Russian Invasion YESTERDAY! - How Did It Go?

[h-hawk]

It is nice there still may be hope but unless the West has actually shocked Putin into reality, this just sound like a trick to make Putin look more reasonable when he attacks. Biden and Putin talked fairly recently and Putin was demanding that NATO leave some of the newer member countries! That will never fly.

In a similar vein, China now saying countries borders should be respected. This is after they had said they supported Russia in this endeavor. Sounds like they are trying to cover their ass as they do a lot more trade with the US with Russia and afraid they will get sanctions along with Russia.

 

[Joes Place]

Yet I'm not sure why he wants more.

Needs a guaranteed naval port that doesn't ice over several months of the year: Crimea.

That also means he needs inroads to Turkey for access, which he's already got.

 

[seminole97]

Much of what you say and what Nat says is sound enough.

But that doesn't mean Russia is the good guy, or that we shouldn't see them as a serious adversary.

Certainly won't find me saying that.

The 'serious adversary' thing I'd quibble with a bit. They're a nuclear power, and not helpless at cyber warfare, but our policies seemed almost designed to foment adversarial relations with a country that has an economy the size of Italy's and a shrinking population whilst squeezed between the EU, India, China, some 'stans and the Norks.

And at first blush, you'd think, why would we do that, what's the point?
cui bono?

Oh look, another tweet about a shipment of arms to Ukraine.
Yay!

 

[seminole97]

NATO is a defensive force and was asked in by countries that feared Russia would re-occupy them. Libya killed Americans and Khadafi was proud of it.

NATO wasn’t asked by the UN to partition Serbia, and several NATO members still refuse to recognize the independence of Kosovo.

NATO didn’t invoke Article 5 for attacks on US citizens to justify the aid to Islamist rebels in Libya. Have you read the parliamentary report I linked earlier? It’s only 53 pages. If you like history, you should enjoy the read.

 

[h-hawk]

The Intel Hub

@The_IntelHub
·
1m

It’s Presidents’ Day, we have the chairman of the joint chiefs and the CIA director at the White House. We just witnessed #Russia lay the foundations to intel operations, pending final call from Putin. It does not look good right now for #Ukraine. This implies there is new info.
Quote Tweet


Kaitlan Collins

@kaitlancollins
· 11m
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Milley and CIA Director Burns are both at the White House this morning.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

And at first blush, you'd think, why would we do that, what's the point?
cui bono?

We seem stuck with stuck in the 1980s mentality: bring them down and keep kicking them while they're down.

We've had a number of chances to change gears vis a vis Russia, but we seem unable to do so.

I don't understand why. Do you?

 

[Joes Place]

We've had a number of chances to change gears vis a vis Russia, but we seem unable to do so.

I don't understand why. Do you?

What part of Russian oligarchs being state-sponsored mafia is confusing for you?

 

[Finance85]

We seem stuck with stuck in the 1980s mentality: bring them down and keep kicking them while they're down.

We've had a number of chances to change gears vis a vis Russia, but we seem unable to do so.

I don't understand why. Do you?

We, as a country, need a bogeyman. The GOP needs it to justify MIC expenditures. Dems need it for the MIC, but also to vilify Trump, et al.

Nixon's strategy for China was actually brilliant at the time. Nixon embraced opening up diplomatic relations with China because nothing scared the Soviet Union more, at the time, than having a couple of billion Chinese just across the border. Nixon's other strategies were failures, but not that one. The current strategy that seems to be driving a Chinese - Russian alliance isn't going to be beneficial to the US.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

What part of Russian oligarchs being state-sponsored mafia is confusing for you?

Please.

After we permitted (enabled?) Gorby's demise, we sent in our vulture capitalists to plunder while our boy Yeltsin drank himself into a stupor. Review the poverty, famine, and consolidation of oligarchs as we "helped" during the 90s.

Yes, we now face a fascist regime with even fewer redeeming qualities than the USSR. But in significant ways we are reaping what we sowed.

My point was that we could have at least tried a different path. But we didn't.

