

With the Clinton administration's backing, NATO also intervened in Yugoslavia in 1999 to ensure an independent Kosovo. That military action never had the backing of the United Nations; it was a violation of international law, just like Putin's attack on Ukraine.

George Bush's foreign policy has not held up well, due to the U.S.'s horrendous misadventures in the Middle East, but Bush blundered in Europe as well. At a 2008 NATO summit—one attended by Putin—Bush staunchly supported Ukraine's eventual admittance to NATO, over the objections of France, the U.K., and Germany.

The Obama administration, of course, inflamed tensions with Russia when the U.S. took sides in the 2014 Ukrainian revolution. And then came Donald Trump. Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media ceaselessly accused Trump of being a Russian stooge, even a pro-Putin plant, installed by Russia as president of the U.S. due to a subtle influence campaign on Facebook. This was of course ridiculous—and as evidence of how ridiculous the claims are, Trump's actual administration was just as foolishly tough on Russia as his predecessors. In 2017, Vice President Mike Pence even reiterated the 2008 Bucharest declaration.

The Biden administration maintained that same fiction. A clear declaration that the Ukraine would not be joining NATO might have deprived Putin of the intellectual ammo he required to move forward with this invasion. We don't know for sure. But it was incumbent on the U.S. to try. NATO is a means to an end—a more safe and secure Europe—not an end unto itself. If expansion is creating the very conditions that NATO's existence is supposed to prevent, it's not working. Yet every single U.S. president since the end of the Cold War has misunderstood this. And now here we are."
____________________________

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...year_2000.html

"VLADIMIR PUTIN: I will say one thing that I have never said before in public. I will say for the first time that in 2000 when President Bill Clinton was visiting Moscow at the end of his term, I asked him how would America see Russia joining NATO. I would not give you all the details of that conversation, but the reaction to my conversation -- look, well, let me put it this way. How did Americans really look at this possibility? You can see it in their practical stance. Open support of the terrorists in North Caucusus, ignoring our demands and concerns, withdrawing from the arms limitation treaties, and so on."
____________________________

I don't think I'm a f'ing idiot, Leon. I'm 27. My first votable election was in 2012 between two POS. Maybe the generations before me can explain how they let the US government go unchecked with so much corruption for decades. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Maybe, just maybe, if we can expose the corruption within our own government and clean it up, my kids/my grandkids/my great grankids/etc. won't grow up in a world with constant war involving the US.

I actually read this twice. I will set aside the fact that, over a span of 30 years, global dynamics have ebbed and flowed and are constantly changing. I will set aside the fact that you point out all of the "missteps" made by the corrupt US but nothing Russia has done over those 30 years, which tends to lead us to think we have been corrupt alone. Remember, your knowledge of the Clinton and Bush years comes from reading, and if your reading selections all stem from a common slant, your view will be slanted. (Very common in today's society.)

But I still don't see how "We teased you about Ukraine." or "We're using Ukraine as a tool against you." or even "We lied about Ukraine entering NATO." is EQUAL to bombing whole cities full of civilians.

KS

PS: Totally off topic, but why were both candidates in 2012 "SOB's?" I can understand not liking their politics or perhaps some decisions from their pasts, but SOB's? I didn't love the choice, but I thought both were decent human beings.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

These guys:

Ah, I see you stayed up almost an hour trying to come up with something!

Since you're college educated, maybe you'll understand that context has a bearing on the answer to your question. What I was trying to say was that the present conflict could have been avoided and right now the U.S. and NATO are fighting a proxy war down to the last Ukranian. If I were a citizen of Ukraine, I would be angry at Putin, but I would also be angry at my government for getting my country into an unnecessary conflict. Putin pulled the trigger, but the U.S. and Ukraine did everything they could to goad him. The Charter on Strategic Partnership which was signed between the U.S. and Ukraine on Nov. 10th of last year, which reiterated U.S. support Ukraine's right to join NATO, was the last straw for Putin who had been sternly warning both parties of the unacceptability Ukranian membership for years.

Does Putin have the right to keep Ukraine or any other nation out of NATO? The more accurate question would be, why was NATO not disbanded after Germany was reunified and the Soviet Union dissolved? You might say, because of exactly what is happening right now. But the early 90s were an opportunity for unprecedented cooperation and amity between the U.S. and Russia. Russia even wanted to join NATO for a time. The other question is, does Russia have a right to feel threatened as 14 of it's neighbors have been armed over the years, with some of those countries pointing missiles at them? Does allowing Ukraine which sits right on it's doorstep worsen that situation in Russia's eyes?

Did the United States have a responsibility to read the geopolitical tea leaves more accurately instead of pushing the little fella to wake the sleeping giant? There are some far-right ultra nationalists in Ukraine, who incidentally are part of the armed forces there who were also committing atrocities such as burning some Ukraninans alive in the east, who might be ecstatic about the situation. But of course, there are a lot of innocent people who are being victimized and dying because of the absolute fecklessness of the U.S. and the Ukrainian government.

So again, if I were a politically aware citizen living in Ukraine, I would be mad as hell at Russia, as well as mad as hell at my government for blundering into this. And the answer is, that I would not be ecstatic about fighting as a result of other people's absolute stupidity.

The idea of fighting for gas and oil in Afghanistan and Iraq was also repugnant to me.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

I'm sure glad people don't think we are a "free" country with a recently stolen election. Also, I'm sure glad we don't have corruption in our country. Lastly, it's a blessing that we don't have neo-Nazis groups in this country, I don't know, holding rallies. Because if we did, people would think other countries would be justified in freeing us by military force.

How you doing AustinJoeMcCarthy?

Russia invaded Ukraine because of encirclement by NATO and the threat of the addition of Ukraine to that alliance. As far as neo-nazis go, in Ukraine they have committed atrocities in the east.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by steve B

Perhaps we don't feel a need to brag about what we would do?
Perhaps, just perhaps we aren't that insecure in knowing what we would do.

The loudmouths are generally the first to slink away.

Exactly. Also, someone might give an answer to the kind of question being posed if it were asked in a civil and sincere way.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by jgannon

How you doing AustinJoeMcCarthy?

Russia invaded Ukraine because of encirclement by NATO and the threat of the addition of Ukraine to that alliance. As far as neo-nazis go, in Ukraine they have committed atrocities in the east.

I've asked others before, maybe you know: if Russia takes over Ukraine, how does this lessen the encirclement by NATO?

