As mentioned before, I don't mind the idea of holding a new referendum after a ceasefire. Let's see how things play out.
APP - Ending the war in Ukraine
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
As mentioned before, I don't mind the idea of holding a new referendum after a ceasefire. Let's see how things play out.
As I said...I do not think for one second that Putin will use nukes unless NATO attacks Russia proper/Crimea..
You believe otherwise - so be it.
Most Russians do NOT fear the West, imo.
Only those who lived for most of their lives during the Cold War.
Again, you believe otherwise...so be it.
I don't think you are giving ordinary Russians enough credit...especially those under 50.
What difference does it make if Putin can be convinced or not?
Russia has NO CHOICE.
They are losing territory, every day.
Russia is getting weaker by the day.
And Ukraine is getting stronger as more and more NATO weapons pour in.
https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/
And even if NATO runs low - their economies combined, dwarf Russia's.
They can EASILY out build them.
What on Earth - other than the comments of people you like (which mean little to me - I am ONLY interested in hard facts, in this regard) - are you basing your belief that Russia can stop Ukraine/NATO on?
Considering the stakes involved, I think it best to be cautious, but I wasn't actually referring to what Putin would do if NATO officially put boots on the ground in Ukraine. I was referring to the fact that Putin had legitimate concerns about Ukraine acquiring nuclear weapons prior to his decision to start his military operation in Ukraine.
I've seen no polls of what those under 50 in Russia think in regards to the west. I'm just pointing out the evidence that NATO failed to keep its word in regards to expansion and that many in Russia view that as a betrayal and that it strongly suggests that NATO and the U.S. can't be trusted to keep their word and that the only thing they respect is a display of military power. Also, pretty sure that most people in high offices in Russia are over 50.
You seem to be assuming that NATO nations will pour everything they have into this war. I don't hold that assumption. As to facts, it's a fact that even some in the mainstream media believe Ukraine may not win on the battlefield if NATO doesn't send Ukraine even more than they've been sending it so far. An article from the New York Post that came out about a week ago said that if Biden doesn't send Ukraine aircraft, Ukraine won't win:
Ukraine needs planes, Mr. President, or Putin will win | New York Post
It even acknowledges the possibility that this could trigger a nuclear war, but simply considers it to be bluster, even as it literally provides evidence that it's not (click on the link in the excerpt below for details):
**
Putin’s nuclear bluster should not deter our sending (or facilitating the transfer of) fighter planes to Zelensky’s forces.
**
Finally, the European part of NATO is faltering this winter. That in turn may bring more political changes, which could affect NATO's supplying of military aid to Ukraine. An article on that:
A Winter of Discontent: The Coming Cold Season May Trigger a Spring of Political Change in European Elections | europeanconservative.com
An interesting excerpt from the article:
**
Not all European countries have been caught flat-footed. The most prominent example has been the central European nation of Hungary. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has pursued a deviation from the European Union’s collective policy of isolating Russia over its invasion of Ukraine by continuing the importation of Russian energy, earning the ire of Washington and Brussels. Today, Hungary will be dealing with domestic cutbacks and regulations in power consumption, but it now stands better prepared with higher energy reserves while the rest of Europe faces the specter of rationing. Orbán chose national interest and realpolitik over the collective will of Europe concerning Russian sanctions.
The contrast of reactions between Budapest and Brussels to the coming crises of this winter have been noticed by those who pay close attention to international affairs. When the weather turns cold and the snow falls, the reality between a home in Hungary and a home elsewhere in Europe, let’s say Germany, will be evident to all. While the European Union’s leaders put all effort into presenting a united condemnation of Russian aggression to be exercised at any cost, Hungary’s leadership considered the potential danger to Europe’s economy from leveling sanctions in the midst of a recession. The EU’s policy has been one of ideology while Hungary’s has been one based on national interest.
The concept of national self-interest has been demonized by the Brussels elite as an idea responsible for Europe’s history of wars and chaos. Peace and virtue, they seem to suggest, can only be achieved if nation states abandon their national interests. Furthermore, in times of crisis, a collective demonstration of force must be made, even when that demonstration is harmful to a nation’s self-interest. Hungary has decided to ditch Brussels-style virtue-signaling and face the ensuing accusations of being selfish in exchange for being able to provide peace, and relative economic and political stability for its own people. The citizens of the rest of Europe are starting to take notice.
**
Somebody needs to explain why the pathological liar and notorious war criminal Vlad Putin should be trusted to negotiate in good faith.
Predictions of Ukraine's imminent demise and defeat have been greatly exaggerated.
Predictions of Ukraine's imminent demise and defeat have been greatly exaggerated.
Your claim is that Putin is a pathological liar. Do you have any evidence for this claim?
Thank you for that link. There has been some debate as to whether or not Russia was really trying to take Kiev early in the war. The above article, while published in 2014, suggests he was intending to do just that. So yes, I can certainly agree with you that predictions of Ukraine's imminent demise and defeat have been greatly exagerated by some. Conversely, however, fairly early in the war, predictions of -Russia's- imminent demise and defeat have been greatly exaggerated as well. Some in the west were predicting Russia's defeat from as far back as the end of March. Here's a quick sampling I've found over the months after a fairly quick internet search.
