NATO’s Scorched Earth in Ukraine | Consortium News

[Scott]

There are no NATO troops fighting against Russia. It is Putin scorching the earth in Ukraine. This thread is a lie.

If all NATO had was troops, that'd be one thing. You know full well that it has a lot more than troops. They'd committed around 80 Billion as of February 2023:

Infographic: How much have NATO members spent on Ukraine? | alijazeera.com

Still going strong too:
NATO will boost defense spending to help back Ukraine but the math is tricky. Just ask Luxembourg | ABC News

And then there's troop training, such as the training into the Ukraine "spring offensive" that turned out to be a bust:

How NATO Members Are Training Ukraine for Spring Offensive | Newsweek

As to NATO's scorched earth policy, it's in what the Ukrainian forces have been doing to territory it loses, as the article I quoted in the opening post explained. It seems you may have skipped that part, so here it is again:

**
The NATO unspoken strategy seems to be: we know Russia is inevitably winning in Ukraine, but we will make sure we and our Kiev proxies destroy as much as possible of Ukraine’s manpower and national wealth before Russia takes control of the country.

The Kakhovka dam is gone, and what is left of Zaporizhie Nuclear Power Plant seems increasingly at risk of West-assisted Ukrainian sabotage. These two huge assets were the pivots of Ukraine’s industrial and agricultural potential and wealth.

When Russia wins political control over the ruined land of Ukraine, and after it repudiates Western carpetbagging claims to asset ownership there, it will face a huge rebuilding job, comparable to the situation the Soviet Union faced in Ukraine after the 1944-45 vengeful scorched-earth actions by the retreating Nazi divisions.
**

Source:
NATO’s Scorched Earth in Ukraine | Consortium News


I think the worst of it is what the Ukrainian government is doing to its youth, which Kevin briefly alluded to above ("manpower"). I covered that aspect of the war more extensively in another thread:

The Silent Slaughter of the Flower of Ukraine’s Youth | justplainpolitics.com

 

[Scott]

I'm not saying he would attack them but he would coerce them into siding with Russia.

Perhaps. But as I told anonymouse in post #130 (after your post):

**
While I think that's possible, Russia is hardly the only country to use coercion to attain things it wants. The U.S. does this on a regular basis:

The United States and Coercive Diplomacy: Past, Present, and Future | United States Institute of Peace
**

 

[Scott]

Your line reminds me of the story of the Emperor's new clothes,

gosh, me too......and Biden is your emperor......

I was never a fan of Biden. I'd hoped Bernie would win the democratic primaries, but he didn't. I thought that Biden was at least better than Trump at the time, but now I'm not so sure. What I'd like to know is why you didn't respond to everything -after- the comma above. The complete version of what I posted last time:

**
Your line reminds me of the story of the Emperor's new clothes, where it takes a child to point out that the Emperor has no clothes. As my signature says, "Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it". This is especially true when those who think they know something refuse to explain their reasoning.
**

It's easy to claim just about anything. Generally much harder to provide evidence for one's claims.

 

[Scott]

Georgia did the same thing as Ukraine- [snip]

fair.....like Ukraine and Crimea, Georgia tried to exist next to Russia.....

That's not what I said. You took the first few words in a much longer sentence and completely distorted what I was trying to say. Here's my -complete- sentence, along with the rest of the paragraph:

**
Georgia did the same thing as Ukraine- attempt to forcibly retake a group of rebels that were more closely aligned with Russia. NATO was part of the debacle, by promising to consider its bid for membership, something that Georgia still aspires to today. I know that Wikipedia accusses the rebels of instigating things, but I've found that their reporting on anything related to Russia is frequently incredibly biased. Here's a different take on the conflict:

Documentary on the war between Georgia and South Ossetia - Tears of Ossetia | Donbass Insider

I read the article, which was short, but I haven't yet seen the documentary itself.
**

I decided that this subject is deserving of a thread of its own, so I made one here:

What really happened between Georgia, South Ossetia and Russia in 2008? | justplainpolitics.com

 

[Nordberg]

Biden is weak and Putin knows this.

He is not afraid of him.

Hell Biden said right away that we wouldn't engage the Russians, what leader would ever say some shit like that.

You actually typed that? Biden and Putin are not in a cage match. We are helping by supplying the arms that Ukraine needs. Why would Putin fear any world leaders and why would that make a difference in the Putin war of choice?