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

I've asked others before, maybe you know: if Russia takes over Ukraine, how does this lessen the encirclement by NATO?

Well if Puerto Rico and Cuba were aligned against us with weapons and missiles in those countries to potentially be used against us. Would we be wanting Haiti and the Dominican Republic to join on board?

It was a red line Putin drew a long time ago, back in 2007. He has been consistent on it. I do not support his invasion at all. But the U.S. and Ukraine were reckless and stupid.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by jgannon

How you doing AustinJoeMcCarthy?

Russia invaded Ukraine because of encirclement by NATO and the threat of the addition of Ukraine to that alliance. As far as neo-nazis go, in Ukraine they have committed atrocities in the east.

Makes no sense. Now, he has Ukraine as a non-NATO buffer. If he reunifies Ukraine, he has NATO (Poland, primarily) on his western border. Had Ukraine joined NATO, he'd have NATO on his western border.

Regardless, you don't just decide you're unhappy with the politics of a neighbor and then roll tanks in to destroy their lives and buildings.

By the way, NATO is a defensive alliance. It is a joint defensive pact only, not a joint offensive agreement. The only reason Putin would feel threatened by a defensive alliance would be that it poses an obstacle to his offensive war plans.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Ah, I see you stayed up almost an hour trying to come up with something!

Since you're college educated, maybe you'll understand that context has a bearing on the answer to your question. What I was trying to say was that the present conflict could have been avoided and right now the U.S. and NATO are fighting a proxy war down to the last Ukranian. If I were a citizen of Ukraine, I would be angry at Putin, but I would also be angry at my government for getting my country into an unnecessary conflict. Putin pulled the trigger, but the U.S. and Ukraine did everything they could to goad him. The Charter on Strategic Partnership which was signed between the U.S. and Ukraine on Nov. 10th of last year, which reiterated U.S. support Ukraine's right to join NATO, was the last straw for Putin who had been sternly warning both parties of the unacceptability Ukranian membership for years.

Does Putin have the right to keep Ukraine or any other nation out of NATO? The more accurate question would be, why was NATO not disbanded after Germany was reunified and the Soviet Union dissolved? You might say, because of exactly what is happening right now. But the early 90s were an opportunity for unprecedented cooperation and amity between the U.S. and Russia. Russia even wanted to join NATO for a time. The other question is, does Russia have a right to feel threatened as 14 of it's neighbors have been armed over the years, with some of those countries pointing missiles at them? Does allowing Ukraine which sits right on it's doorstep worsen that situation in Russia's eyes?

Did the United States have a responsibility to read the geopolitical tea leaves more accurately instead of pushing the little fella to wake the sleeping giant? There are some far-right ultra nationalists in Ukraine, who incidentally are part of the armed forces there who were also committing atrocities such as burning some Ukraninans alive in the east, who might be ecstatic about the situation. But of course, there are a lot of innocent people who are being victimized and dying because of the absolute fecklessness foreign of the U.S. and the Ukrainian government.

So again, if I were a politically aware citizen living in Ukraine, I would be mad as hell at Russia, as well as mad as hell at my government for blundering into this. And the answer is, that I would not be ecstatic about fighting as a result of other people's absolute stupidity.

The idea of fighting for gas and oil in Afghanistan and Iraq was also repugnant to me.

Didn’t realize Net54 was still reachable in Moscow.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Makes no sense. Now, he has Ukraine as a non-NATO buffer. If he reunifies Ukraine, he has NATO (Poland, primarily) on his western border. Had Ukraine joined NATO, he'd have NATO on his western border.

Regardless, you don't just decide you're unhappy with the politics of a neighbor and then roll tanks in to destroy their lives and buildings.

By the way, NATO is a defensive alliance. It is a joint defensive pact only, not a joint offensive agreement. The only reason Putin would feel threatened by a defensive alliance would be that it poses an obstacle to his offensive war plans.

While NATO is a defensive alliance, the entire reason for it's existence and for the missile buildup for so many years during the Cold War was distrust. Both countries were aware of the balance of power regarding how many missiles each country had, as well as where they were deployed, which had a bearing on how quickly they could react to a potential nuclear attack.

If as you say, NATO is defensive, Russia may be asking why do they need to arm and deploy when we do not seek to attack them.

The U.S. also pulled out of treaties such as the ABM Treaty, the INF Treaty, and the Open Skies Treaty. The U.S. pulled out of those, not Russia.

Lastly, missiles are deployed in Poland and being constructed in Romania. Russia doesn't see these as defensive actions, but provocative ones.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

Didn’t realize Net54 was still reachable in Moscow.

Let the eagle soar!!

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Hey, what do you know? We agree on something! We should learn from history.

Let's make up a hypothetical situation and see if we can use history to help us formulate a way to react.

Let's assume there's a country ... let's make one up and call it Deutschdirt. Let's say they were really down on their luck and agreed to a treaty. But then later on, they got a leader that didn't like that treaty. He didn't think it was fair. So he decided to annex a bordering country because, I don't know, he claimed Deutschdirters who lived there weren't being treated properly. Let's say that no other country objected. That leader then decided to take over another country and all the other countries said, "Neville mind him taking that country. If we let him have that country, he'll stop."

Is there anything in world history that you can think of that might give us a hint at how this might play out?

Putin is not Hitler and is not seeking to invade other countries. He told me last night.

Anyway, since I have you on the line, I looked a little bit more into what we were talking about regarding the so-called promise that was made to Gorbachev. And I have an article, which I'll share below, where Gorbachev says that the promise was made in regard to Germany only, but he goes on to say that the expansion of NATO broke the spirit of the agreement.

I also have an article by an author, who is Republican, who I respect very much named Eric Margolis, who is an expert on military history and history in general. I'll share that because he makes other claims. You say you looked at the documents that were released and could not find any evidence of promises broken. Margolis seems to differ.

https://www.rbth.com/international/2...lls_40673.html

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...ave-it-writing

Margolis also gives George H.W., and Baker, credit for not expanding NATO.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Problem is.... it's not stupidity at all, if you're a psychopathic megalomaniac.

World War 2 doesn't happen if you could remove about 4 people before it all began: Tojo, Adolf, Joe, and Benny. Your average German and Brit would've rather played a friendly game of cards over a pint or two than try to kill each other, and the average Italian wanted nothing to do with that war in the first place. They weren't bad combatants - they just weren't killers (and I've been to Italy and believe me, they love Americans and everyone else generally.)