Since we didn't make better choices, we have a dangerous adversary who is acting up near our allies. And we have to deal with that. Somehow. But we should have tried steering a different course in the 90s, in particular, and even through Obama.

Oh well, wishful thinking. We have to deal with what we face now, and regret over missed opportunities and $4 will get you a cup of coffee.

Now what we should be worried about is the same damn thing we messed up in the 90s - being more concerned about how to make a profit than how to make things better. And we simply don't have a good track record on that.

People like us, should be very concerned that this foreign policy upheaval will derail what little chance remains of tackling climate change or our crumbling democracy before the GOP reasserts control.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Meanwhile, the guy on RT is now claiming that Ukraine plans to attack the separatist regions by force.

Got to love the claims from each side. Some of them might even be true. But which ones?

 

[Finance85]

Meanwhile, the guy on RT is now claiming that Ukraine plans to attack the separatist regions by force.

Got to love the claims from each side. Some of them might even be true. But which ones?

It's going to be tough to find the truth, especially given the US government putting out all of their so-called intelligence. Seems like the administration has the need to create a narrative.

 

[SI_NYC]

Would anyone say you were simply “parroting Nazi propaganda” if you observe much of the genesis of WW2 in the treaties to conclude WW1?

I feel like patriotic fervor quickly envelopes rational analysis.

Nobody here thinks Kennedy was ‘wrong’ to throw a blockade around Cuba and refuse to allow “offensive weapons” to be staged so close to our border.
But it’s impossible for them put themselves in another nation’s shoes and even asking them to acknowledge that since 1991 NATO has been used aggressively to partition nations and engage in regime change (without even our Congress approving the attacks).
You link them to the UK Parliamentary report that the attack on Libya was based on lies about civilian massacres and without refuting any of it or citing any evidence to the contrary they’ll call you a liar and get likes.

Imagine if the WH fervor was focused on what the gulf monarchies have wrought in Yemen as they are what Putin might do in Ukraine?
But that might delay some arms sales, so let’s circle back to that at a later date.

You signed on with the wrong username, Nat.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You signed on with the wrong username, Nat.

Did he get any of that wrong?

Are we more outraged because the Ukraine war is uniquely awful or because we are being subjected to particularly effective media coverage?

 

[SI_NYC]

Are we more outraged because the Ukraine war is uniquely awful or because we are being subjected to particularly effective media coverage?

I'd say both.

 

[RileyHawk]

Did he get any of that wrong?

Are we more outraged because the Ukraine war is uniquely awful or because we are being subjected to particularly effective media coverage?

Yes. Ukraine was not building, or threatening to build, an arsenal near Russia. The comparison is absurd.

 

[seminole97]

Yes. Ukraine was not building, or threatening to build, an arsenal near Russia. The comparison is absurd.

It’s absurd to think if Ukraine joined NATO it would host US forces?

What makes you think that?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Yes. Ukraine was not building, or threatening to build, an arsenal near Russia. The comparison is absurd.

He was pointing to a parallel that we are all familiar with - not claiming the parallel was perfect.

 

[RileyHawk]

It’s absurd to think if Ukraine joined NATO it would host US forces?

What makes you think that?

It's absurd to suggest that the imminent nature of the Cuban missile crisis is any way relevant to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There were no plans to put heavy weapons near the Russian border or have Ukraine join NATO. It's more of your foolishness.

 

[RileyHawk]

He was pointing to a parallel that we are all familiar with - not claiming the parallel was perfect.

He was claiming there is a valid comparison to the two situations. There's not.

 

[seminole97]

There were no plans to put heavy weapons near the Russian border or have Ukraine join NATO.

Your ignorance is colossal.

Just read about it instead of saying completely opposite of the truth things.
Try it.

On April 10, 2021, the Minister of Defense of Ukraine Andriy Taran stated that the top priority of the Ukrainian political leadership is to obtain the Action Plan for Membership (MAP) in the North Atlantic Alliance in 2021. According to the head of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, the most convincing and effective mechanism for communicating the position of the international community to Moscow is "accelerating the implementation of the decision of the 2008 NATO Bucharest Summit on our membership in the Alliance."