In late March:
Is the West Deceiving Itself About Russia’s ‘defeat’ in Ukraine? | American Enterprise Institute
Then in May:
Has Russia been beaten? This military expert says that moment is coming soon | Salon
In August:
Ukraine could defeat Russia by New Year’s Eve, a former top US general said | businessinsider.mx
And in October:
As War Hits the Homefront, Russia’s Defeat Inches Closer | foreignpolicy.com
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Are you suggesting that it’s possible Russian commanders purposely put their soldiers in a position to be slaughtered? And their tanks to be be destroyed?
There is no question Putin wanted to take Ukraine.
Not only based on the amount of forces he committed to the Kyiv offensive, but based on strategic and historic factors garden variety Americans cannot understand.
There is no point waging Total war on Ukraine if Kyiv is not the objective from Putin's point of view. Kyiv has enormous psychological, historical, and mythological significance in the Russian mind. Kyiv is ground zero for East Slavic civilization, and Putin is nothing if not messianic and historically minded. Kyiv is a corner stone of imperial Russian nationalism, it is the lynchpin of Holy Rus. America is an immigrant nation which cannot be expected to fully comprehend this kind of nationalist conciousness and national mythology.
No, I'm saying there's no hard evidence that Russia's plan was to take Kiev/Kyiv. That being said, the more I've studied the issue, the more I've come to believe that Russia did initially plan to take Kiev, but found that doing so was a lot harder than they anticipated, and so pulled back. I just watched a video on Youtube that I found educational on the subject:
There is, but I have come to the conclusion that it is more likely that Russia did indeed initially try to take Kyiv, only to find it was more difficult than they'd originally thought, and so pulled back. As I mentioned to anonymoose in my last post here, I found a video that I found educational on the subject just now and linked to it as well.
well we dont let the 'average American' under 50 make war policy either
But if you look at the Russian mindset, many younger Russians still have great fears of another Great Patriotic war
I dont know either just how far that goes, and with NATO weapons decimating Russian troops
They are either sick of the war and dont care how it ends or listen to Putin and hang in ..
But these are average Russians, what matters is Putin and the oligarchs idea on the war.
Im sure if there were some true negotiations, Russia would take part.
I dont think Zelensky would -he has Biden wrapped around his finger
With respect, you seem to base an AWFUL lot of your beliefs on this on the MSM and opinions of various 'experts'.
For the record - I PUT NO STOCK WHATSOEVER IN ANYTHING THE MSM SAYS.
They have shown time and again that, if they ever were about reporting news, that premise is LONG gone.
They clearly are now entertainment companies in the form of news sources.
They simply pander to whatever their viewers want to read/here.
ALL of them.
They proved it once and for all during the lockdowns. When they completely abandoned reporting 'both sides' and simply towed the government line.
Plus, their ratings went sky high during the lockdowns...so their reasons for supporting these un-Constitutional 'things' is obvious.
https://www.newsweek.com/ratings-skyrocket-cable-news-amid-wall-wall-coronavirus-coverage-1493836
Though the newspapers are still better than the electronic mass media - but not by much.
I no longer believe a THING, ANY of them say without providing unbiased, factual proof to back it up.
And opinions mean NOTHING almost nothing to me.
I strongly advise you to trust nothing that comes from anyone until they can back it up with facts/data from unbiased sources.
I have made my position clear as to what I think could and should be done to end this quickly and with the least amount of additional destruction and loss of life.
And you seem to have far more faith in Russia's, conventional military capabilities than I (or, I must say, the facts) suggest.
So be it.
It has been unusually (for around here) pleasant to debate with you.
You seem to keep your cool far better than most.
Refreshing.
Good day.
1) you have NO WAY of knowing what ALL the 'experts' feel in this regard.
So you have NO WAY of knowing if their is 'no question' of this or not.
You believe it - as do many others.
And many others do not.
That is the extent of it.
I am no expert.
But imo?
I haven't a clue what Putin was trying to do.
Whatever it was - it was moronic.
2) Total war?
Russia is holding back many of their top aircraft and tanks (many T-90's and the T-14).
Their Arena active protection system (APS) for their MBT's - has not (to my knowledge) been even seen on one, Russian armored vehicle in Ukraine.
Yet, this was designed to stop weapons like Javelin.
And it appears to work, very well at doing this.
So why not use it in Ukraine and save their tanks if this was TOTAL WAR?
Nor are they sending in their top units (from what I can see).
This is far from 'TOTAL WAR" for Russia.
I would call it similar to America's commitment to Vietnam/Afghanistan.
Throw a TON of stuff at it.
But NOT the absolute, top-of-the-line stuff.
Which you would do in a Total War.
Last edited:
When it comes to the way this war has unfolded, my judgement and track record has been substantially better than MAGA's...
My judgement :
.