Japanese and American people had respect for each other before the war (baseball was becoming a huge part of Japanese life in the years before the war, and still is the basis of a strong cultural bond between that country and ours.)

Generally, populations don't hate each other and wouldn't choose war; it is governments. In the case of Russia, their government tends to consist of one man - the one brutal enough to eliminate his rivals.

So when Putin gives the order to bomb hospitals and kill women and children, it isn't a matter of stupidity. The problem is, he simply doesn't care.

Absolutely agree with a lot of what you're saying Mark, but the bottom line is people were stupid for originally putting such psychopathic megalomaniacs into positions of power to do the crap they do in the first place. And even if they may not have started out being psychopathic megalomaniacs, once they started exhibiting the telltale signs, people were still too stupid to remove them from power, and still dumb enough to believe and follow them. So yes, it ultimately is our own overall stupidity that allows this to happen.

As I had said before, humans almost always think of themselves, but rarely for themselves. So when one crackpot comes along and says and does things a lot of people think will benefit them in some way, they generally go along to adopt similar beliefs and follow them, blindly in a lot of cases. And once they do make such a connection, another common human trait often kicks in, the one where we don't like to admit to others, and ourselves, that we were wrong about something or someone. So even if the person they were following starts to do things their followers may not think are that great, as long as those followers themselves aren't directly getting negatively hurt or impacted, they're likely to just dismiss, or even outright ignore, whatever not so great things the person they're following has done or is doing.

In the end, it all comes down to overall human stupidity for the majority of us allowing a select few to be able to tell us what to do, and then not doing something about it when we finally realize some of those select few leaders shouldn't be leading anymore. The only real differences between people like Trump, Putin, Biden, and the likes of Charles Manson, is the number of people they were able to sway and otherwise coerce into believing and following them. They've all had people following them go out and hurt and kill others for them and in their names. Except some are viewed as world leaders, whereas others are considered as crazy cult founders and insane criminals. Guess it just depends on how many people you can get to drink your own personal flavor of Kool-Aid as to which option such people end up falling under.

To me, the one thing that does make sense is the Golden Rule, it is an extreme pity that it seems to not be truly followed by many people on this planet. It would certainly be a lot better place if everyone did.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by jgannon

While NATO is a defensive alliance, the entire reason for it's existence and for the missile buildup for so many years during the Cold War was distrust. Both countries were aware of the balance of power regarding how many missiles each country had, as well as where they were deployed, which had a bearing on how quickly they could react to a potential nuclear attack.

And Russia hasn't attacked a NATO country, and no NATO country has invaded Russia. NATO has helped keep the peace to everyones' benefit (besides Putin's expansionist desires that is.)

Originally Posted by jgannon

If as you say, NATO is defensive, Russia may be asking why do they need to arm and deploy when we do not seek to attack them.

To remain prepared, as a deterrent, obviously. Why does Russia's army conduct exercises, missile tests, etc. if they are not a threat? And what's with "If, as you say...?" Are you uncertain regarding NATO's defensive charter?

Originally Posted by jgannon

The U.S. also pulled out of treaties such as the ABM Treaty, the INF Treaty, and the Open Skies Treaty. The U.S. pulled out of those, not Russia.

According to Wiki, the USSR has the most nuclear warheads in the world, 700 more than the USA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...more%20rows%20

When Russia has more weapons already, and when they either don't comply with treaties or make verification difficult if not impossible, what good are treaties?

Originally Posted by jgannon

Lastly, missiles are deployed in Poland and being constructed in Romania. Russia doesn't see these as defensive actions, but provocative ones.

Don't you think some of Russia's 1,456 deployed nuclear warheads are pointed towards Poland, Romania, and all other NATO countries?

You sure do have a one-sided view of things.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Mark17

And Russia hasn't attacked a NATO country, and no NATO country has invaded Russia. NATO has helped keep the peace to everyones' benefit (besides Putin's expansionist desires that is.)



To remain prepared, as a deterrent, obviously. Why does Russia's army conduct exercises, missile tests, etc. if they are not a threat? And what's with "If, as you say...?" Are you uncertain regarding NATO's defensive charter?



According to Wiki, the USSR has the most nuclear warheads in the world, 700 more than the USA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...more%20rows%20

When Russia has more weapons already, and when they either don't comply with treaties or make verification difficult if not impossible, what good are treaties?



Don't you think some of Russia's 1,456 deployed nuclear warheads are pointed towards Poland, Romania, and all other NATO countries?

You sure do have a one-sided view of things.

1) Russia hasn't attacked a NATO country, but that doesn't mean it was comfortable with further encirclement by NATO. Ukraine brought about the very thing it hoped to avoid, as did the U.S. and NATO. I'm still not saying Putin should have invaded. They felt threatened by further encirclement.

2) They conducted them from what I understand as a warning to Ukraine and potential NATO membership.

3 and 4) Both the Russia and the U.S have the most nuclear weapons, with Russia yes, having more. The idea of detente back in the 70s and 80s was to pull back from the potential nuclear abyss. Our leaders at that time seemingly had a full understanding of mutually assured destruction, and signed these treaties and eliminated stockpiles. The U.S. has been thumbing it's nose at this concept for 30 years first taking advantage of Russia's weakened position after the Soviet Union broke up, and continuing on a bellicose path after 9/11 in general, and increasingly toward Russia specifically after Maidan and Trumps election. The United States actually has NO MORAL GROUND to tell anyone not to invade anyone else anyway. See: Iraq, Afghanistan (who did not attack us on 9/11), Libya, and Yemen.

[Smarti5051]

I don't understand what the end goal here is for Putin and Russia. Let's assume that the stated reason for the attacks is true and that it is to prevent the Ukraine from joining NATO, creating an alliance sitting right on Russia's border to defend. Now, let's say Ukraine welcomed Russia in with open arms and flowers at soldiers' feet two weeks. Wouldn't that create the exact situation where NATO is right on Russia's new border? Does Putin plan on using Ukraine to create the world's largest moat or work with China to build a modern Great Wall? If not, then what good does usurping Ukraine do to release the perceived NATO threat to Russia? It is not like if the US just took over Mexico, where at least the new US border to defend would shrink by 80%.

At this stage, I worry about what graceful exit exists for Russia. If Russia just "gives up," it is a major embarrassment to a country who identifies itself by its military supremacy. Putin does not seem like someone willing to leave without a clear "win." But, it is going to be nearly impossible for him to take over, occupy and convert a country with 40 million people that seemingly are not excited to welcome Russian overlords. So, the past two weeks will drag on for months or years.

