NATO’s Scorched Earth in Ukraine | Consortium News

[Scott]

Russia has already started rebuilding Ukraine, at least in Mariupol. Even publications that hold a dim view of Russia have admitted as much. Here's one that I think was particularly good as it offered photographic evidence:

After months of bombing, Russia starts rebuilding Mariupol | elpais.com

'It’s like the USSR’: residents on life in Mariupol a year since Russian occupation

People tell Guardian of ‘primitive’ living standards, propaganda in schools and constant risk of arrest

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...e-in-mariupol-a-year-since-russian-occupation

On the other side, we have stories like this:

SBU GQ in Mariupol, torture and executions | Donbass Insider

School starts in Mariupol on 1 September, symbolizing a gradual return to normal life | Donbass Insider

Mariupol - the first families receive the keys to their newly built flats | Donbass Insider

An excerpt from that last link:

**
Following the battle of Marioupol, many houses and flats were totally destroyed, leaving many families homeless. As soon as the fighting was over and the city was cleaned up, the construction of new housing was launched as a matter of urgency in order to rehouse as many of Marioupol’s inhabitants as possible before the onset of winter.

On 9 September 2022, we were in Mariupol to witness the handover of the first flats to their new owners. Several families, whose homes were completely destroyed, were chosen to receive these first flats.

Among them, the Smola family: Sergei, Evgenia, and their three daughters Serafina, Sofia and Ksenia. Their emotion is more than palpable and they all say they cannot believe that all this is real.

https://odysee.com/marioupol-clefs-...b43c822f7ec8789a967858?src=embed&t=280.173706
**

Now, these stories don't negate the article you linked to. But there are a -lot- of stories out there, and based on what I've read, I suspect that the majority of Mariupol residents are doing better now that Mariupol has become a part of Russia.

 

[Scott]

Honestly, I think he's been pretty straight up about his core goals. He mentioned both in a speech that aired on the day he started his military operation. I think the most important one was arresting NATO's further expansion, in particular in Ukraine. I think the second goal was to protect the people in the Donbass region. Here's an excerpt from his speech that gets into both:

**
Any further expansion of the North Atlantic alliance’s infrastructure or the ongoing efforts to gain a military foothold of the Ukrainian territory are unacceptable for us. Of course, the question is not about NATO itself. It merely serves as a tool of US foreign policy. The problem is that in territories adjacent to Russia, which I have to note is our historical land, a hostile “anti-Russia” is taking shape. Fully controlled from the outside, it is doing everything to attract NATO armed forces and obtain cutting-edge weapons.

For the United States and its allies, it is a policy of containing Russia, with obvious geopolitical dividends. For our country, it is a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a nation. This is not an exaggeration; this is a fact. It is not only a very real threat to our interests but to the very existence of our state and to its sovereignty. It is the red line which we have spoken about on numerous occasions. They have crossed it.

This brings me to the situation in Donbass. We can see that the forces that staged the coup in Ukraine in 2014 have seized power, are keeping it with the help of ornamental election procedures and have abandoned the path of a peaceful conflict settlement. For eight years, for eight endless years we have been doing everything possible to settle the situation by peaceful political means. Everything was in vain.

As I said in my previous address, you cannot look without compassion at what is happening there. It became impossible to tolerate it. We had to stop that atrocity, that genocide of the millions of people who live there and who pinned their hopes on Russia, on all of us. It is their aspirations, the feelings and pain of these people that were the main motivating force behind our decision to recognise the independence of the Donbass people’s republics.
**

Source:
Here Is the Full Text of Putin’s Speech This Morning, Feb 24, 2022 | paulcraigroberts.org

Yes but there are indications he has plans far beyond Ukraine.

He needs to take out Ukraine first because they are the biggest threat.

These are the things we can only guess at right now.

