Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine
terp said:
This is a manufactured crisis.
One country masses troops at the border of another.
If an invasion follows: Diplomacy must have been botched and/or the invading country was goaded.
If no invasion follows: There must not have been any threat to begin with.
Yeah, still don't understand terp's position. Russia already annexed a chunk of Ukraine. It's supporting armed separatists in eastern Ukraine. Putin has spoken of how Russians and Ukrainians are "one people." Russia has massed at least 130,000 troops on the Ukrainian border. Those are just the facts on the ground, not propaganda, but according to terp it's an unreasonable conclusion that Putin might be planning an invasion? It's certainly possible that he's not, but his actions objectively are threatening one.
I also don't understand what he's claiming NATO propaganda is trying to achieve. Convince people that Russia is threatening an invasion? That's already done by the facts on the ground. Provoke a conflict with Russia? Where and how -- Pres Biden has said he's not sending troops to Ukraine. The only way there would be conflict is if Russia invades Ukraine, which terp has assured us is not going to happen so...?
If Putin doesn't invade, terp and the rest of the anti-anti-Russian brigade get to join Putin in making fun of the US and its NATO allies. Again, that seems a pretty cheap price to pay for Ukraine not being invaded, so I'd call that a win.
terp said:
tjohn said:
So Terp seems to think we should have no comment about Putin's intentions to make Ukraine a vassal state like Belarus?
What about the Baltic States?
Perhaps we should stand by while he resurrects the Warsaw Pact.
Do you really think this is going to happen? If so, why? It doesn't strike me as a plausible scenario. What historical precedent is there for Putin to do this?
I am sure that Putin wishes that Russia had the span of control that the USSR enjoyed. He knows this won't happen.
I think he will be happy for a time if he can reduce Ukraine to the status of Belarus.
Russia occupied the Baltic States around 1800. And again in 1938. What makes you think they wouldn't do it again if the cost was acceptable?
tjohn said:
terp said:
tjohn said:
So Terp seems to think we should have no comment about Putin's intentions to make Ukraine a vassal state like Belarus?
What about the Baltic States?
Perhaps we should stand by while he resurrects the Warsaw Pact.
Do you really think this is going to happen? If so, why? It doesn't strike me as a plausible scenario. What historical precedent is there for Putin to do this?
I am sure that Putin wishes that Russia had the span of control that the USSR enjoyed. He knows this won't happen.
I think he will be happy for a time if he can reduce Ukraine to the status of Belarus.
Russia occupied the Baltic States around 1800. And again in 1938. What makes you think they wouldn't do it again if the cost was acceptable?
Exactly. Putin isn't worried as much about troops from other European countries being in Ukraine, as he is about business interests from other European countries being in Ukraine. If he can get his way with sword-rattling and encouraging "moderate" (Russia-favoring) elements in Ukraine, that's fine with him.
It's just an odd scene to witness the convolutions people will go to in their quest to own the libs. Somehow, Russia massing troops on the borders of a country they've already forcibly annexed a portion of is a sign of American (specifically, Democratic) aggression? Ok, sure.
PVW said:
It's just an odd scene to witness the convolutions people will go to in their quest to own the libs. Somehow, Russia massing troops on the borders of a country they've already forcibly annexed a portion of is a sign of American (specifically, Democratic) aggression? Ok, sure.
It goes something like this, I think: Russia has legitimate security grievances, so if it wants to mass troops at its border, consider it a prod to negotiate and not a real threat. (That the massing of troops is a prod only if taken seriously as a threat is just one of those paradoxes.)
DaveSchmidt said:
It goes something like this, I think: Russia has legitimate security grievances, so if it wants to mass troops at its border, consider it a prod to negotiate and not a real threat. (That the massing of troops is a prod only if taken seriously as a threat is just one of those paradoxes.)
Quite the paradox, as in this telling NATO is guilty of... taking Russia seriously? Instead of claiming that Russia is threatening invasion, NATO should declare that Russia is bluffing? I think we have to forget that Russia already invaded and annexed part of Ukraine just a few years ago for this to be plausible?
The claims of Russian genocide in Donbass will be the pretext for Vlad to employ his humanitarian mission.
Can anyone find the content of his claims? I see documents mentioned - like here:
Looks like the WSJ viewed these docs - why haven't these been published?
Is their any utility to Biden publicly saying an invasion will occur within days?
I can see sharing any such intelligence with NATO and Ukraine, but why announce publicly?
drummerboy said:
terp said:
PVW said:
Yeah, I don't get terp's response. I post that its good Ukraine won't be invaded and he.. disagrees? Or something?
No, it was an example of the "NATO propoganda". We have been meddling over there for years. I'm not sure what the win is.
ah. pulling out items from the Bullsh!t Hall of Fame, I see.
