Putin Invades Ukraine II

SilentMajority
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:10 am

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by SilentMajority » Fri Dec 02, 2022 9:23 am

dualstow wrote:
Fri Dec 02, 2022 7:02 am
I reject the idea that the Ukrainians are willing to fight because Washington told them to. This is not the 1950s or 60s with the CIA organizing some coup. I’m one of those suckers who believes that the Ukrainians want to fight back, and that Putin did not expect them to.

Without getting involved in directly fighting the Russians, the U.S. has agreed, in a limited capacity, to supply weapons and other tools of war, as well as training. Are they doing it out of altruism? No, there are geopolitical motives. We are less evil enough than the Russians that I support it. But no one really knows the outcome.
A CIA coup in 2014 under Obama that overthrew the Ukrainian government and installed an anti-Russian one is exactly what happened here. I didn't know that was even still being disputed anywhere. Hence the Russians moved in to secure some of the heavy Russian populated areas (that were also strategic). They didn't secure the Donbass which is heavily Russian, and the Kiev Regime has been at war with those self-declared republics since 2014 with tens of thousands of casualties and misery for the civilians.

Russia tolerated this for a long time, but could not tolerate the Biden regimes moves to cement Kiev as a NATO nation. Their demands were Ukrainian neutrality and an end to the attack on the Russians in the Donbass. I think KGB said it well that the solution was for the US gov't to pull the war funding and other nations would follow suit quickly and it would all end. I'm sure the same holds true from the start. If the US gov't had taken a neutral stance in 2021 and early 2022, there would have been zero chance of Russian invasion. There would have been no discussion of Kiev joining NATO and Russia threatening invasion to support the people in the Donbass would have hopefully been a wake-up call to the Ukrainian military, even the NAZI elements.

It's possible some of the fanatical NAZI orgs would have engaged the Russians but I imagine they would have been brushed aside. The only thing sustaining the Uki Army is outside "help" now so that's what's prolonging the conflict.

Now Kiev has said no peace is possible unless Russia vacates all former Ukrainian territory including Crimea. So no peace is possible until Kiev surrenders because Russia will never accept this. The misery and death will continue, and the chance of WW3 will hang in the air, all so the Russians can be humiliated and/or killed and the Donbass republics controlled by Kiev.

Do you think it was right of the US intelligence agencies to foment a coup in 2014?
How about Kiev attacking the Donbass republics for 8 years, acceptable?
Do you still think Putin is trying to conquer all of Ukraine and bring it into the Russian Federation? - This is fundamental to the disagreement
Should the US just go all the way and declare war? If not, what is the purpose here of prolonging the inevitable EXCEPT to destroy Ukraine and kill Russians?

Sorry for all the questions. I'm not trying the "argument by question" tactic. Generally interested in the answers because we have such a dramatically different take on the causes here and the justification for continuing the conflict.

Obviously other opinions are welcome to any statements or questions I've posed.
SilentMajority
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:10 am

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by SilentMajority » Fri Dec 02, 2022 9:31 am

stuper1 wrote:
Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:44 pm
The US Gov't is currently in a hot proxy war where a lot of people in Ukraine are dying for some reason. The US/NATO is using those dying people for some purposes. It's sick. It should be a war crime. I doubt most of those people who are dying would choose to do this if given a real choice. There is a small leadership group in Ukraine making choices for the whole country, under heavy influence from US/NATO, not to mention corrupt kickbacks out of all the aid money being sent by the US Gov't.
I fixed a couple things stuper1. I don't like to identify myself with the US Gov't so when you say "we" you're lumping me in lol.

Also, the reason they are trying to kill Russians is definitely not on behalf of the American people. Much better for us would be friendship and trade.

It's easy to get sucked into the language they want us to us where we equate the US Gov't with the American people or the elites interests with our own.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by vnatale » Fri Dec 02, 2022 10:03 am

stuper1 wrote:
Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:44 pm

vnatale wrote:
Thu Dec 01, 2022 9:41 pm

SilentMajority wrote:
Thu Dec 01, 2022 6:28 pm

I wonder if these guys support fighting to the last Ukrainian?

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/1 ... r-ukraine/

Before anyone here thinks this helps the US military or economy let me help you out. At 5PM today I was informed that a contract for just $9M we were about to sign with the USAF was being pulled because "funding reprioritization". We were going to in the next 12 months set up a VR training at an AFB for maintenance personnel and a state of the art asset tracking system for maintenance. This would have paid for itself quickly in lower training and maintenance costs and improved our bases and people.

Guess where the funding went.