Could you elaborate on these indications? From what I've seen, I think it's quite possible that he won't even take all of Ukraine. John Mearsheimer, who correctly predicted that Russia would intervene in Ukraine years ago if the west didn't change course in regards to NATO, published an article in late June which I believe brought up a lot of good points as to Russia's goals. I started a thread that quoted it extensively in the first post.

Here's part of it that applies to his views on Russia's current goals in Ukraine:

**
Rhetoric about de-Nazifying and demilitarizing Ukraine aside, Russia’s concrete goals involve conquering and annexing a large portion of Ukrainian territory, while simultaneously turning Ukraine into a dysfunctional rump state. As such, Ukraine’s ability to wage war against Russia would be greatly reduced and it would be unlikely to qualify for membership in either the EU or NATO. Moreover, a broken Ukraine, would be especially vulnerable to Russian interference in its domestic politics. In short, Ukraine would not be a Western bastion on Russia’s border.

What would that dysfunctional rump state look like? Moscow has officially annexed Crimea and four other Ukrainian oblasts – Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporozhe – which together represent about 23 percent of Ukraine’s total territory before the crisis broke out in February 2014. Russian leaders have emphasized that they have no intention of surrendering that territory, some of which Russia does not yet control. In fact, there is reason to think Russia will annex additional Ukrainian territory if it has the military capability to do so at a reasonable cost. It is difficult, however, to say how much additional Ukrainian territory Moscow will seek to annex, as Putin himself makes clear.8

Russian thinking is likely to be influenced by three calculations. Moscow has a powerful incentive to conquer and permanently annex Ukrainian territory that is heavily populated with ethnic Russians and Russian speakers. It will want to protect them from the Ukrainian government – which has become hostile to all things Russian – and make sure there is no civil war anywhere in Ukraine like the one that took place in the Donbass between February 2014 and February 2022. At the same time, Russia will want to avoid controlling territory largely populated by hostile ethnic Ukrainians, which places significant limits on further Russian expansion. Finally, turning Ukraine into a dysfunctional rump state will require Moscow to take substantial amounts of Ukrainian territory so it is well-positioned to do significant damage to its economy. Controlling all of Ukraine’s coastline along the Black Sea, for example, would give Moscow significant economic leverage over Kyiv.

Those three calculations suggest that Russia is likely to attempt to annex the four oblasts – Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odessa – that are immediately to the west of the four oblasts it has already annexed – Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporozhe. If that were to happen, Russia would control approximately 43 percent of Ukraine’s pre-2014 territory.9 Dmitri Trenin, a leading Russian strategist estimates that Russian leaders would seek to take even more Ukrainian territory – pushing westward in northern Ukraine to the Dnieper River and taking the part of Kyiv that sits on the east bank of that river. He writes that “A logical next step” after taking all of Ukraine from Kharkiv to Odessa “would be to expand Russian control to all of Ukraine east of the Dnieper River, including the part of Kyiv that lies on the that river’s eastern bank. If that were to happen, the Ukrainian state would shrink to include only the central and western regions of the country.”10
**

Source:
The Darkness Ahead: Where The Ukraine War Is Headed | John Mearsheimer

 

[Hawkeye10]

Could you elaborate on these indications? From what I've seen, I think it's quite possible that he won't even take all of Ukraine. John Mearsheimer, who correctly predicted that Russia would intervene in Ukraine years ago if the west didn't change course in regards to NATO, published an article in late June which I believe brought up a lot of good points as to Russia's goals. I started a thread that quoted it extensively in the first post.

Here's part of it that applies to his views on Russia's current goals in Ukraine:

**
Rhetoric about de-Nazifying and demilitarizing Ukraine aside, Russia’s concrete goals involve conquering and annexing a large portion of Ukrainian territory, while simultaneously turning Ukraine into a dysfunctional rump state. As such, Ukraine’s ability to wage war against Russia would be greatly reduced and it would be unlikely to qualify for membership in either the EU or NATO. Moreover, a broken Ukraine, would be especially vulnerable to Russian interference in its domestic politics. In short, Ukraine would not be a Western bastion on Russia’s border.