Call me short-sighted, but I don't know why we don't just create the Keystone pipeline as a public entity that the government can just tap whenever there is energy unrest in the world. Appease the environmentalists by shuddering the Pipeline when the world energy situation is in equilibrium (or at the point where natural energy eliminates the need for fossil fuels), and then fire it up when Russia and/or OPEC try a power play. The fear of energy supply disruption is having a far larger disruptive impact on NATO operations than the actual attack on Ukraine. If the US had the ability to flip a switch for a year to ramp up oil supply, OPEC countries still need to feed their citizens and create man-made islands in the desert. So, you could literally tell Putin, "one more bomb, bullet or dirty look on Ukrainian soil, and you will never live to see a drop of energy sold to the Western world." It sure seems cheaper to build the pipeline and not operate it than gifting untrained Ukranian military billions in defensive weapons, including back-door Polish warplanes (most of which will become Russian weapons as they overwhelm the Ukranian resistance).

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by jgannon

The United States actually has NO MORAL GROUND to tell anyone not to invade anyone else anyway. See: Iraq, Afghanistan (who did not attack us on 9/11), Libya, and Yemen.

I don't agree with the US getting involved in all those wars, or Vietnam either for that matter. But, did the USA annex any of those countries? Did we grant them statehood, insist they fly the US flag, or speak English?

Did we subjugate them, or try to stand them up as independent, self ruling democracies?

That's a big difference.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Well if Puerto Rico and Cuba were aligned against us with weapons and missiles in those countries to potentially be used against us. Would we be wanting Haiti and the Dominican Republic to join on board?

It was a red line Putin drew a long time ago, back in 2007. He has been consistent on it. I do not support his invasion at all. But the U.S. and Ukraine were reckless and stupid.

This is not an equal analogy. How about this: Russia is North Carolina, the Ukraine is South Carolina. Georgia would be Poland. So NC invades SC because they are worried about it joining NATO and it doesn't want another NATO country on it's doorstep. Now it's territory includes SC, and, well, shit, now we're next door to a NATO country!!

The whole "We invaded Ukraine because we're worried about NATO" excuse doesn't fly, sorry. How sure are you this is the real reason for this invasion??

[JeremyW]

I'm surprised that we & the allies haven't done more to stop this unprovoked killing in Ukraine.

[JeremyW]

When I hear & see of the "stalled" Russian convoy, I wonder why it hasn't been destroyed? I don't understand it.

[gawaintheknight]

I would like to point out that in the eyes of many commentators the whole question of NATO expanding east is a red herring, or at least not the most important part of the story. Putin believes that Ukraine should be part of Russia. He says so himself, more than once.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...pt-february-22

Here's a quote from his speech just before the invasion:

“Ukraine is not just a neighboring country for us. It is an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space,” he said, per the Kremlin’s official translation. “Since time immemorial, the people living in the south-west of what has historically been Russian land have called themselves Russians.”

Ted

[egri]

Originally Posted by JeremyW

When I hear & see of the "stalled" Russian convoy, I wonder why it hasn't been destroyed? I don't understand it.

The Russians have air superiority in the area of the convoy, and probably anti-aircraft/SAM batteries protecting it. If the Ukrainians sent in strike aircraft or drones, they'd be sitting ducks. It's why they're making such a fuss about those Polish jets; if they can put the Russians on the back foot in the air, it will make their defense much easier.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I don't agree with the US getting involved in all those wars, or Vietnam either for that matter. But, did the USA annex any of those countries? Did we grant them statehood, insist they fly the US flag, or speak English?

Did we subjugate them, or try to stand them up as independent, self ruling democracies?

That's a big difference.

You have any idea what we did to Iraq? Or Libya? Do you know what's going on in Yemen right now?

Unfortunately, many Americans don't know what their government does and there's a selective hysteria as to what to get upset about. This is the fault mainly of our abysmal media which intentionally keeps us uninformed.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

This is not an equal analogy. How about this: Russia is North Carolina, the Ukraine is South Carolina. Georgia would be Poland. So NC invades SC because they are worried about it joining NATO and it doesn't want another NATO country on it's doorstep. Now it's territory includes SC, and, well, shit, now we're next door to a NATO country!!

The whole "We invaded Ukraine because we're worried about NATO" excuse doesn't fly, sorry. How sure are you this is the real reason for this invasion??

Just seeing this. The whole thing is a slap in the face to Russia. Putin feels the West is using Ukraine for it's own purposes. Unfortunately, Ukraine is a pawn. To use your analogy, think of Russia occupying North Carolina even though North Carolina would ostensibly still be one of the 50 states with a governor etc. And then it begins arming it and installing missiles there. The U.S. wouldn't feel too good about it.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-...table-n1290831

"The fact that the NATO status question was not put on the table as Putin signaled that he was serious about an invasion — so plainly that the U.S. government was spelling it out with day-by-day updates — was an error, and potentially a catastrophic one. It may sound cruel to suggest that Ukraine could be barred, either temporarily or permanently, from entering a military alliance it wants to be in. But what’s more cruel is that Ukrainians might be paying with their lives for the United States’ reckless flirtation with Ukraine as a future NATO member without ever committing to its defense.

Analysts say it’s widely known that Ukraine had no prospect of entering NATO for many years, possibly decades, because of its need for major democracy and anti-corruption reforms and because NATO has no interest in going to war with Russia over Ukraine’s Donbas region, where Russia has meddled and backed armed conflict for years. But by dangling the possibility of Ukraine’s NATO membership for years but never fulfilling it, NATO created a scenario that emboldened Ukraine to act tough and buck Russia — without any intention of directly defending Ukraine with its firepower if Moscow decided Ukraine had gone too far."
_____________________________________

https://reason.com/2022/02/28/ukrain...urope-clinton/

"Let's start with the Clinton administration in the 1990s. As Reason's Eric Boehm pointed out, Clinton was the first U.S. president in decades to inherit a world that did not include the Soviet Union. Clinton could have completely revamped NATO now that its purpose—defending member nations against the expansion of the Soviet Union—was no longer applicable. Instead, Clinton, with the Republican Party's support, oversaw an expansion of NATO. Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland all joined. Years later, Putin would cite this enlargement of NATO as one of the West's "broken promises" that justified his Ukraine policy.