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

2008 NATO Bucharest Summit

"NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. "

Bucharest Summit Declaration issued by NATO Heads of State and Government (2008)

www.nato.int

@RileyHawk - Look, it's perfectly correct (in my mind) to strongly criticize Russia and to challenge its narrative. But you should not be disputing the clear fact that Russia had reasons to believe Ukraine was headed toward NATO.

Does that justify what they are doing to Ukraine? Not in my moral universe. But in the real world of geopolitics, their response it not just understandable but resembles actions we have taken against other nations. Which, let's be clear, is not an excuse, but should be acknowledged.

 

[Saint Louis Attorney]

Dimwit Joe Biden provided additional incentives for Russia to invade by sending billions in military hardware to Ukraine. Putin knows full well he can get his hands on free stuff paid for by the American Taxpayers. Kind of like a BLM smash and grab but on a larger scale.

Lol. Nice call, Turktard.

 

[Saint Louis Attorney]

All the troop buildup was a smokescreen for cyber attacks. That's the new narrative, though not stated exactly like that.

Lol

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

All the troop buildup was a smokescreen for cyber attacks. That's the new narrative, though not stated exactly like that.

My theory is that they are pulling back from Kyiv just far enough to do an EMP without knocking out their own gear.

That's probably wrong, though, because we now see that Russia's gear is woefully inadequate. So they probably don't know how to do an EMP.

 

[RileyHawk]

"NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. "

Bucharest Summit Declaration issued by NATO Heads of State and Government (2008)

www.nato.int

@RileyHawk - Look, it's perfectly correct (in my mind) to strongly criticize Russia and to challenge its narrative. But you should not be disputing the clear fact that Russia had reasons to believe Ukraine was headed toward NATO.

Does that justify what they are doing to Ukraine? Not in my moral universe. But in the real world of geopolitics, their response it not just understandable but resembles actions we have taken against other nations. Which, let's be clear, is not an excuse, but should be acknowledged.

No. Just.... No. Ukraine was denied entry into NATO and there was nothing imminent challenging that. Nor was NATO pursuing heavy weapons on the Russian border. The comparison to the Cuban Missile crisis is stupid. That was a direct, imminent threat. JFC

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

No. Just.... No. Ukraine was denied entry into NATO and there was nothing imminent challenging that. Nor was NATO pursuing heavy weapons on the Russian border. The comparison to the Cuban Missile crisis is stupid. That was a direct, imminent threat. JFC

It seems like you aren't open to thinking about the "facts" other than those you've been fed.

I'm disappointed because I've found you to be reasonable on other topics.

 

[RileyHawk]

It seems like you aren't open to thinking about the "facts" other than those you've been fed.

I'm disappointed because I've found you to be reasonable on other topics.

Please cite the threats by Ukraine or the U.S. to put heavy weapons near the Russian border immediately preceding the actions by Russia.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Please cite the threats by Ukraine or the U.S. to put heavy weapons near the Russian border immediately preceding the actions by Russia.

I am not and never have argued that point. Why are you asking me?

I'm merely pointing out that Russia was justified in thinking that Ukraine was aiming to join NATO. That is absolutely clear on the record.

 

[RileyHawk]

I am not and never have argued that point. Why are you asking me?

I'm merely pointing out that Russia was justified in thinking that Ukraine was aiming to join NATO. That is absolutely clear on the record.

That has been the case for over a decade. The comparison was made to the Cuban Missile crisis which I called absurd. There was nothing new to trigger Russia. That's been my point.

 

[seminole97]

That has been the case for over a decade.

Then why did some clown using the handle RileyHawk write: “There were no plans to put heavy weapons near the Russian border or have Ukraine join NATO.”
Can you set him straight? He’s spouting disinformation online.

 

[RileyHawk]

Then why did some clown using the handle RileyHawk write: “There were no plans to put heavy weapons near the Russian border or have Ukraine join NATO.”
Can you set him straight? He’s spouting disinformation online.

Because - There were no plans to put heavy weapons near the Russian border or have Ukraine join NATO.