What would that dysfunctional rump state look like? Moscow has officially annexed Crimea and four other Ukrainian oblasts – Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporozhe – which together represent about 23 percent of Ukraine’s total territory before the crisis broke out in February 2014. Russian leaders have emphasized that they have no intention of surrendering that territory, some of which Russia does not yet control. In fact, there is reason to think Russia will annex additional Ukrainian territory if it has the military capability to do so at a reasonable cost. It is difficult, however, to say how much additional Ukrainian territory Moscow will seek to annex, as Putin himself makes clear.8

Russian thinking is likely to be influenced by three calculations. Moscow has a powerful incentive to conquer and permanently annex Ukrainian territory that is heavily populated with ethnic Russians and Russian speakers. It will want to protect them from the Ukrainian government – which has become hostile to all things Russian – and make sure there is no civil war anywhere in Ukraine like the one that took place in the Donbass between February 2014 and February 2022. At the same time, Russia will want to avoid controlling territory largely populated by hostile ethnic Ukrainians, which places significant limits on further Russian expansion. Finally, turning Ukraine into a dysfunctional rump state will require Moscow to take substantial amounts of Ukrainian territory so it is well-positioned to do significant damage to its economy. Controlling all of Ukraine’s coastline along the Black Sea, for example, would give Moscow significant economic leverage over Kyiv.

Those three calculations suggest that Russia is likely to attempt to annex the four oblasts – Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odessa – that are immediately to the west of the four oblasts it has already annexed – Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporozhe. If that were to happen, Russia would control approximately 43 percent of Ukraine’s pre-2014 territory.9 Dmitri Trenin, a leading Russian strategist estimates that Russian leaders would seek to take even more Ukrainian territory – pushing westward in northern Ukraine to the Dnieper River and taking the part of Kyiv that sits on the east bank of that river. He writes that “A logical next step” after taking all of Ukraine from Kharkiv to Odessa “would be to expand Russian control to all of Ukraine east of the Dnieper River, including the part of Kyiv that lies on the that river’s eastern bank. If that were to happen, the Ukrainian state would shrink to include only the central and western regions of the country.”10
**

Source:
The Darkness Ahead: Where The Ukraine War Is Headed | John Mearsheimer

You are an idiot......this is clearly a lie.

The Russian goal is peace....to not be threatened.....and they will do whatever is required to make that happen.

You are a disappointment.

 

[Scott]

You sure about that fulfilling bit? I get enough comments from someone like the one he made to you, I tend to just thread ban the person. I'm aware that it's a fine line though- thread ban too many and you can start to find that it's hard to get conversations going.

I don't ban anyone.

I find that ignoring them is good enough.

Fair enough. As for me, I don't actually ignore anyone, at least not with the 'ignore list'. I want to see what people say, even if I don't always think what they say is something I should respond to. But when it comes to my own threads, I'd rather not have to deal with people whose main contributions tend to just be insults of what form or another.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Fair enough. As for me, I don't actually ignore anyone, at least not with the 'ignore list'. I want to see what people say, even if I don't always think what they say is something I should respond to. But when it comes to my own threads, I'd rather not have to deal with people whose main contributions tend to just be insults of what form or another.

You do do thread bans, which is -1 to you....as I have told you.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Thread Bans....the proof of a coward.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Earl can suck my Dick!

 

[Scott]

Could you elaborate on these indications? From what I've seen, I think it's quite possible that he won't even take all of Ukraine. John Mearsheimer, who correctly predicted that Russia would intervene in Ukraine years ago if the west didn't change course in regards to NATO, published an article in late June which I believe brought up a lot of good points as to Russia's goals. I started a thread that quoted it extensively in the first post.