We're throwing our treasure away to make sure "Russia bleeds". Gross.


Wasn't that somewhat the same tactic that conservatives / Republicans universally praised Reagan for doing? Dramatically increasing our country's deficit by increased military spending which caused Russia to attempt to match which then led them to bankruptcy as a country? That seems to be what I read innumerable times.


Here's at least one of the differences. Reagan presided over a cold war where people weren't dying. We're currently in a hot proxy war where a lot of people in Ukraine are dying on our behalf. The US/NATO is using those dying people for our purposes. It's sick. It should be a war crime. I doubt most of those people who are dying would choose to do this if given a real choice. There is a small leadership group in Ukraine making choices for the whole country, under heavy influence from US/NATO, not to mention corrupt kickbacks out of all the aid money being sent by us.


Initially I was going to agree with you that there was a difference. Until I remembered this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War

1979 to 1989 covers all of Reagan's two terms. And, then later on those same weapons we provided those in Afghanistan were later used against us. I don't see that as being the case with Ukraine.

Finally, Ukraine would have surrendered a long time ago if those people who are dying were not doing it by choice. Same with when Germany trying to batter England into submission at the start of World War II. What England did now and what Russia is doing now only strengthens the resolve of the people they are attacking.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by vnatale » Fri Dec 02, 2022 10:10 am

SilentMajority wrote:
Fri Dec 02, 2022 9:23 am

dualstow wrote:
Fri Dec 02, 2022 7:02 am

I reject the idea that the Ukrainians are willing to fight because Washington told them to. This is not the 1950s or 60s with the CIA organizing some coup. I’m one of those suckers who believes that the Ukrainians want to fight back, and that Putin did not expect them to.

Without getting involved in directly fighting the Russians, the U.S. has agreed, in a limited capacity, to supply weapons and other tools of war, as well as training. Are they doing it out of altruism? No, there are geopolitical motives. We are less evil enough than the Russians that I support it. But no one really knows the outcome.


A CIA coup in 2014 under Obama that overthrew the Ukrainian government and installed an anti-Russian one is exactly what happened here. I didn't know that was even still being disputed anywhere. Hence the Russians moved in to secure some of the heavy Russian populated areas (that were also strategic). They didn't secure the Donbass which is heavily Russian, and the Kiev Regime has been at war with those self-declared republics since 2014 with tens of thousands of casualties and misery for the civilians.

Russia tolerated this for a long time, but could not tolerate the Biden regimes moves to cement Kiev as a NATO nation. Their demands were Ukrainian neutrality and an end to the attack on the Russians in the Donbass. I think KGB said it well that the solution was for the US gov't to pull the war funding and other nations would follow suit quickly and it would all end. I'm sure the same holds true from the start. If the US gov't had taken a neutral stance in 2021 and early 2022, there would have been zero chance of Russian invasion. There would have been no discussion of Kiev joining NATO and Russia threatening invasion to support the people in the Donbass would have hopefully been a wake-up call to the Ukrainian military, even the NAZI elements.

It's possible some of the fanatical NAZI orgs would have engaged the Russians but I imagine they would have been brushed aside. The only thing sustaining the Uki Army is outside "help" now so that's what's prolonging the conflict.

Now Kiev has said no peace is possible unless Russia vacates all former Ukrainian territory including Crimea. So no peace is possible until Kiev surrenders because Russia will never accept this. The misery and death will continue, and the chance of WW3 will hang in the air, all so the Russians can be humiliated and/or killed and the Donbass republics controlled by Kiev.

Do you think it was right of the US intelligence agencies to foment a coup in 2014?
How about Kiev attacking the Donbass republics for 8 years, acceptable?
Do you still think Putin is trying to conquer all of Ukraine and bring it into the Russian Federation? - This is fundamental to the disagreement
Should the US just go all the way and declare war? If not, what is the purpose here of prolonging the inevitable EXCEPT to destroy Ukraine and kill Russians?

Sorry for all the questions. I'm not trying the "argument by question" tactic. Generally interested in the answers because we have such a dramatically different take on the causes here and the justification for continuing the conflict.

Obviously other opinions are welcome to any statements or questions I've posed.


I don't think I ever knew this and was going to ask you for your source of information.

But after putting in your exact words in a Bing search I see that there is plenty of support for this. I've not yet read any of them to see if I believe the sources.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=A+CIA+cou ... &FORM=PERE
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by stuper1 » Fri Dec 02, 2022 10:54 am

I do hope some of you folks who support US involvement in the Ukraine war will answer Silent Majority's questions he posed above.

