Russia attacking Ukraine 2/16?

Mr. Deez said:
This use of historic record of invasions is frankly laughable. Yes, Hitler and Napoleon invaded Russia generations ago. Olaf Scholz is hardly Adolf Hitler, and modern Germany is hardly Nazi Germany in any sense. Emmanuel Macron is hardly Napoleon, and modern France is hardly Napoleonic France in any sense. A bunch (meaning several million) of German and French Euroweanies are going to go invade Russia in their skinny jeans and carrying their man-purses? Sorry, I just don't see it. I hate to boil it down to a testosterone thing, but even if they wanted to invade (which they don't), their people would never have the balls for anything remotely that dangerous. Hell, a much stronger and more militaristic France wasn't even willing to defend its own homeland from Nazi Germany. Mexico is a bigger threat to invade the United States to retake Texas than NATO is a threat to invade Russia.
Click to expand...

Or maybe Russians think differently than you. They think much more historically and according to national mythos. They also know that things can change quickly and want to be prepared. I think they also want to exert influence over Ukraine and Eastern Europe. But why? Defense has to be part of the equation. They aren't attempting to expand territory now. They only did that back in 2014 after the US helped overthrow a Ukrainian President. They took Crimea which is there only warm water military port and created a regional buffer with Donbas. So the facts at least hint at the motivation and intention of Russia. So far they haven't moved any troops outside their own border. Can the US say that? No. We have done that. That doesn't look aggressive to you, but it does to Russia.

Mr. Deez said:
Second, we still shouldn't try to bring Ukraine into NATO. Why not? Because as preposterous as it is to think NATO will attack Russia, it's also preposterous to think NATO would ever go to war to defend Ukraine if Russia attacked them. Trying to bring them in does nothing but fuel Putin's phony NATO fear trope and invite him to test NATO.
Click to expand...

We shouldn't because it would actively hurt American interests. I don't like Russia, but Ukraine should protect themselves if they are afraid of Russia, not us.
 
Monahorns said:
Or maybe Russians think differently than you. They think much more historically and according to national mythos. They also know that things can change quickly and want to be prepared. I think they also want to exert influence over Ukraine and Eastern Europe. But why? Defense has to be part of the equation.
Click to expand...

Defense is a side benefit...not the primary driver is all I'm saying.

Monahorns said:
So far they haven't moved any troops outside their own border.
Click to expand...

They were in Syria just like the US. They are in Africa just like the US. They have troops in Belarus right this moment. A primary difference between the US and Russia is the use of mercenaries. They are common for Russia. Only in the last 20 years has the US began leveraging them (primarily in Iraq!) thanks to the seedy Blackwater organization.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Defense is a side benefit...not the primary driver is all I'm saying.
Click to expand...

Ok. But does increasing their influence over Ukraine give them? I understand control. But control to do what? To make business deals? I think that is a good thing for everyone in the world.

Seattle Husker said:
They were in Syria just like the US. They are in Africa just like the US. They have troops in Belarus right this moment. A primary difference between the US and Russia is the use of mercenaries. They are common for Russia. Only in the last 20 years has the US began leveraging them (primarily in Iraq!) thanks to the seedy Blackwater organization.
Click to expand...

I meant in Ukraine but I get your point in reference to the troop buildups. Mercenaries are probably in Donbas. But the US send troops across borders as a part of the Ukraine subject. That's all I was saying.
 
Monahorns said:
Or maybe Russians think differently than you. They think much more historically and according to national mythos. They also know that things can change quickly and want to be prepared. I think they also want to exert influence over Ukraine and Eastern Europe. But why? Defense has to be part of the equation. They aren't attempting to expand territory now. They only did that back in 2014 after the US helped overthrow a Ukrainian President. They took Crimea which is there only warm water military port and created a regional buffer with Donbas. So the facts at least hint at the motivation and intention of Russia. So far they haven't moved any troops outside their own border. Can the US say that? No. We have done that. That doesn't look aggressive to you, but it does to Russia.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for what Russians believe. People will believe all kinds of goofy stuff, because they form their beliefs based on the information given to them. If Putin tells them to believe that Olaf Scholz and Emanuel Macron really are Hitler and Napolean all over again with the United States egging them on and they believe it, there isn't much we can do to stop that. It's like the North Koreans. They believe whatever crazy **** comes out of their leader's mouth. However, importantly Vladimir Putin doesn't believe it (because he's not an idiot), and he's the decisionmaker.