Here's part of it that applies to his views on Russia's current goals in Ukraine:

**
Rhetoric about de-Nazifying and demilitarizing Ukraine aside, Russia’s concrete goals involve conquering and annexing a large portion of Ukrainian territory, while simultaneously turning Ukraine into a dysfunctional rump state. As such, Ukraine’s ability to wage war against Russia would be greatly reduced and it would be unlikely to qualify for membership in either the EU or NATO. Moreover, a broken Ukraine, would be especially vulnerable to Russian interference in its domestic politics. In short, Ukraine would not be a Western bastion on Russia’s border.

What would that dysfunctional rump state look like? Moscow has officially annexed Crimea and four other Ukrainian oblasts – Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporozhe – which together represent about 23 percent of Ukraine’s total territory before the crisis broke out in February 2014. Russian leaders have emphasized that they have no intention of surrendering that territory, some of which Russia does not yet control. In fact, there is reason to think Russia will annex additional Ukrainian territory if it has the military capability to do so at a reasonable cost. It is difficult, however, to say how much additional Ukrainian territory Moscow will seek to annex, as Putin himself makes clear.8

Russian thinking is likely to be influenced by three calculations. Moscow has a powerful incentive to conquer and permanently annex Ukrainian territory that is heavily populated with ethnic Russians and Russian speakers. It will want to protect them from the Ukrainian government – which has become hostile to all things Russian – and make sure there is no civil war anywhere in Ukraine like the one that took place in the Donbass between February 2014 and February 2022. At the same time, Russia will want to avoid controlling territory largely populated by hostile ethnic Ukrainians, which places significant limits on further Russian expansion. Finally, turning Ukraine into a dysfunctional rump state will require Moscow to take substantial amounts of Ukrainian territory so it is well-positioned to do significant damage to its economy. Controlling all of Ukraine’s coastline along the Black Sea, for example, would give Moscow significant economic leverage over Kyiv.

Those three calculations suggest that Russia is likely to attempt to annex the four oblasts – Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odessa – that are immediately to the west of the four oblasts it has already annexed – Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporozhe. If that were to happen, Russia would control approximately 43 percent of Ukraine’s pre-2014 territory.9 Dmitri Trenin, a leading Russian strategist estimates that Russian leaders would seek to take even more Ukrainian territory – pushing westward in northern Ukraine to the Dnieper River and taking the part of Kyiv that sits on the east bank of that river. He writes that “A logical next step” after taking all of Ukraine from Kharkiv to Odessa “would be to expand Russian control to all of Ukraine east of the Dnieper River, including the part of Kyiv that lies on the that river’s eastern bank. If that were to happen, the Ukrainian state would shrink to include only the central and western regions of the country.”10
**

Source:
The Darkness Ahead: Where The Ukraine War Is Headed | John Mearsheimer

You are an idiot......this is clearly a lie.

The Russian goal is peace....to not be threatened.....and they will do whatever is required to make that happen.

You are a disappointment.

Not sure why you suddenly think I'm an "idiot" or what you think is a lie. I certainly think that one of Russia's main goals is to be at peace and not be threatened. The main issue is what they would do to make that happen. I think that Mearsheimer's informed speculation may well be on the mark. I'm guessing you don't? And if so, why?

 

[Hawkeye10]

Not sure why you suddenly think I'm an "idiot" or what you think is a lie. I certainly think that one of Russia's main goals is to be at peace and not be threatened. The main issue is what they would do to make that happen. I think that Mearsheimer's informed speculation may well be on the mark. I'm guessing you don't? And if so, why?

I am not so sure that I have a problem with DAMO allowing cowards such as you advertising yourselves by doing thread bans.

We The Better People of course would never dream of doing that.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Obviously I mean people like MISTRESS!

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Fair enough. As for me, I don't actually ignore anyone, at least not with the 'ignore list'. I want to see what people say, even if I don't always think what they say is something I should respond to. But when it comes to my own threads, I'd rather not have to deal with people whose main contributions tend to just be insults of what form or another.

That makes sense.