 

[Tinkerpeach]

You actually typed that? Biden and Putin are not in a cage match. We are helping by supplying the arms that Ukraine needs. Why would Putin fear any world leaders and why would that make a difference in the Putin war of choice?

Supplying arms does no good if you have no soldiers left to use them.

Ukraine is running out of people.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

What I'd like to know is why you didn't respond to everything -after- the comma above. The complete version of what I posted last time

because I didn't disagree with the message of the emperor's clothes......I just disagreed with your target.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

That's not what I said. You took the first few words in a much longer sentence and completely distorted what I was trying to say.

stop being a fucking idiot.....you blamed Ukraine for being aggressive....."just like Crimea and Georgia"......none of them were aggressive........Putin attacked all three without valid reason.....I called you on your bullshit....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

You actually typed that? Biden and Putin are not in a cage match. We are helping by supplying the arms that Ukraine needs. Why would Putin fear any world leaders and why would that make a difference in the Putin war of choice?

when the world leaders are weak and ignore his aggression he shouldn't fear them and it won't make a difference in his aggression......you are just confirming what Tinker said about Biden......

 

[Scott]

Ukraine is a corrupt piece of garbage, just ask Biden who blackmailed them.

Putin is finishing the job Joe couldn't.

Ancient history.

My understanding is that Althea himself has me on ignore, so he won't be seeing this, but perhaps someone else will read this and learn a few things.

First of, would be nice to know what he considers to be ancient history as Tinkerpeach made more than one claim.

Manafort was paid tens of millions by Putin to install a pro Russia govt. starting in '06. He got Viktor Yanukovych elected president, but he eventually fled to Russia after massive uprisings.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Althea didn't provide any evidence for his claims at all.

Then came the invasion of Crimea,

No, Crimea wasn't invaded- they had a referendum wherein they chose to rejoin Russia, and Russia accepted their request. Canadian American journalist Eva Bartlett went to Crimea after it was annexed by Russia and wrote an article that I think may be the best article on the subject:

Return to Russia: Crimeans tell the real story of the 2014 Referendum and their lives since | mintpressnews.com

and the corrupt Poroshenko was ushered into power in a hasty election.

There, at least, we can agree. Perhaps his most infamous speech when referring to the conditions he was to give his "citizens" in the east:

Whereas he was not pro Russia, he was filthy. The Panama papers revealed his corruption, and Zelensky surprisingly won the next election in 2019...long after Biden demanded a cleaning of Ukraine's house if they wanted U.S aid.

Zelensky won on a peace mandate. Unfortunately, he was converted to the dark side...

Siding With Ukraine’s Far-Right, US Sabotaged Zelensky’s Peace Mandate | Scheerpost

 

[Scott]

That isn't going to happen.

This is one of the reasons the Russians are there right now.

Besides, NATO members strongly oppose this as it would lead to nothing but problems.

They strongly favor it now that past corrupt govts. have been replaced.

They just don't want to be forced to attack Russia as this war wages, so they'll probably wait until Putin is assassinated.

Even if Putin is assassinated or leaves power for some other reason, that in no way means that Russia will just end the war. As a matter of fact, if Putin actually -were- assassinated and there was even a hint that either Ukraine or the forces supporting Ukraine played a part in it, I shudder to think what the consequences would be. I think it's good to remember that the first time that Russia's Parliament urged Putin to recognize the Donbass Republics on February 15th, Putin actually refused.

 

[Scott]

By the OP's logic, Florida should be annexed by Cuba, as there is a large contingent of Cuban speaking people.

No, that wouldn't be my logic. For starters, Florida certainly hasn't held a referendum on whether to join Cuba and having the majority of Floridian voters vote for that. A far better analogy would be the former Republic of Texas, which used to be Mexican territory. They rebelled and held a referendum on whether to join the U.S. The majority wanted to do so, the U.S. accepted, and when Mexico decided to try to take back Texas by force, the U.S. not only defended it, but took a lot more mexican territory as well. Quite a few parallels here.

 

[Scott]

I'm guessing the OP is another Anatta sock? We haven't seen Putin's waterboy in a while

Anatta is a friend of mine. I think he's actually the one who told me about this place. I met him over at DebatePolitics, where we found that we shared some views in regards to the Ukraine war. He told me he had some issues with the vitriol here, but I prefer that to the incredibly biased "moderation" over at DebatePolitics.