And we can't make policy decisions based entirely on what someone believes falsely. (That's why you and I, at least, generally don't like the transgenderism agenda.) We have to make decisions based on what's real.

Is defense part of it? That's their argument, but when the action is so wildly disproportionate to the reality of the threat, I start to doubt the sincerity of the self-defense excuse. Suppose we imposed a naval blockade on the United Kingdom and surrounded the nation with ballistic missile submarines and aircaft carriers and explained ourselves by saying we're worried about a possible neocolonioal movement in the UK wanting to rebuild the empire and retake the original 13 colonies. Not many would take our explanation seriously, because the threat is preposterous. Well, the threat of an unprovoked NATO invasion of Russia is about as preposterous and should be taken about that seriously.

And it is wild to me that (1) you're wrong about Russia operating outside its borders and (2) when confronted with that by Seattle Husker, you just rationalize it by assuming Russia has the best of intentions. They're good when they go outside their borders and make business deals, but we're always evil.

Monahorns said:
We shouldn't because it would actively hurt American interests. I don't like Russia, but Ukraine should protect themselves if they are afraid of Russia, not us.
Click to expand...

Hurt our interests? It would basically end Vladimir Putin as a serious threat, and it would intimidate China into leaving Taiwan alone. However, the public in the West doesn't have the will to do it, and faking it only makes matters worse. The problem is that eventually one of these countries is going to screw with something we really care about (a NATO member or Taiwan), and then we'll have a major war on our hands. Weakness is a provocation.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Two things can be true at the same time. First, the claim that Russia truly fears NATO expansion is ********. NATO isn't a real threat to Russia, because nobody thinks that any NATO member is going to invade Russia without a massive and very direct provocation. If Russia turns London into a sea of glass or sends a million troops into Poland, then yes, NATO will invade Russia, but it would take something like that.
Click to expand...
What NATO expansion accomplishes is simply US control over Europe. While NATO may not be a military threat to Russia, the expansion along with the propaganda of fear of Russia and associated sanctions, keeps Europe under the thumb of US. So NATO expansion presents an economic threat to Russia moreso than a military threat. And that is important. Russia does very little trading with the US but quite a bit with Europe. The US opposes this, Russia wants more trade, but the European politicians do as they are told by their US masters, even when their industry leaders disagree with their decisions.
 
In Russia. It is a daily plan of Pskov Paratroop Division (76 Guards Air Assault Division) approved by Putin himself and signed by Shoigu.

06:00 Getting up.

07:00 Morning toilet

08:00 Breakfast

09:00 Assault on Ukraine

12:00 Lunch

13:00 Taking of Kiev

18:00 Gazmanov's Concert

21:00 Fireworks.
 
The whole "Russia is threatening Ukraine because they want to stop them from joining NATO" deal is ********. If Russia wanted Ukraine to not feel it necessary to join, they'd simply stop threatening Ukraine.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I can't speak for what Russians believe. People will believe all kinds of goofy stuff, because they form their beliefs based on the information given to them. If Putin tells them to believe that Olaf Scholz and Emanuel Macron really are Hitler and Napolean all over again with the United States egging them on and they believe it, there isn't much we can do to stop that. It's like the North Koreans. They believe whatever crazy **** comes out of their leader's mouth. However, importantly Vladimir Putin doesn't believe it (because he's not an idiot), and he's the decisionmaker.
Click to expand...

I think Putin does think this way. That is what is being reported by people close to the situation who have spent their careers trying to understand.

Mr. Deez said:
And we can't make policy decisions based entirely on what someone believes falsely. (That's why you and I, at least, generally don't like the transgenderism agenda.) We have to make decisions based on what's real.
Click to expand...

I agree. But if a transgender says they are afraid of cis-gender straights attacking them, you don't run up to them and hold your fist up like you are about to hit them either.

Mr. Deez said:
Is defense part of it? That's their argument, but when the action is so wildly disproportionate to the reality of the threat, I start to doubt the sincerity of the self-defense excuse. Suppose we imposed a naval blockade on the United Kingdom and surrounded the nation with ballistic missile submarines and aircaft carriers and explained ourselves by saying we're worried about a possible neocolonioal movement in the UK wanting to rebuild the empire and retake the original 13 colonies. Not many would take our explanation seriously, because the threat is preposterous. Well, the threat of an unprovoked NATO invasion of Russia is about as preposterous and should be taken about that seriously.
Click to expand...