JFC - link to the plans the NATO and Ukraine had in place to have Ukraine join. As well as the plans for heavy weapons at the Russian border that were the immediate triggers to the Russian invasion.

 

[seminole97]

Because - There were no plans to put heavy weapons near the Russian border or have Ukraine join NATO.

JFC - link to the plans the NATO and Ukraine had in place to have Ukraine join. As well as the plans for heavy weapons at the Russian border that were the immediate triggers to the Russian invasion.

WWJD already put it in this thread and you quoted it. But it’s as if you’re impervious to learning anything.
What does the last sentence I quote below mean to you?

"NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. "

 

[RileyHawk]

WWJD already put it in this thread and you quoted it. But it’s as if you’re impervious to learning anything.
What does the last sentence I quote below mean to you?

"NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. "

You are one dumb ****. NATO has not, nor ever has, agreed to admit Ukraine. Ukraine has aspirations and some countries want that to happen - but NEVER has NATO agreed to have them admitted. Thus, no trigger for Putin.

And your comparison to the Cuban Missile crisis is still dumb as shit.

All yours from here Slappy.

 

[seminole97]

NATO has not, nor ever has, agreed to admit Ukraine. Ukraine has aspirations and some countries want that to happen - but NEVER has NATO agreed to have them admitted. Thus, no trigger for Putin.
And your comparison to the Cuban Missile crisis is still dumb as shit.

You dodged the question, so I'll ask again.

What does the last sentence I quote below mean to you?
Parse it.

"NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. "

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

JFC - link to the plans the NATO and Ukraine had in place to have Ukraine join.

Both have been linked.

Why do you keep harping on this when you are clearly wrong.

 

[seminole97]

Both have been linked.

Why do you keep harping on this when you are clearly wrong.

First encounter with Riley?

 

[BioHawk]

Both have been linked.

Why do you keep harping on this when you are clearly wrong.

Was there an official vote for this or was it just some person saying, "Sure, we agreed to that" in the same way you agree to buying your kid a new pony hoping they just forget about it later.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Was there an official vote for this or was it just some person saying, "Sure, we agreed to that" in the same way you agree to buying your kid a new pony hoping they just forget about it later.

I am not sufficiently familiar with the Bucharest agreement nor with how the aim toward NATO and the EU became part of Ukrainian law to answer your question but why would you think otherwise? I mean both are real things.

Is there a need to reject them? What's obviously true is that Putin takes them seriously. We don't have to agree with his analysis or his actions to realize that he does consider this a danger to Russia that required action on his part.

Which is, by the way, exactly the way we looked at things in the Cuban crisis. Whether people agreed with our analysis or not, we saw that as a threat that required action. It's not a question of whether we were going to put heavy weapons in Ukraine that makes the current situation resemble the Cuban Crisis, it's the perceived threat.

 

[RileyHawk]

I am not sufficiently familiar with the Bucharest agreement nor with how the aim toward NATO and the EU became part of Ukrainian law to answer your question but why would you think otherwise? I mean both are real things.

Is there a need to reject them? What's obviously true is that Putin takes them seriously. We don't have to agree with his analysis or his actions to realize that he does consider this a danger to Russia that required action on his part.

Which is, by the way, exactly the way we looked at things in the Cuban crisis. Whether people agreed with our analysis or not, we saw that as a threat that required action. It's not a question of whether we were going to put heavy weapons in Ukraine that makes the current situation resemble the Cuban Crisis, it's the perceived threat.

LOL - this is hilarious. There has been nothing but idle talk about it which, you say, is enough to provoke Putin. OK, that may be true because he was looking to be provoked. Comparing it the ACTIONS taken in the Cuban Missile crisis is absurd. The US reacted to actual events that really happened.

JFC

 

[BelemNole]

It's going to be tough to find the truth, especially given the US government putting out all of their so-called intelligence. Seems like the administration has the need to create a narrative.

Yeah...the US totally wiffed on their "so called" intelligence. I mean, they just called the invasion down to pretty much the day, but they were 'just creating a narrative."