Putin's and MAGA's judgement:
Once vibrant Ukrainian cities are reduced to smouldering piles of ruble.
At least 100k to 200k people have died in less than a year.
Russia is systematically destroying Ukrainian civilian infrastructure.
Russia isn't even bothering to avoid collateral damage, and has been systematically targeting civilian populations. The United States at least attempted to avoid collateral damage in Afghanistan, and the United States did not reduce a single Afghan city to a smoking pile of rubble.
Ukraine is mobilized on a total war footing.
The Russian army as a whole is committed to Ukraine and Putin ordered the nation's first military mobilization in 80 years.
If you want to say it is not the same scale at World War Two, that is correct. But this is the largest and most intense war in the world in 50 years, and the largest and most violent in Europe in 80 years
More than once, Zelensky has considered going the route of peace. The first such time was immediately after his election in 2019. At the time, the U.S. brass supported the warmongers in Ukraine and the opportunity to bring an end to Ukraine's war (back when it was officially just a 'civil' war) was missed. I think you've seen the article that brings this up, but for anyone here who hasn't, it's here:
Siding With Ukraine’s Far-Right, US Sabotaged Zelensky’s Peace Mandate | Scheerpost
About a month into Russia's military operation, it appeared that Zelensky was once again considering a peaceful solution. This time, the UK, via Boris Johnson, chimed in with the U.S. that the best option was war, not peace. I know you've seen the article I'm referring to here. For those in the audience, it's here:
We Urgently Need to Give Ukraine Peace Talks a Chance | Scheerpost
All of this is to say that Zelensky's war cheerleading persona these days is very much the product of American and, to a lesser extent, British foreign policy, not the other way around.
Perhaps the best way to characterize him would be him telling the U.S. and the U.K., "You told me to fight, now give me the weapons to keep on doing that".
On the contrary, I generally don't even read much from the MSM. However, I think that most people here tend to trust MSM over alternative sources, so if I find MSM articles that back what I believe, I tend to point them out.
I'd say that for the most part, it's actually even worse than that- I believe they pander to the the globalist elites most of all. A lot of them are owned by said elites after all. However, as mentioned previously, there are some exceptions. I've found that the New York Post seems to have some good articles these days, whether it's regarding the Hunter Biden laptop story or tacit acknowledgement that Ukraine may lose the war.
As I imagine you saw, I'm completely against the mainstream covid narrative, which I think is made clear in the thread I started here on the subject:
Challenging the official Covid narrative | justplainpolitics.com
Well the good news is that I doubt either of us has placed any investment on Ukraine or Russia 'winning' the war. Ultimately, we'll both find out who 'wins' the war (even if technically, both sides lose a lot).
Thanks, I try
I imagine your source for that is the mainstream media, which has been parroting that line for some time now. Every once in a while, however, even the mainstream media acknowledges the fact that this is a lie. Newsweek did it back near the end of March:
Putin's Bombers Could Devastate Ukraine But He's Holding Back. Here's Why | Newsweek
Now, I certainly acknowledge that things changed to some extent after Ukraine's attack on the Crimean bridge, with Putin allies urging him to respond in kind:
Putin allies are pushing for swift retaliation after an explosion on a key Crimean bridge delivered another humiliation for the Russian president | businessinsider.mx
Putin decided to do just that:
Vladimir Putin says missile strikes across Ukraine are in retaliation for Crimea bridge 'terrorist' blast | Sky News
Russia sent more missiles towards Kyiv after a drone attack on their black sea fleet at the end of October as well:
Russian President Vladimir Putin says attacks on Ukraine infrastructure 'not all we could have done' | abc.net.au
Note Putin's line that they could have done more damage. Even now, I'd say Russia is still holding back to some extent, but they have certainly tried Russia's patience.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Do you see any reason why Ukraine would have any patience with Russia?
The way I see things, Ukraine is the one who truly started this war. There were 2 steps to getting to where we are now. The first would be Euromaidan, wherein Ukraine's elected President, who was much more amenable to Russia and eastern Ukraine's predominantly ethnic Russian and Russian speaking population, was ousted via what amounted to a violent coup, with the help of a false flag operation. More on that here:
The Mess that Nuland Made | Consortium News
The Hidden Truth About Ukraine, Kiev Euromaidan Snipers Kill Demonstrators. Italian Documentary Bombshell Evidence | Global Research
The second would be the renewed assault on the Donbass region days before Putin decided to begin his military operation in Ukraine. Former Swiss Intelligence officer Jacques Baud gets into the details of this. I made a thread on this here:
Former Swiss Intelligence Officer blows the whistle on West's Ukraine War Narrative | justplainpolitics.com
You questioned my judgement, and then get upset when I show you proof my judgement about the course of the Russo-Ukrainian war has been reasonably good?
Yep Ukraine is mobilized for total war, and Russia is nearly so. The last time Russia ordered a military mobilization was 80 years ago. I know men who have fled Russia to avoid conscription.
We don't have to say it has to be exactly like World War Two to be a form of total war.