Well same can be said for the US Pentagon's comments about why we need to intervene with Ukraine. Plus your example is bad. In your example just like the Ukraine situation it is the US crossing an ocean to intervene in another region. People wouldn't take the US's claims seriously, but they would sure as hell take the threat they posed to the UK seriously. In reality Russia is the UK of your example. In both cases, they have every right to point out the aggressive actions and be concerned about it.

Mr. Deez said:
And it is wild to me that (1) you're wrong about Russia operating outside its borders and (2) when confronted with that by Seattle Husker, you just rationalize it by assuming Russia has the best of intentions. They're good when they go outside their borders and make business deals, but we're always evil.
Click to expand...

You never try to understand what I am saying anyway. 1) The news about Russia moving around troops was all within their borders. That is a fact. I recognize their is at the least Russian involvement in Donbas in some fashion. I don't defend it. 2) I don't assume Russia has the best intentions. I am trying to explain the reality of what is being said by those covering this closely. Both sides have bad intentions. The Russians should leave Ukraine alone. The US and NATO shouldn't have encroached on Russia, like they promised 30 years ago.

Business deals? You are mad they are making business deals? Well, yeah I don't think there is any problem with international trade. That is a good thing. It is the best thing they can do, which is sell goods which keep Europeans warm in the winter. "Either goods and services cross borders or armies do" (bad quote of someone). Sounds like you just want to destroy Russia and harm their economy that is already very weak. But no bad intentions there I guess.

Mr. Deez said:
Hurt our interests? It would basically end Vladimir Putin as a serious threat, and it would intimidate China into leaving Taiwan alone. However, the public in the West doesn't have the will to do it, and faking it only makes matters worse. The problem is that eventually one of these countries is going to screw with something we really care about (a NATO member or Taiwan), and then we'll have a major war on our hands. Weakness is a provocation.
Click to expand...

Who is Putin a threat to? You? The US? Germany? Who?

So we spend money and blood on Russia which poses no threat to us just to make sure someone else doesn't do something we don't want? That's bully language. That's drug gang language. That's mafia language. If we don't go beat up everyone we don't like someone else is going to beat someone else up? That's Darth Vader language.
 
Musburger1 said:
What NATO expansion accomplishes is simply US control over Europe. While NATO may not be a military threat to Russia, the expansion along with the propaganda of fear of Russia and associated sanctions, keeps Europe under the thumb of US. So NATO expansion presents an economic threat to Russia moreso than a military threat. And that is important. Russia does very little trading with the US but quite a bit with Europe. The US opposes this, Russia wants more trade, but the European politicians do as they are told by their US masters, even when their industry leaders disagree with their decisions.
Click to expand...

Most of the potash US farmers buy comes from Russia. If we cut off Russia economically we cause farm yields to go way down and at least double everything in the grocery store. That's best case. Worst case is shortages. But even the best case means malnutrition and starvation for poor people. But who cares about what poor need amirite?
 
Statalyzer said:
The whole "Russia is threatening Ukraine because they want to stop them from joining NATO" deal is ********. If Russia wanted Ukraine to not feel it necessary to join, they'd simply stop threatening Ukraine.
Click to expand...

That is part of the equation. Yes. How do we de-escalate the situation? Facilitating the overthrow of a democratically elected President in Ukraine in 2014 doesn't do that. That is a documented fact too, down to who the US wanted in power in Ukraine. Russia hadn't threatened Ukraine since the break up of the USSR until that point. The US went back on their promise to NATO to not move east of Germany after 1990. Then we helped overthrow an ally of Putin's in 2014. So let's start with US intervention in Europe and work back from there. England, Germany, and France have more than enough capability to defend themselves if they want to. What are they saying? Are they concerned that Russia is going to harm them?
 
Monahorns said:
Russia hadn't threatened Ukraine since the break up of the USSR until that point.
Click to expand...

Russia didn't need to threaten Ukraine when they had were supported by a puppet government. Russia controlled Yuschenko and his merry band of Oligarchs. The CIA was absolutely involved in supporting the Orange Revolution but it was successful in as much as Yushenko was only in power due to election fraud. When he fled the scope of Yuschenko's corruption was laid bare for all the world to see. Russia was the puppetmaster for Ukraine's 3 Presidents after the fall of the USSR. Honestly, they have only themselves to blame that the majority of Ukraine wanted to distance themselves from Russia.
 
