Popular Comments

In February of 2014, Crimea was the legitimate territory of Ukraine. And Russia invaded and occupied it. It also sent troops into eastern Ukraine to stoke an insurgency.

You're free to explain why you feel Russia was justified in going to war against Ukraine, but let's be clear that this is what you're doing.

nan said:

DaveSchmidt said:

To ask it another way: You wouldn’t make each and every one of those concessions, if you had to, in order to save all the lives that have been lost on both sides of the war?

Would you be OK with Russia or China overthrowing our government and installing a puppet?  Do you think it we should just be passive and accept that because someone might get hurt?  How would you feel if your country was taken over for the benefit of another country?

I remember when people thought Trump was a Russian puppet and they were pretty pissed off.  

Absolutely not.  If Russia or China attempted a coup using NGOs and their intelligence agencies, I think the only rational defense would be to invade Canada.

got the QB. It's been a good week :-)

mtierney said:

Meanwhile, back in another NYC courtroom, this is happening…

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/13/nyregion/jury-selection-menendez-trial.html?unlocked_article_code=1.sk0.DT5n.Vti3R1DuVDuJ&smid=url-share

Gold bars were found, concealed into the lining of his suits — really?!

Let everyone know when you find a defense of Menendez in his current legal difficulties by a poster on MOL, or a local Democratic politician, or a NJ Democratic politician, or a national Democratic politician.

I did. He's a liar and those who believe him are dupes. Take, for instance, where he talks about WWII -- he conveniently skips over the fact that the war began, not with Germany attacking the USSR, but with the USSR and Germany allied and jointly attacking Poland. In the context of Ukraine, his talking about millions killed very pointedly skips over the millions killed by the USSR.

His speech is full of similar dishonest omissions and misdirections. It's a speech that relies on his audience's ignorance and credulity.

Russia invaded Ukraine on February 27, 2014.

nan said:

PVW said:

nan said:

PVW said:

Russia invaded Ukraine on February 27, 2014.

Ok, so you are talking about Crimea, which I'm guessing we have different opinions about, right?  

What is your view on this?

Go back through this thread. You'll see that I've consistently referred to Russia's actions of 2022 as an escalation of the war it began in 2014.

WHAT????  You are so Russophobic that I tend to glaze over your habit of blaming the Russians for everything.   You are saying the Russians began the war in 2014?  How?

By invading and occupying Ukrainian territory. Most people have no problem recognizing that as war.

Some people delight in constructing paths of breadcrumbs leading backwards from historical events and then proclaiming that said historical event was inevitable.  People float the myth that the Treaty of Versailles was the cause of WW 2 and that FDR knew that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor.  

These arguments about the cause of war in Ukraine are no different.  The reality is that there were many decision points along the trail from 1994 to the present when different decisions could have been made that would have changed history.  The U.S. could have done some things differently.  Putin could have made different decisions.  I reject the argument that the U.S. is unilaterally responsible for the war.

nan said:

tjohn said:

nan said:

They did not have enough men to take Kyiv.  It was a diversion.  They left as a good will gesture after the peace talks--which then broke down.  Of course western media turned it into huge cinematic deal. 

It's hard to decide which of Nan's ideas are the most bizarre, but this one is up there.

Not as bizarre as Putin thinking he could take the city of Kyiv with the number of troops he had surrounding the city at the time. 

Weren't you the person who suggested we all reference the Institute for the Study of War for "real" information?

Make sure you read the article I posted about their funding and biases. It might just surprise you.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/russia-ukraine-war-isw/

Considering that the attack on Kyiv, if successful, would very likely have given Putin the quick win he wanted, I don't believe for a minute that it was a unserious diversion.  Secondly, while I can think of many cases of military operations intended to be diversions from main thrust, I am hard-pressed to think of any that were not expected to succeed.

The most obvious explanation for the failure of the attack on Kiev is that it failed for operational reasons - in other words, the Russians didn't have the skills to pull off a large, fast-moving combined arms operation.  And that is not a criticism of Russia, really. Very few armies can manage large operations without a huge amount of practice.  The German Army of WW II is really the only army I can think of that managed large scale operations well from the beginning.

nan said:

Continued diplomacy is not the same as "don't do it," which is unacceptable.

I am actually skeptical that continued diplomacy would work, since many of the names/groups mentioned had already admitted they were not open to anything like that. This was from a year ago and since then I have heard Jeffrey Sachs complain about the lack of diplomacy for the groups he mentions.

Continued diplomacy, rather than surrender to Nazis, NGOs and border warheads, was always the obvious alternative to “Do it.”

Alas, a military invasion makes diplomacy more difficult. I’m hoping you can understand that without needing to hear it from Jeffrey Sachs first.