 

[Scott]

That makes sense.

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

You are that.

Deluded, but respectful with your lies.

As I told PostModernProphet recently, it's easy to make claims. What's frequently hard is to provide evidence for them. Anyway, at least we can all agree that Tinkerpeach is respectful.

 

[Nordberg]

Supplying arms does no good if you have no soldiers left to use them.

Ukraine is running out of people.

Oh, the entire population of Ukraine is under fire from Putin's war of choice. They are fighting on Ukrainian turf. It is Russia that has limitations on soldiers. Russia has had a couple of call-ups and is throwing poorly trained troops into a battle that they really do not want to be in. They do not know why they are attacking Ukraine towns. They would rather not. They want to go home.

 

[Scott]

I don't think his core goals have changed at all. From what I've seen, he has 2 main goals:

Protect Russia's national security and protect the Donbass people in Ukraine. The second one may have expanded a bit, now including more of eastern Ukraine, but it's the same general idea. Putin outlined these 2 goals in the speech he gave on the day his military intervention began. I quoted a relevant portion where he gets into both of these goals here:

NATO’s Scorched Earth in Ukraine, Post #66 | Consortium News

Putin's goals were clearly stated when he invaded. The "denazification" and demilitarization of Ukraine.

He did mention that, but both of those mentions were confined to a single paragraph in his speech. Quoting it:

**
The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime. To this end, we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation.
**

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

I think it's important to remember his emphasis in this paragraph was to protect the Donbass people, and that the demilitarization and denazification were sought to further the goal of protection. I think that John Mearsheimer, who correctly predicted years ago that NATO's continual provocations of Russia would lead to conflict, had a great paragraph of his own that dealt with this part of Putin's speech:

**
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.
**

Source:
The Darkness Ahead: Where The Ukraine War Is Headed | mearsheimer.substack.com

Practically speaking, that means Putin intended to conquer Ukraine, remove their government, put a Russian client government in Kyiv, and disarm Ukraine.

I think at this point you just jumped to a bunch of conclusions. Again based on John Mearsheimer's article, it appears that Putin originally thought that a quick show of force would get Ukraine to negotiate. It briefly appeared as if Zelensky would do just that early on, before the UK and the US' stance persuaded him otherwise. When Putin realized that Zelensky wasn't going to strike a deal, as well as some apparently overly optimistic assessments about what it would take to hold the ground they'd already taken, he started his partial mobilization of the Russian populace. I have always said that I wasn't happy with that decision- never been a fan of conscription. But it's what he did and it's clear that this time, Ukraine's counteroffensive was a flop.

The only question left to be decided is whether Putin will be allowed to keep the thin sliver of land along the shores of the Sea of Azov he currently occupies.

Not so thin, but I imagine Russia would be fine with it being called thin as long as they get to keep it. Ukraine's already tried hard to get it back and failed. At this point, I think that if Zelensky doesn't start negotiating soon, Putin may decide to take even more land. But soon is a relative term. Perhaps after another cold winter, Russia might launch a "spring offensive" of its own. I keep on hoping that some peace deal is made as soon as possible, but the way the parties are going right now, it just doesn't look like it's in the cards.

I think John Mearsheimer sums it up rather well in the aforementioned article:

**
The Destruction of Ukraine

Ukraine was in severe economic and demographic trouble before the war began last year.61 The devastation inflicted on Ukraine since the Russian invasion is horrific. Surveying events during the war’s first year, the World Bank declares that the invasion “has dealt an unimaginable toll on the people of Ukraine and the country’s economy, with activity contracting by a staggering 29.2 percent in 2022.” Unsurprisingly, Kyiv needs massive injections of foreign aid just to keep the government running, not to mention fighting the war. Furthermore, the World Bank estimates that damages exceed $135 billion and that roughly $411 billion will be needed to rebuild Ukraine. Poverty, it reports, “increased from 5.5 percent in 2021 to 24.1 percent in 2022, pushing 7.1 million more people into poverty and retracting 15 years of progress.”62 Cities have been destroyed, roughly 8 million Ukrainians have fled the country, and about 7 million are internally displaced. The United Nations has confirmed 8,490 civilian deaths, although it believes that the actual number is “considerably higher.”63 And surely Ukraine has suffered well over 100,000 battlefield casualties.