Chop said:
Say, wasn’t there supposed to be a war today or something…
Click to expand...
That was the Wag The Dog distraction while Trudeau eviscerated the rights of Canadians and Biden mumbled something incoherent and then ran away from reporters without answering any questions.
 
Chop said:
Say, wasn’t there supposed to be a war today or something…
Click to expand...

The Ukraine "Day of Unity" was too much for Russia to bear. Actually, if Russia was planning an attack today they'd look foolish after Zelinsky says "hey...Russia is attacking on Wednesday".

Right now Russia is claiming they've sent units home after the completion of their war exercises. US/NATO is saying we have no evidence of any of the 150k troops leaving. Meanwhile Russia is ramping up their cyber attacks on Ukraine. Russia isn't going to move their 150k troops back unless they get some payment in terms of NATO, movement of NATO forces/missiles, something. Putin would look too weak to build up for war and get no concessions from the West.
 
As far as I am concerned, Putin can tell Biden and NATO and the rest of the world that they will leave their troops where they are, that they are inside the borders of Russian territory and the world has no say in regards to internal movement of troops or equipment.

Putin knows Biden is a big ***** and won't do anything and he knows that Germany won't do anything because they want their gas. Germany already showed they didn't really care given their whopping donation to the effort of 5K helmets.
 
Russia likely to launch 'limited' attack against Ukraine, Estonia foreign intelligence agents say

Russia is likely to launch a limited attack against Ukraine with missile bombardments and the occupation of key territory, according to the Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service.

"Right now, our assessment is that they would avoid cities with large populations, as it takes a lot of troops to control those areas," Mikk Marran, the director general of the Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service, told reporters Wednesday, according Reuters

"But there is no clear understanding of what avenue the Russian troops might exploit," he added.

Marran said on that 10 battle groups of Russian troops are moving toward Ukraine to meet up with about 170,000 troops already stationed at the border, contradicting Russia's recent claims that it is pulling troops back from the region.
Click to expand...
 
Putin is pretty aggressive. First he attacked Iraq under false pretenses. Then he overthrew Libya and destroyed that country's infrastructure. Then he went into Syria and covertly supported terrorists while stealing oil. And lastly he occupied Afghanistan for 20 years but that one didn't work out to well. And now he is massing troops within his own borders which evidently is a threat to the entire world.
 
This is what Americans really should fear.

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1493522316952629248|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https://www.westernjournal.com/tulsi-gabbard-ruins-clinton-trump-spying-scandal-60-second-video-says-must-happen-now/

"The Durham investigation makes clear that Hillary Clinton and the power elite spied on the Trump campaign and White House, undermining our democracy, launching us into a new Cold War, endangering America and the world. Clinton and her warmongers must be held accountable."
 
Seattle Husker said:
Russia didn't need to threaten Ukraine when they had were supported by a puppet government. Russia controlled Yuschenko and his merry band of Oligarchs. The CIA was absolutely involved in supporting the Orange Revolution but it was successful in as much as Yushenko was only in power due to election fraud. When he fled the scope of Yuschenko's corruption was laid bare for all the world to see. Russia was the puppetmaster for Ukraine's 3 Presidents after the fall of the USSR. Honestly, they have only themselves to blame that the majority of Ukraine wanted to distance themselves from Russia.
Click to expand...

Sure. I don't argue against any of that. Ukraine is corrupt, still are. And now Ukraine is the puppet government of the CIA.

It never heard it reported that Yuschenko was involved in fraud. I remember talking to Ukrainians at the time and listened to the claims of the Maiden protesters. That was never a claim, so I don't know where you got it from. Maybe just to make your argument sound better?
 
Seattle Husker said:
Putin is trying the Crimea trick. Publicly recognize Ukraine's Eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk as "Independent" then move troops in to protect them, stand next to them as they vote overwhelmingly to join Russia. The only question will be whether the Russian soldiers take off their patches this time and pretend they aren't Russian soldiers.

Ukraine lobbies Security Council against Russian move to recognize separatists
Click to expand...

I personally think both sides are wrong in this situation, and I am talking about Ukraine and Russia. Part of Russia's justification for intervening in Donbas was that Ukraine passed laws against Russian speakers and there were reports of I think violence against them. Maybe the violence was all lies, but the discriminatory laws are public record.

I know y'all think I am pro-Russian or whatever. But I am not a binary thinker and this is not a binary situation. Both countries find excuses to provoke each other. Both are corrupt. I just want my country to stay out of it, because when we don't we become guilty of the same things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top