Again, Putin is dead wrong. Nothing justifies his Ukraine policy. But the purpose of NATO was defensive: to protect the world from Russian aggression. If NATO policy is antagonizing Russia and being used as a pretext for invasion, it clearly isn't serving that goal.

With the Clinton administration's backing, NATO also intervened in Yugoslavia in 1999 to ensure an independent Kosovo. That military action never had the backing of the United Nations; it was a violation of international law, just like Putin's attack on Ukraine.

George Bush's foreign policy has not held up well, due to the U.S.'s horrendous misadventures in the Middle East, but Bush blundered in Europe as well. At a 2008 NATO summit—one attended by Putin—Bush staunchly supported Ukraine's eventual admittance to NATO, over the objections of France, the U.K., and Germany.

The Obama administration, of course, inflamed tensions with Russia when the U.S. took sides in the 2014 Ukrainian revolution. And then came Donald Trump. Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media ceaselessly accused Trump of being a Russian stooge, even a pro-Putin plant, installed by Russia as president of the U.S. due to a subtle influence campaign on Facebook. This was of course ridiculous—and as evidence of how ridiculous the claims are, Trump's actual administration was just as foolishly tough on Russia as his predecessors. In 2017, Vice President Mike Pence even reiterated the 2008 Bucharest declaration.

The Biden administration maintained that same fiction. A clear declaration that the Ukraine would not be joining NATO might have deprived Putin of the intellectual ammo he required to move forward with this invasion. We don't know for sure. But it was incumbent on the U.S. to try. NATO is a means to an end—a more safe and secure Europe—not an end unto itself. If expansion is creating the very conditions that NATO's existence is supposed to prevent, it's not working. Yet every single U.S. president since the end of the Cold War has misunderstood this. And now here we are."
____________________________

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...year_2000.html

"VLADIMIR PUTIN: I will say one thing that I have never said before in public. I will say for the first time that in 2000 when President Bill Clinton was visiting Moscow at the end of his term, I asked him how would America see Russia joining NATO. I would not give you all the details of that conversation, but the reaction to my conversation -- look, well, let me put it this way. How did Americans really look at this possibility? You can see it in their practical stance. Open support of the terrorists in North Caucusus, ignoring our demands and concerns, withdrawing from the arms limitation treaties, and so on."
____________________________

I don't think I'm a f'ing idiot, Leon. I'm 27. My first votable election was in 2012 between two POS. Maybe the generations before me can explain how they let the US government go unchecked with so much corruption for decades. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Maybe, just maybe, if we can expose the corruption within our own government and clean it up, my kids/my grandkids/my great grankids/etc. won't grow up in a world with constant war involving the US.

Yes. Just read this as I was dealing with the other comments. I would have to go back and review Yugoslavia, Kosovo, etc. But yeah, your analysis is spot on.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Just seeing this. The whole thing is a slap in the face to Russia.

What Russia is doing to Ukraine is quite a bit worse than a slap in the face.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by jgannon

You have any idea what we did to Iraq? Or Libya? Do you know what's going on in Yemen right now?

Unfortunately, many Americans don't know what their government does and there's a selective hysteria as to what to get upset about. This is the fault mainly of our abysmal media which intentionally keeps us uninformed.

The Middle East has been a mess for decades and continues to be, but you avoided my point. When Putin (or Hitler, or Caesar, or Alexander, or Ghengis Khan) started wars, it was to capture, plunder, and subjugate. When the USA gets involved in wars, whether misguided or not, it is to try to return countries to their people, rebuild them and provide humanitarian relief like food and medical, with their own sovereignty intact, and rulers of their peoples' choosing.

[AustinMike]

Bob, I agree with most of what you wrote. Do I think we can solve all our problems by learning from history? Of course not. Firstly, take a thousand people and a single historical event and you will probably get nearly a thousand interpretations of how that event should be reflected in actions today. Secondly, societal norms and morals change through time. What was once accepted, may no longer be accepted today.

But, does that mean we shouldn't try to use historical events to provide some background to how we approach things today? Of course not.

Originally Posted by BobC

What needs to immediately stop is the stupidity of senseless killing, and infliction of pain and suffering, ON ALL SIDES!!!!!!!!!

I do take some exceptions with the part of your post that I quote above. I am tired of the bothsidesism that seems to permeate throughout any topical discourse today. In the current conflict, the one presently under discussion, there is only ONE side that is causing senseless killing and infliction of pain and suffering. Wouldn't you agree?

Originally Posted by BobC

For supposedly being the most intelligent life form on this planet, or at least thinking we are, we are pretty f---ing stupid!!!!!!

Could not agree with you more.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by jgannon

How you doing AustinJoeMcCarthy?

Ha ha, I am doing fine. Oh if Joe only called people stooges back in the day, he wouldn't be as well known as he is now, would he?

Originally Posted by jgannon

Russia invaded Ukraine because of encirclement by NATO and the threat of the addition of Ukraine to that alliance.

See Ted's (gawaintheknight) response above.

Originally Posted by jgannon

As far as neo-nazis go, in Ukraine they have committed atrocities in the east.

You mean like this:

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2...ines-war-camps

"‘Some stay, some die’: The horror of Ukraine’s war camps"

Now, I don't mean to be flippant or play the "both sides" game, because atrocities are not something to be casually dismissed. But it's just another one of Putin's excuses to invade. Again, see Ted's post.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by gawaintheknight

I would like to point out that in the eyes of many commentators the whole question of NATO expanding east is a red herring, or at least not the most important part of the story. Putin believes that Ukraine should be part of Russia. He says so himself, more than once.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...pt-february-22

Here's a quote from his speech just before the invasion:

“Ukraine is not just a neighboring country for us. It is an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space,” he said, per the Kremlin’s official translation. “Since time immemorial, the people living in the south-west of what has historically been Russian land have called themselves Russians.”



Ted

Yep, I 100% agree.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Putin is not Hitler and is not seeking to invade other countries. He told me last night.

That's what Hitler said.

Originally Posted by jgannon

Anyway, since I have you on the line, I looked a little bit more into what we were talking about regarding the so-called promise that was made to Gorbachev. And I have an article, which I'll share below, where Gorbachev says that the promise was made in regard to Germany only, but he goes on to say that the expansion of NATO broke the spirit of the agreement.

Oh, so do you now agree that Irv, Dore, and you are wrong to say that the US promised Russia that NATO would not expand to the east? That that is just a lie perpetrated by Putin and his stooges.

For anyone who doesn't want to click on the link, this is in the article and quotes Gorbachev:

"M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it."