Ukraine’s future looks bleak in the extreme. The war shows no signs of ending anytime soon, which means more destruction of infrastructure and housing, more destruction of towns and cities, more civilian and military deaths, and more damage to the economy. And not only is Ukraine likely to lose even more territory to Russia, but according to the European Commission, “the war has set Ukraine on a path of irreversible demographic decline.”64 To make matters worse, the Russians will work overtime to keep rump Ukraine economically weak and politically unstable. The ongoing conflict is also likely to fuel corruption, which has long been an acute problem, and further strengthen extremist groups in Ukraine. It is hard to imagine Kyiv ever meeting the criteria necessary for joining either the EU or NATO.
**

 

[Scott]

I don't think his core goals have changed at all. From what I've seen, he has 2 main goals:

Protect Russia's national security [snip]

Do you agree Putin has been an unmitigated disaster on point 1...

Do you agree, for the above alone, Putin has failed so badly in his stated core mission that he should be ousted?

No, I don't. For starters, Finland hasn't been killing ethnic Russians in a civil war for the past 8 years. Putin made it clear way back in May 2022 that he didn't see Finland and Sweden joining NATO to be a threat, but he -did- warn against military buildup:

Putin sees no threat from NATO expansion, warns against military build-up | Reuters

 

[Scott]

The U.S. has sent Nukes to a lot of countries close to and even bordering Russia. Russia just armed its neighbour with nukes.

Anyway, the bottom line here is that the U.S. could possibly have avoided this war entirely if it'd just agreed to try to agree on terms of a treaty that Russia had brought up back in December 2021.

The conclusion of an article on it shows just how far the U.S. and NATO by extension have gone from their "not one inch east" of Germany spiel back in the day:

**
If Putin has his “red lines,” so too the U.S. and NATO have their “red lines”—very wide “red lines.” Article 4 of Russia’s draft treaty with the U.S. and Article 6 of its draft agreement with NATO, both of which would prohibit Ukraine or any other state (e.g., Georgia) that once was a member of the USSR from joining NATO, clearly cross those “red lines.” Neither the U.S. nor NATO will ever accept such a prohibition and Russia obviously knows that, even if the language of the draft treaty and agreement implies that’s negotiable.
**

Source:
U.S. and NATO to open talks with Russia over Ukraine security guarantees | Yale Macmillan Center

I think the author of the article was optimistic. Don't think there were ever any talks. Then the Ukrainian military started bombing the Donbass region of Ukraine heavily in February, which I believe was the last straw that got Putin to decide the only way to resolve this conflict was with the use of military force.

Why does it matter if nukes are close? We can shoot them from subs.

I'm sure that Russia could have said much the same when it had nukes in Cuba. Would you have agreed that it was fine that Cuba continue to have nukes? And if so, why do you suppose that the U.S. was not nearly as sanguine about it?

 

[Hawkeye10]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1680321758874705923

This is not remotely a stalemate, Russia is killing Ukrainians at somewhere between 1/8 and 1/10 rate, which is the goal. Ukraine is getting slaughtered.

 

[Scott]

I'm guessing you're suggesting that now's the time to kick Russia out of Ukraine?

Exactly. Yet they haven’t. Which means NATO never will. Which means NATO is no threat whatsoever to Russia. Maybe you’re finally beginning to understand.

I had to chuckle at that. I was simply trying to make sure I understood you correctly. I'm not sure the powers that be at NATO wouldn't be capable of kicking Russia out of Ukraine. I just think that they recognize that the cost to seriously try would be so high that they're not yet game to the idea.

Yes, you do understand. You just explained why NATO is no threat to Russia.

No, I just explained why NATO, despite being a mortal threat to Russia, is deciding not to take things to that level. It could very well mean the annihilation of mankind. Fortunately, there are still a few cooler heads in NATO.

It’s always been their policy to not accept a nation currently at war. Their purpose is to prevent war, not start one.

That may be what they tell people, but the truth is if NATO vis a vis its strongest member, the U.S., had kept its word to not expand NATO one inch east of Germany, not to mention the U.S.'s role in the coup of the former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, this whole war would probably not have occurred.