Nobody interested in the Russia-Ukraine conflict?

Post Reply New Topic

As you criticized the opinions on the video I posted i was simply giving an explanation I was just saying the US perspective is going to be different from the Europeans.

Also what people say and do are two different things especially with the pentagon or US strategic policy.

I don't know what kind of "open mind" one would need to keep ignoring that the one responsible for invading someone is the invader.

I did not criticize opinions in the video, I didn't even get to any opinions there. I criticized claims they stated as "facts" that, i.e. expansion of NATO was "agressive" or that "NATO has failed". Or that Putin tried to explain something to USA. What did he try to explain? That Ukrainians are not a real nation? Or maybe that he would not invade Ukraine? Factual correctness of Putin's claims have always been problematic, which likely indeed make him fail to explain anything to anyone.

There’s the full interview that continues after around 50:00 (attached but ignore the YouTube title about Odesa)

Interesting things discussed since both are serious and independent experts.

I’ve not watched it all yet as it’s quite long don’t agree or disagree just found it interesting and you and others may do too

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zIIM043x_FI

One simply has to review pootin's imperialistic aggression elsewhere to see that any excuse would do for him.
I believe most people believe/realise he has a history of creating false flag operations, and that shows the type of character we are dealing with.

He has no credibility...
He has all the hallmarks of a genuine psychopath...
American intelligent report revealed by Wikileaks has exposed the assessment that pootin has adopted a Mafi-style leadership model and that he was trained by a criminal "leader" when he was working for the KGB.

He has made his bed.
Now let him sleep in it.

A Ukraine victory is contingent on Nato military support.
This is my concern about a Republican revival and especially of a Trump influence.

You do realise that The Soviet Union illegally annexed sovereign nations after WWII, right?
Where is the justification for re-creating an illegal and immoral land grab?

(BTW, The only reason the Aamerrians didn't go through with the Morgenthau Plan was because of their fear of The Soviets taking over all of Europe.)

Not that sorry for going off-topic.

More "independent experts" from the parallel universe? No thanks. My time is too limited to point out every false assumption in every speech of this kind - and, as you never adressed my points, it appears as futile as time-consuming.
No, thank you, I have other things to do in life.

But if you find something said there particularily interesting, quote it here, we can talk about it.

I’m not an expert or spokesperson for these two but I would rather listen to independent experts than propaganda from either side

I believe neither were Slav or pro Russian, they both served with the US military and were experts in the field, one a former general the other a military professor.

They just didn’t want the US to be involved in foreign wars or the policeman of the world which is a valid position held by many Americans.

It’s why they usually complain they want Europeans to do more for their own defense but have always tried to cut defense spending and rely on the US.

This is generally what they are repeating.

Haven't it ever crossed your mind that "independent experts" are a great and handy tool for propaganda? Fact-checking their claims should always come first, just like with anyone else.

Before 2022, indeed only Poland, Baltic States and some Balkan states (maybe Britain? I'm not sure here) were not cutting defense spendings in the European part of NATO - everyone else was living in a happy pacifist dream.
But this has changed dramatically after Feb 24 - so what's the point now?

The importance of Ukraine for USA, Canada, Korea, Australia, etc. is that if there is a successful moving of state borders by force, it opens a whole can of worms worldwide - in particular, it would encourage trying the same on Taiwan and other parts of Pacific.
Which would put USA in a much worse situation and elevate the likelihood of global SHTF.

That calculation has a following result: not let Russia achieve their goal by force, but avoid a direct confrontation. Which all the "western" countries are doing, within their own diversity of approaches.
Sometimes there is a thing called consensus.

NATO, or Ukraine, never had any intention of attacking Russia. Ever.

Putin has a Pan-Russian vision which involves taking back all which was part of the USSR, plus some other adjacent territories, probably including Finland. And imposing an authoritarian regime upon them.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 14 Dec 2022, 8:40 am, edited 2 times in total.

The point is that this isn't what this invasion is or how it came about. I know you don't like reading, but if you only ever read one long thing for the rest of your life that article should be what you choose.

If the shoe was on the other foot, and Russia was doing to us (Anglo nations) what we have been doing to them, we would have invaded Ukraine years ago.

It doesn't matter what NATO's true intentions were. If Russia started placing weapons along the Mexico/US border or the Canada/US border, neither you nor the American government would accept a pinky promise from the Kremlin that "it's only for defensive purposes".

I declared not to moderate here and I intend to keep this promise but as a member, I can still remind you that personal attacks on other members (i.e. denigrating comments on their intellect) are forbidden by WrongPlanet.net rules.

My comment about Pepe? It was not intended as such at all. He has stated in the past that he does not like reading long things and prefers videos where I can find them - but I cannot always accommodate him unfortunately.

Ok, thanks for clarification.

Back to the topic:
Digging on alternative histories that never happened does not change what is going on on the ground. In particular, it does not change who forcefully violated borders of another state and who didn't do such thing anywhere in this conflict.

And no, Putin in his speeches directly claims to continue the traditions of historical Russian imperialism.
Here, a translation of a recent speech where he compares himself to Peter the Great, hinting at how historical territorial gains relate to current war: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61767191
This narrative of "uniting Slavs" by conquer is as old as Moscow Empire - and the methods of "uniting" also have not changed much over time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Novgorod

In other words: Plenty of Slavs don't want to be "united" under rule of Moscow, have very bad experiences with it and are ready to fight against it. That includes both Poland and Ukraine. "The West" and USA in particular can respond to it in any way they want (of course we want them to respond in a way we like) but all the time they are just a third party here, such wars were going on in this part of the world before USA even started to exist.