Originally Posted by jgannon

I also have an article by an author, who is Republican, who I respect very much named Eric Margolis, who is an expert on military history and history in general. I'll share that because he makes other claims. You say you looked at the documents that were released and could not find any evidence of promises broken. Margolis seems to differ.

https://www.rbth.com/international/2...lls_40673.html

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...ave-it-writing

Margolis also gives George H.W., and Baker, credit for not expanding NATO.

Margolis claims:

"Ever since, I’ve been writing that the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, were shamelessly lied to and deceived by the United States, Britain, and their appendage, NATO.

"All the western powers promised Gorbachev and Shevardnadze that NATO would not expand eastward by ‘one inch’ if Moscow would pull the Red Army out of East Germany and allow it to peacefully reunify with West Germany. This was a titanic concession by Gorbachev: it led to a failed coup against him in 1991 by Communist hardliners.

"The documents released by George Washington University in Washington DC, which I attended for a semester, make sickening reading (see them online). All western powers and statesmen assured the Russians that NATO would not take advantage of the Soviet retreat and that a new era of amity and cooperation would dawn in post-Cold War Europe. US Secretary of State Jim Baker offered ‘ironclad guarantees’ there would be no NATO expansion. Lies, all lies."

Who do you believe more, Gorbachev or Margolis? Only one of them can be right. Do you believe the person who was actually a part of the negotiations or someone who claims you can read the shameless lies online without citing a single source for his claim?

In regards to documents, go back to my post where I provided a link to a site that seems to side with claim about the US lie AND provides links to documents (which Margolis DOES NOT do). Links to 30 documents are provided to support the claim. As I said, I looked at several documents (ones I thought most likely to contain proof of the promise) to find the smoking gun and did not find it. And no, I'm not going to look through all 30 documents to prove a negative (if I find nothing you'll claim that I missed it or it's in another document or something). You claim a promise to Russia was made, it is up to you to prove it. Look through those documents and find that proof. And no, citing an author you admire who happens to claim the same thing is not proof.

Think about it. Gorbachev was there. Reread what he said. Margolis was not there. Margolis says to read the documents. Which he DOES NOT provide. Who you gonna trust?

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Just seeing this. The whole thing is a slap in the face to Russia. Putin feels the West is using Ukraine for it's own purposes. Unfortunately, Ukraine is a pawn. To use your analogy, think of Russia occupying North Carolina even though North Carolina would ostensibly still be one of the 50 states with a governor etc. And then it begins arming it and installing missiles there. The U.S. wouldn't feel too good about it.

Slap in the face? Putin can't handle a slap to the face? This guy??: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/w...ussia-gru.html
When did Putin become a delicate flower, with the big bad US meanies pushing him around?

[sbfinley]

While esteemed Comrade Gannon is trying his best to justify his motherland’s corrupt dictatorship led assault on a free sovereign nation - here are the wonderful peace keepers firing heavy armored rounds at an elderly couple in what is obviously the most menacing looking Buick on the block.


It was this ���� armored vehicle that killed an elderly couple

#Ukraine https://t.co/CbsRxS66j9

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

That's what Hitler said.



Oh, so do you now agree that Irv, Dore, and you are wrong to say that the US promised Russia that NATO would not expand to the east? That that is just a lie perpetrated by Putin and his stooges.

For anyone who doesn't want to click on the link, this is in the article and quotes Gorbachev:

"M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it."



Margolis claims:

"Ever since, I’ve been writing that the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, were shamelessly lied to and deceived by the United States, Britain, and their appendage, NATO.

"All the western powers promised Gorbachev and Shevardnadze that NATO would not expand eastward by ‘one inch’ if Moscow would pull the Red Army out of East Germany and allow it to peacefully reunify with West Germany. This was a titanic concession by Gorbachev: it led to a failed coup against him in 1991 by Communist hardliners.

"The documents released by George Washington University in Washington DC, which I attended for a semester, make sickening reading (see them online). All western powers and statesmen assured the Russians that NATO would not take advantage of the Soviet retreat and that a new era of amity and cooperation would dawn in post-Cold War Europe. US Secretary of State Jim Baker offered ‘ironclad guarantees’ there would be no NATO expansion. Lies, all lies."

Who do you believe more, Gorbachev or Margolis? Only one of them can be right. Do you believe the person who was actually a part of the negotiations or someone who claims you can read the shameless lies online without citing a single source for his claim?

In regards to documents, go back to my post where I provided a link to a site that seems to side with claim about the US lie AND provides links to documents (which Margolis DOES NOT do). Links to 30 documents are provided to support the claim. As I said, I looked at several documents (ones I thought most likely to contain proof of the promise) to find the smoking gun and did not find it. And no, I'm not going to look through all 30 documents to prove a negative (if I find nothing you'll claim that I missed it or it's in another document or something). You claim a promise to Russia was made, it is up to you to prove it. Look through those documents and find that proof. And no, citing an author you admire who happens to claim the same thing is not proof.

Think about it. Gorbachev was there. Reread what he said. Margolis was not there. Margolis says to read the documents. Which he DOES NOT provide. Who you gonna trust?

Joe! I provided the link about Gorbachev, because I wanted to acknowledge that Gorbachev does tell the story differently. But maybe there is something in the documents which might support what Gorbachev does say about NATO expansion violating the spirit of the agreement. You yourself say you have not looked through all of the documents. Maybe there is something in there that you didn't read that might temper your viewpoint.

Regarding the Hitler and Putin comparison, just because Hitler continued to invade other countries, doesn't mean that is Putin's objective. I think if you read what he has said on the matter, you should agree. That doesn't make him a "beneficent" invader.

For the record, and this goes to everyone here - I am against the invasion. All I have tried to do is discuss why Putin might have made the move. I do think that it was a failure of U.S. policy to recognize how serious Putin was about the matter. All of this could have been averted.

Another aspect to this reminds me of what Harry Truman used to say, which is that after you defeat an enemy, you have to build them back up again, so as not to create a reason for revenge or retaliation. The U.S. won the Cold War. It completely had the upper hand while Russia went through a decade of internal chaos and weakness. The U.S. during this time proceeded to unnecessarily humiliate Russia and take advantage of their weakness by expanding NATO. Putin came along and was determined to reinstill Russian pride. He watched as NATO continued to expand and the U.S. pulled out of the ABM treaty. As early as 2007, he declared Ukranian membership in NATO unacceptable. Then U.S. was involved with the Ukranian coup in 2014. Then we unilaterally pulled out of the INF Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty. Seven years of civil war in Ukraine and the agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine last November, it would seem finally pushed Putin over the line.