Hopefully you don't ban me from threads because I always try to be respectful.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Could you elaborate on these indications? From what I've seen, I think it's quite possible that he won't even take all of Ukraine. John Mearsheimer, who correctly predicted that Russia would intervene in Ukraine years ago if the west didn't change course in regards to NATO, published an article in late June which I believe brought up a lot of good points as to Russia's goals. I started a thread that quoted it extensively in the first post.

Here's part of it that applies to his views on Russia's current goals in Ukraine:

**
Rhetoric about de-Nazifying and demilitarizing Ukraine aside, Russia’s concrete goals involve conquering and annexing a large portion of Ukrainian territory, while simultaneously turning Ukraine into a dysfunctional rump state. As such, Ukraine’s ability to wage war against Russia would be greatly reduced and it would be unlikely to qualify for membership in either the EU or NATO. Moreover, a broken Ukraine, would be especially vulnerable to Russian interference in its domestic politics. In short, Ukraine would not be a Western bastion on Russia’s border.

What would that dysfunctional rump state look like? Moscow has officially annexed Crimea and four other Ukrainian oblasts – Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporozhe – which together represent about 23 percent of Ukraine’s total territory before the crisis broke out in February 2014. Russian leaders have emphasized that they have no intention of surrendering that territory, some of which Russia does not yet control. In fact, there is reason to think Russia will annex additional Ukrainian territory if it has the military capability to do so at a reasonable cost. It is difficult, however, to say how much additional Ukrainian territory Moscow will seek to annex, as Putin himself makes clear.8

Russian thinking is likely to be influenced by three calculations. Moscow has a powerful incentive to conquer and permanently annex Ukrainian territory that is heavily populated with ethnic Russians and Russian speakers. It will want to protect them from the Ukrainian government – which has become hostile to all things Russian – and make sure there is no civil war anywhere in Ukraine like the one that took place in the Donbass between February 2014 and February 2022. At the same time, Russia will want to avoid controlling territory largely populated by hostile ethnic Ukrainians, which places significant limits on further Russian expansion. Finally, turning Ukraine into a dysfunctional rump state will require Moscow to take substantial amounts of Ukrainian territory so it is well-positioned to do significant damage to its economy. Controlling all of Ukraine’s coastline along the Black Sea, for example, would give Moscow significant economic leverage over Kyiv.

Those three calculations suggest that Russia is likely to attempt to annex the four oblasts – Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odessa – that are immediately to the west of the four oblasts it has already annexed – Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporozhe. If that were to happen, Russia would control approximately 43 percent of Ukraine’s pre-2014 territory.9 Dmitri Trenin, a leading Russian strategist estimates that Russian leaders would seek to take even more Ukrainian territory – pushing westward in northern Ukraine to the Dnieper River and taking the part of Kyiv that sits on the east bank of that river. He writes that “A logical next step” after taking all of Ukraine from Kharkiv to Odessa “would be to expand Russian control to all of Ukraine east of the Dnieper River, including the part of Kyiv that lies on the that river’s eastern bank. If that were to happen, the Ukrainian state would shrink to include only the central and western regions of the country.”10
**

Source:
The Darkness Ahead: Where The Ukraine War Is Headed | John Mearsheimer

This is an ongoing theory I have and it's not substantiated but Putin already has Belarus in his pocket.

I believe that after Ukraine falls he will go after Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

Estonia is not really a problem for him but the other two are so a possible invasion of them or sever pressure may make them cave. Since Ukraine will be gone they will have little will power to resist.

Once those are under his grasp I expect him to go after Bulgaria, Serbia and Slovakia using the excuse of Russian nationals living there.

I believe he and the hardliners in leadership positions are trying to reform the Soviet block.

But for all this to happen Ukraine needs to fall first as they are the biggest threat in the region.

And we are not talking all out war here, most of it will be done diplomatically but Russia will be in control.

This war with Ukraine will more than likely be the worst of the fighting which is why he went their first, to test the waters so to speak.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm guessing you made that assertion up on the spot, but if not, by all means share where you heard it.

if you can't see it, its not my problem......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

You could say that:

**
WHY IS UKRAINIAN MEMBERSHIP SO SENSITIVE?

A mutual assistance clause lies at the heart of the alliance, which was formed in 1949 with the primary aim of countering the risk of a Soviet attack on allied territory.