Why is that ****?
drummerboy said:
Is their any utility to Biden publicly saying an invasion will occur within days?
I can see sharing any such intelligence with NATO and Ukraine, but why announce publicly?
Perhaps he's not doing it for the reasons you think he's doing it for.
DaveSchmidt said:
PVW said:
It's just an odd scene to witness the convolutions people will go to in their quest to own the libs. Somehow, Russia massing troops on the borders of a country they've already forcibly annexed a portion of is a sign of American (specifically, Democratic) aggression? Ok, sure.
It goes something like this, I think: Russia has legitimate security grievances, so if it wants to mass troops at its border, consider it a prod to negotiate and not a real threat. (That the massing of troops is a prod only if taken seriously as a threat is just one of those paradoxes.)
This has been going on for a long time. We have been involved for some time. Biden was involved in the 2014 revolution. He is mentioned in the Victoria Nuland call where they discuss who should take over. It's also why Burisma was interested in Hunter Biden.
This is about empire. Russia wants a guarantee that Ukraine does not become a NATO member and wants no tomahawk missiles in Romania. It's crazy to me that we repeatedly meddle over there have a significant military footprint and run military exercises in the region and people don't understand how Russia might feel threatened. This is imperialism plain and simple.
tjohn said:
terp said:
tjohn said:
So Terp seems to think we should have no comment about Putin's intentions to make Ukraine a vassal state like Belarus?
What about the Baltic States?
Perhaps we should stand by while he resurrects the Warsaw Pact.
Do you really think this is going to happen? If so, why? It doesn't strike me as a plausible scenario. What historical precedent is there for Putin to do this?
I am sure that Putin wishes that Russia had the span of control that the USSR enjoyed. He knows this won't happen.
I think he will be happy for a time if he can reduce Ukraine to the status of Belarus.
Russia occupied the Baltic States around 1800. And again in 1938. What makes you think they wouldn't do it again if the cost was acceptable?
Why does the US government seem more concerned than the Ukranian government?
terp said:
drummerboy said:
terp said:
PVW said:
Yeah, I don't get terp's response. I post that its good Ukraine won't be invaded and he.. disagrees? Or something?
No, it was an example of the "NATO propoganda". We have been meddling over there for years. I'm not sure what the win is.
ah. pulling out items from the Bullsh!t Hall of Fame, I see.
Why is that ****?
because it means diddly-squat, but it's repeatedly brought up as some sort of "proof" that the US interfered in Ukraine's election. and it's not. it's two people, with no real power, talking.
that's why.
it's embarrassing frankly. and I think this is not the first time you've posted this (though that might have been paul or nan the last time)
terp said:
DaveSchmidt said:
PVW said:
It's just an odd scene to witness the convolutions people will go to in their quest to own the libs. Somehow, Russia massing troops on the borders of a country they've already forcibly annexed a portion of is a sign of American (specifically, Democratic) aggression? Ok, sure.
It goes something like this, I think: Russia has legitimate security grievances, so if it wants to mass troops at its border, consider it a prod to negotiate and not a real threat. (That the massing of troops is a prod only if taken seriously as a threat is just one of those paradoxes.)
This has been going on for a long time. We have been involved for some time. Biden was involved in the 2014 revolution. He is mentioned in the Victoria Nuland call where they discuss who should take over. It's also why Burisma was interested in Hunter Biden.
This is about empire. Russia wants a guarantee that Ukraine does not become a NATO member and wants no tomahawk missiles in Romania. It's crazy to me that we repeatedly meddle over there have a significant military footprint and run military exercises in the region and people don't understand how Russia might feel threatened. This is imperialism plain and simple.
I can't deal with all of the crap in this post. (Burisma? Really?) But maybe you can explain to us what Russia thinks the threat to them actually is.
In the worst case scenario, what is Putin afraid of?
drummerboy said:
Is their any utility to Biden publicly saying an invasion will occur within days?
Pre-empting moves by calling them out in advance, if that’s your strategy, works only if you call them out.
PVW said:
If Putin doesn't invade, terp and the rest of the anti-anti-Russian brigade get to join Putin in making fun of the US and its NATO allies. Again, that seems a pretty cheap price to pay for Ukraine not being invaded, so I'd call that a win.
(Sorry, the define/quote function hasn’t worked for me since the latest iOs update.)
MUNICH — President Biden and his top aides acknowledge they are risking American credibility as they constantly renew the alarm that Russia is only “several days” away from triggering an unprovoked land war in Europe that could kill tens of thousands of Ukrainians in its opening hours, and plunge the world back into something resembling the Cold War.
But Mr. Biden’s aides say they are willing to take that risk.
They would rather be accused of hyperbole and fearmongering than be proven right, they say, if that’s what it takes to deter Russian President Vladimir V. Putin from pursuing an invasion that they worry will not stop at Ukraine’s borders.