In my opinion, he lost any high ground or argument he had regarding Ukraine once he invaded it. Jingoistic protestations and lack of understanding about geopolitics by most of the crew here notwithstanding, the U.S. definitely incompetently contributed to the invastion.

Far from being unpatriotic, honest critique of one's country is one of the highest forms of patriotism, because if you love your country, you want to be honest with it and about it so it can be the best country it can be. And if it is a great country, one should also be able to freely discuss things without fear of censorship or intolerance. It's a shame that some people here have equated free speech and dissent from the mainstream line with lack of patriotism.

Gentlemen - a good day to you all. Let's hope there is a sane ending to what is going on in Ukraine. The quicker the better.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Bob, I agree with most of what you wrote. Do I think we can solve all our problems by learning from history? Of course not. Firstly, take a thousand people and a single historical event and you will probably get nearly a thousand interpretations of how that event should be reflected in actions today. Secondly, societal norms and morals change through time. What was once accepted, may no longer be accepted today.

But, does that mean we shouldn't try to use historical events to provide some background to how we approach things today? Of course not.



I do take some exceptions with the part of your post that I quote above. I am tired of the bothsidesism that seems to permeate throughout any topical discourse today. In the current conflict, the one presently under discussion, there is only ONE side that is causing senseless killing and infliction of pain and suffering. Wouldn't you agree?



Could not agree with you more.

Hey Mike, The one thing you disagreed with me on is actually not supposed to just be about the current situation. My apologies if it didn't come across that way. That statement was made in regard to all the situations that have ever occurred in the history of mankind, what is going on right now, and what has yet to occur in the future, in which innocent people on all different sides of these issues always seem to end up being the ones paying the highest price. I'm not for both sides, I'm really more for no sides, unless you are counting ALL the common, ordinary, everyday people from ALL races and societies as one unified side. That is the side I am for, not the ones created and put out there by the various leaders in different countries/societies/religions around the world. I always think of the old Black Sabbath song, War Pigs, and tend to view most politicians and military leaders, and some religious leaders, in that light. If these people are supposed to be our leaders and speaking out and fighting for us (Or is it really more for them?), why do they always do it from the rear? If we made all these a--hole politicians, religious, and military leaders who keep getting us into all these conflicts actually have to go out and face one another in fights, instead of sending out young people that still have their whole lives ahead of them to kill and be killed on their behalf, I wonder how much more often they'd come up with peaceful, rational solutions to problems, as opposed to actually ever risking their own lives.

And granted, that won't work in deterring all political/military/religious leaders from still getting us into all kinds of conflicts because let's face it, some of them will always still be psychopathic megalomaniacs. But maybe we can at least start culling the herd of them if they want to kill each other off fighting among themselves. Just leave the rest of us out of it, please.

[sbfinley]

While some garbage want to justify this terrible invasion and it’s horrible cost to human lives and well being because Russia was threatened by NATO expansion: here are actual heroes threatened.

Today in the Ukrainian city of Melitopol, protestors in the city squared were threatened and told they would be shot if they exited the square. So they went for a stroll, and protested throughout the city. This is how real patriots face adversity, not fakriots justifying the slaughter and destruction of a neighbor state that wants to self govern.


https://www.mv.org.ua/news/264230-v_...qg3MMmd6sh4k7A

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by egri

I don't understand what this thread is getting at; Putin doesn't take direction from a baseball card forum. At any rate, with his invasion spinning its wheels, Kamila Valieva's fall at the Olympics was not the worst flop from the Russians. The roughly 1,000 Russian paratroopers who landed at Hostomel airport lasted less than a day before they were wiped out by reservists and a handful of foreign volunteers. By comparison, at the Battle of Arnhem, 750 British paratroopers held out for nine days against elements of two Waffen-SS Panzer divisions.

If Putin did take advice on net54 the world would be a far saner place though, that is for sure. OTOH, if somehow the comrades on here took to arms and overtook Moscow, what puppet would we install to rule over the East? Maybe Joe Orlando? I think his schedule is fairly open. Also, who cares about oil prices, what do you think could be done about TPA costs?

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by ronniehatesjazz

If he Putin did take advice on net54 the world would be a far saner place though, that is for sure. OTOH, if somehow the comrades on here took to arms and overtook Moscow, what puppet would we install to rule over the East? Maybe Joe Orlando? I think his schedule is fairly open. Also, who cares about oil prices, what do you think could be done about TPA costs?

Who is comrade Archive and why is he trying to subvert the state with false propaganda. Bring the noize comrades.

Daily Post count 3 - Kremlin

[ALR-bishop]

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

We help out where we can.

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Why is Zelenskyy being dubbed a hero when all he has done is refuse to negotiate with Russia, then force 18-60 year old makes to stay and fight? He takes opportunistic photos that are nothing but propaganda, yet claims to be on the front lines.

This is spot on and something that really bothers me about the media and society all together. So quick to automatically declare someone is heroic because it just "feels right" so everyone just runs with it.

I was disgusted at a CNN headline today comparing Zelenskyy to Churchill... reminded me of some member of congress shouting at a member of Trump's cabinet, don't recall who or the particular matter, "Sir, do you not have any decency!" only to see all the cretins cheer on the cringeworthy imitation. It seems our culture relies on what might as well be thespians spewing cheesy lines and rhetoric for inspiration. I'm a conservative (I guess?), but this is pervasive across Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. and anyone who can't acknowledge that their preferred news source isn't just as biased is living in a fantasy world. It's all the same tomfoolery and I'm as ashamed of someone I probably agree with as much as the prima donnas I oppose for falling for the ruse.

I think we're already living in some type of satirical dystopia... Seems as though the likely outcome of this conflict will either take the humous part of that out of that equation or, hopefully, back to some version of a sane world.

BTW, I hope Zelenskyy does prove to be heroic but to me that's a very serious word to throw around... akin to labeling someone a HOF caliber player.

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

We help out where we can.

Looks like a solid start!

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by ronniehatesjazz

This is spot on and something that really bothers me about the media and society all together. So quick to automatically declare someone is heroic because it just "feels right" so everyone just runs with it.