It is cited as one of the main reasons why Ukraine cannot join NATO while in conflict with Russia, as this might immediately draw the alliance into an active war.

The clause, Article 5 of NATO's Washington Treaty, states that an attack on one ally is considered an attack on all allies.
**

Source:
What would happen if Ukraine joined NATO? | Reuters

At that point, well...

NATO is not the problem.....as Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine can testify, Putin is....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

First of all, how does insulting me add to your argument?

Secondly, Iraq only invaded Kuwait the first time. After that time, George Bush Sr. was smart enough to not invade Iraq in turn. His son, however, decided to invade Iraq, not because Iraq had invaded Kuwait again, but instead because of some false information that Iraq had acquired weapons of mass destruction.

it wasn't because Iraq had acquired weapons of mass destruction.......it was because they were not cooperating with UN inspectors who were there to oversee the destruction of the weapons of mass destruction which located, inventoried and ordered to be destroyed after the first war......

and I said you were an idiot because I was hoping you would wake up to reality.......

 

[anonymoose]

This is an ongoing theory I have and it's not substantiated but Putin already has Belarus in his pocket.

I believe that after Ukraine falls he will go after Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia..

After they fall I suspect Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic,et al, will revert back to communism, re-establish the Eastern Bloc and finally restore the old GDR .
NATO aggression against those countries is doomed to failure.

 

[Scott]

Fair enough. As for me, I don't actually ignore anyone, at least not with the 'ignore list'. I want to see what people say, even if I don't always think what they say is something I should respond to. But when it comes to my own threads, I'd rather not have to deal with people whose main contributions tend to just be insults of what form or another.

That makes sense.

Hopefully you don't ban me from threads because I always try to be respectful.

Perish the thought Tink, you're a peach .

 

[Cypress]

On the other side, we have stories like this:

SBU GQ in Mariupol, torture and executions | Donbass Insider

School starts in Mariupol on 1 September, symbolizing a gradual return to normal life | Donbass Insider

Mariupol - the first families receive the keys to their newly built flats | Donbass Insider

An excerpt from that last link:

**
Following the battle of Marioupol, many houses and flats were totally destroyed, leaving many families homeless. As soon as the fighting was over and the city was cleaned up, the construction of new housing was launched as a matter of urgency in order to rehouse as many of Marioupol’s inhabitants as possible before the onset of winter.

On 9 September 2022, we were in Mariupol to witness the handover of the first flats to their new owners. Several families, whose homes were completely destroyed, were chosen to receive these first flats.

Among them, the Smola family: Sergei, Evgenia, and their three daughters Serafina, Sofia and Ksenia. Their emotion is more than palpable and they all say they cannot believe that all this is real.

https://odysee.com/marioupol-clefs-...b43c822f7ec8789a967858?src=embed&t=280.173706
**

Now, these stories don't negate the article you linked to. But there are a -lot- of stories out there, and based on what I've read, I suspect that the majority of Mariupol residents are doing better now that Mariupol has become a part of Russia.

I'm not opening or trusting a link called "odysee.com"

You and Putin had no political or moral justification to turn the once vibrant city of Marupiel into a smouldering pile of ash in the first place.

 

[anonymoose]

I'm not opening or trusting a link called "odysee.com"
.

How on earth did Phoenyx dig that up? It’s an obscure French site that had to be translated ( hence the spelling of Marioupol).
I guess with enough time one can always find pro Russian propaganda.

 

[Cypress]

How on earth did Phoenyx dig that up? It’s an obscure French site that had to be translated ( hence the spelling of Marioupol).
I guess with enough time one can always find pro Russian propaganda.

He's probably patrolling pro-Kremlin propogada websites and getting directed to obscure links that parrot the Putin party line