“If Russia doesn’t invade Ukraine, then we will be relieved that Russia changed course and proved our predictions wrong,’’ Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said at the United Nations Security Council on Thursday morning, in a speech that Mr. Biden had asked him to give only hours before. “That would be a far better outcome than the course we are currently on. And we will gladly accept any criticism that anyone directs at us.’’
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/17/us/politics/blinken-russia-ukraine-predictions.html
terp said:
This has been going on for a long time. We have been involved for some time. Biden was involved in the 2014 revolution. He is mentioned in the Victoria Nuland call where they discuss who should take over. It's also why Burisma was interested in Hunter Biden.
This is about empire. Russia wants a guarantee that Ukraine does not become a NATO member and wants no tomahawk missiles in Romania. It's crazy to me that we repeatedly meddle over there have a significant military footprint and run military exercises in the region and people don't understand how Russia might feel threatened. This is imperialism plain and simple.
I disagree with your claims about 2014, but let's say for arguments sake that they are correct -- this reads like a justification for Russia to invade Ukraine. Is that a fair reading of your position -- that US actions in 2014 justify Russia using military force to invade and occupy some (or all?) of Ukraine?
terp said:
This is about empire. Russia wants a guarantee that Ukraine does not become a NATO member and wants no tomahawk missiles in Romania. It's crazy to me that we repeatedly meddle over there have a significant military footprint and run military exercises in the region and people don't understand how Russia might feel threatened. This is imperialism plain and simple.
It is true that Russia does not want Ukraine, Romania, or any easter European country to think that its borders are secure. It is about empire, the Russian one.
I was curious to see if there were any protests in Russia. Sounds like Vlad really curbed that ability.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-rostov-on-don-ukraine-invasion-1.6355120
As part of a widespread government crackdown on dissent, the grandmother was fined the equivalent of $1,700 Cdn last year for taking part in demonstrations.
Now when she holds a sign in public, Olshanskaya — one of few who still protest in Russia — is careful not to be outside for more than 10 minutes, and always alone.
That's the tactic Russian activists are taking, because one-person pickets are the only method of protest that currently does not require prior approval from the authorities.
"The risk goes up all the time that they could arrest you," said Tatiana Sporisheva, 45, who spoke to CBC along with Olshanskaya in Rostov-on-Don earlier this week.
"We don't have big protests anymore, but that doesn't mean that people accept this [situation]."
Sporisheva, who made signs that read "Putin Is War" and "The War Is Near," began protesting Russia's military buildup back in November.
Another good article in regards to Russian protests:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/sergei-davidis-anti-war-movement-russia/
terp said:
Why does the US government seem more concerned than the Ukranian government?
Does it?
MUNICH — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky forcefully demanded stronger actions from world leaders as the threat of full-scale attack by Russia intensifies amid increased shelling in the eastern separatist regions of his country.
“The security architecture of our world is brittle, it is obsolete,” Zelensky said on Saturday during a defiant speech at a security conference in Munich. He accused governments of “egotism,” “arrogance” and “irresponsibility” as he urged Western leaders to publicly state their plans for sanctions on Russia, saying that after the war begins would be too late.
“Action is needed,” he insisted, adding that “this is not about war in Ukraine, this is about war in Europe.”
(Washington Post, Zelensky rips the West for inaction as shellings make Russia-Ukraine war seem increasingly imminent)
terp said:
This is a manufactured crisis.
I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.
Overall, seems like our intelligence may be correct. Biggest win for Putin would be to do nothing. Show us how wrong we were.
terp said:
This has been going on for a long time. We have been involved for some time. Biden was involved in the 2014 revolution. He is mentioned in the Victoria Nuland call where they discuss who should take over. It's also why Burisma was interested in Hunter Biden.
This is about empire. Russia wants a guarantee that Ukraine does not become a NATO member and wants no tomahawk missiles in Romania. It's crazy to me that we repeatedly meddle over there have a significant military footprint and run military exercises in the region and people don't understand how Russia might feel threatened. This is imperialism plain and simple.
The like function is all fine and well but this site really needs a downvote button to go with it.
GoSlugs said:
The like function is all fine and well but this site really needs a downvote button to go with it.
that would put MT and Terp in “biggest cry baby” section… can you imagine the amount of whining?
US Intel is saying that the Gabbard-Putin-Dore-Suirovell-Carlson-Hannity-Sanders-Trump-Jordan-Greenwald Alliance has given Russian commanders the go ahead for an invasion.
Be About War.
Congratulations to the Gabbard-Putin-Dore-Suirovell-Carlson-Hannity-Sanders War Monger Alliance on their justification for the upcoming murder of thousands of people. Nicely done.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
-
2007 Honda Fit $4,400
More info
ah. pulling out items from the Bullsh!t Hall of Fame, I see.