Maybe - and bear with me because this might sound crazy - it “feels right” for people who love their country for all it faults, no matter where that may be, to label someone heroic when that person heads the democratically elected government of a nation being invaded by someone bent on destroying that right of self governance and (here’s where it gets crazy) then in the face of all odds and with free western governments offering him heli-ubers left and right stays with his people as they fight the invading force.

[sbfinley]

I’m beginning to think I’m sheepish from praising Zelensky for not running away from and capitulating to the invaded force shelling small civilian towns and taking among its victims two toddlers today. I should probably get woke and hold off my judgement until I found out if he ate the same Olive Garden as a Burisma executive.


https://twitter.com/myroslavapetsa/s...FU1jTUoltpnoSQ

[Shoeless Moe]

Looking at this objectively. The Russians are bombing the cities, but the Ukraine fighters are hiding and fighting in the cities. So while yes civilians are getting killed, but isn't that in part Zelensky's fault being all holed up instead of out on the battlefield other then the occassional picture?

I mean I know he's a busy guy and probably has a lot on his mind. I can not even fathom the situation he is in. So I do also give him lots of credit, but...

Shouldn't it be army vs army out on the battlefield?

That probably would have eliminated A LOT of civilian deaths, not to mention the flattening of cities.

The U.S. should be the last ones criticizing civilian deaths after we dropped 2 A-Bombs on ENTIRE cities, and killed 100's of thousands of civilians.

That being said let's stay on the present day, where everyone is a little more civilized.

But I don't know the exact numbers but possibly 100 civilians dead so far.
Those A-Bombs killed well over 200,000. Let's not go nuts here. That's quite difference.

All that being said I still feel Zelensky should make a few concessions and get this over with so no more have to die on either side. Putin ain't backing down until he wins, I think that much we all can agree on. Be nice if he crumbled, but no signs of it yet. Zelensky needs to be the bigger man, take West of the river give East of the river to Putin. Putin saves face, gains land, Zelensky 1. lives, 2. Ukraine get less, but that's a lot better than the alternative 3. No more deaths 4. They both look like winners to their side. End it already, 2 stubborn leaders. Figure it out.

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

Maybe - and bear with me because this might sound crazy - it “feels right” for people who love their country for all it faults, no matter where that may be, to label someone heroic when that person heads the democratically elected government of a nation being invaded by someone bent on destroying that right of self governance and (here’s where it gets crazy) then in the face of all odds and with free western governments offering him heli-ubers left and right stays with his people as they fight the invading force.

I think we just view the word heroic differently. Pretty much an easy binary choice he had to make. He made the right one and should be applauded for that. Not saying that I'd like to change places with him, and I'm not egotistical enough to think I'd somehow wind up in his position, but I feel fairly confident that I and everyone else on this board would've done the same. Brave? Yes. Heroic? Not quite yet.

He's basically in a George W. Bush post 9/11 situation right now. Opinions may differ but the overwhelming majority probably wouldn't declare Bush as being heroic now. Not comparing people but just the situation.

Regardless, I'm obviously wanting to see Russia pull out before things get any worse and he definitely deserves praise for doing the right thing.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Looking at this objectively. The Russians are bombing the cities, but the Ukraine fighters are hiding and fighting in the cities. So while yes civilians are getting killed, but isn't that in part Zelensky's fault being all holed up instead of out on the battlefield other then the occassional picture?

I mean I know he's a busy guy and probably has a lot on his mind. I can not even fathom the situation he is in. So I do also give him lots of credit, but...

Shouldn't it be army vs army out on the battlefield?

NATO has yet to provide Fifers and Drummers to Ukraine. Conversely the Russian musical instruments are stuck at the back of 40 mile convoy.

I love ya Moe personally, but I can’t believe we’re laying any amount of blame higher than zero on Zelensky for not adhering to Napoleonic era military tactics. If Zelensky and his people believe concessions are acceptable I have no problem with whatever they accept. (For reference the most recent Russia list of concessions demanded included re-writing the Ukrainian constitution.)

It’s their country, it’s their sovereign right to govern themselves. It’s their homes, land, and businesses. They had so many people voluntarily sign up (not conscripted) for the Territorial Defense force they couldn’t arm them all.

When the invaders accepted a ceasefire in Mariupol to allow civilians to leave they only allowed movement on one specific route. Before the ceasefire they bombed the route making it impassable. A second ceasefire had to be agreed upon because no-one was able to leave. Russia demanded the second evacuation had to stick a different specific route. The Red Cross checked the route and discovered land mines and butterfly mines (banned by the Geneva convention) on the route. They are now trying to reach a third agreement.

I will not blame them for fighting for the God given sovereign right to govern themselves.

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

All that being said I still feel Zelensky should make a few concessions and get this over with so no more have to die on either side. Putin ain't backing down until he wins, I think that much we all can agree on. Be nice if he crumbled, but no signs of it yet. Zelensky needs to be the bigger man, take West of the river give East of the river to Putin. Putin saves face, gains land, Zelensky 1. lives, 2. Ukraine get less, but that's a lot better than the alternative 3. No more deaths 4. They both look like winners to their side. End it already, 2 stubborn leaders. Figure it out.

I hope something like that happens, but I can't imagine it at this point. I think even if both were willing to make concessions it would be laying the groundwork for an even bigger conflict in the future. Think about how NATO would view Russia at that point and would they just lift all sanctions at that point. I just think that would alleviate the problem in the short run but lead to WW3.

I think the only way to avert WW3 is for a Ukraine victory without direct NATO involvement. Maybe, just maybe, if things really turned south against Putin and he realized there was no way to victory and he would agree to some type of a deal and Ukraine would give up some territory with a lot of concessions from Russia. I just can't see that happening though. I'm really not sure how this turns out but I fear it's only a matter of time before a lot more countries get pulled into this.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by ronniehatesjazz

I think we just view the word heroic differently. Pretty much an easy binary choice he had to make. He made the right one and should be applauded for that.

I disagree it was easy. Easy would be accepting a NATO chopper to Berlin and leading a government in exile. Easy would be leaving and watching the people who freely elected you be absorbed by a nation detaining a survivor of the siege of Leningrad for standing outside the Kremlin and calling for peace. There is nothing about his choice that was “easy.” That’s just my opinion though.

[Exhibitman]

"Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one"
--John Lennon

Pray to whatever gods you believe in and for the sake of all our children that this is not the start of WWIII.

Peace and Love, brothers and sisters. Out.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by jgannon

I do think that it was a failure of U.S. policy to recognize how serious Putin was about the matter. All of this could have been averted.

What kind of appeasement would you have suggested?