For those who are saying the Ukrainians are fighting by their own choice, you do know that the first thing Zelensky did when the war started was he closed the border to any Ukrainian males between age 18 and 60 (or something like that) trying to leave. Reportedly about 8 million people have left Ukraine since the war started. If Zelensky hadn't stopped the males from leaving, I'm sure the number would be much higher. It's not just the Russians who are conscripting people. I have personal connections to a Ukrainian family. Thankfully the females left the country immediately when the war started. They wanted to bring the males also but couldn't.

The hardest hit in any situation like this are the ones who are dirt poor and have no means by which to insulate themselves from the troubles. Those are the ones whose sons, cousins, fathers, uncles, etc. are conscripted to fight for dirty kleptocrats like Zelensky. Those are the ones whose females have to shiver in the cold all winter because the country has no heat, and then they get raped by any passing male because they don't have their own males around to protect them. Those are the ones you wish the smart, capable people at the top would look out for, but they rarely do.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14231
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by dualstow » Fri Dec 02, 2022 12:11 pm

stuper1 wrote:
Fri Dec 02, 2022 10:54 am
I do hope some of you folks who support US involvement in the Ukraine war will answer Silent Majority's questions he posed above.
I’m reading it today.
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by vnatale » Fri Dec 02, 2022 1:23 pm

stuper1 wrote:
Fri Dec 02, 2022 10:54 am

I do hope some of you folks who support US involvement in the Ukraine war will answer Silent Majority's questions he posed above.

For those who are saying the Ukrainians are fighting by their own choice, you do know that the first thing Zelensky did when the war started was he closed the border to any Ukrainian males between age 18 and 60 (or something like that) trying to leave. Reportedly about 8 million people have left Ukraine since the war started. If Zelensky hadn't stopped the males from leaving, I'm sure the number would be much higher. It's not just the Russians who are conscripting people. I have personal connections to a Ukrainian family. Thankfully the females left the country immediately when the war started. They wanted to bring the males also but couldn't.

The hardest hit in any situation like this are the ones who are dirt poor and have no means by which to insulate themselves from the troubles. Those are the ones whose sons, cousins, fathers, uncles, etc. are conscripted to fight for dirty kleptocrats like Zelensky. Those are the ones whose females have to shiver in the cold all winter because the country has no heat, and then they get raped by any passing male because they don't have their own males around to protect them. Those are the ones you wish the smart, capable people at the top would look out for, but they rarely do.


What you describe is unfortunately endemic to a country being at war.

I'd think the desertion rate of the Ukraine Army would be an indicator of what you say is supported by the evidence.

https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/the-low-mo ... ion-rates/

. The low morale of the Russian forces, coupled with the extremely heavy casualties, is causing high desertion rates. As a result, Russian frontline units still need troops even after more than 300,000 men were called up in September.


Not willing to put any more time into this as I could not readily find anything regarding Ukraine Army desertion. Did find a fair amount (as cited above) regarding Russian Army desertion.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14231
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by dualstow » Fri Dec 02, 2022 1:28 pm

stuper1 wrote:
Fri Dec 02, 2022 10:54 am

For those who are saying the Ukrainians are fighting by their own choice, you do know that the first thing Zelensky did when the war started was he closed the border to any Ukrainian males between age 18 and 60 (or something like that) trying to leave. Reportedly about 8 million people have left Ukraine since the war started. If Zelensky hadn't stopped the males from leaving, I'm sure the number would be much higher. It's not just the Russians who are conscripting people. I have personal connections to a Ukrainian family. Thankfully the females left the country immediately when the war started. They wanted to bring the males also but couldn't.
I’ll offer a quick response to this before I get to SilentMajority’s points. I agree that many Ukr males would have also left had they been allowed. In fact, I’m almost certain that the Ukr conscription has been mentioned in this thread. I’ve seen news about it in the mainstream media; it has not been covered up.

Sometimes, when we make comments here, they are broad brush strokes but they should not be misconstrued as monolithically true. There are people of fighting age who want to leave. Some of them may support the war but don’t feel like giving up their lives for it. Others may have their reasons for not supporting the war at all. There are females, including elderly ones, who are fighting. We pretty much know that they’re against the invasion (or “special operation” if you like). Perhaps some are apolitical, despise and distrust both Kiyv and Moscow, and don’t feel like dying young on the battlefield. All are understandable.

Still, you have to compare this to nations that get invaded and offer no resistance. I wonder if the Kuwaitis would have risen up had they not been able to outsource their defense, for example. I’ll say it again: Putin did not think they were going to fight back.
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14231
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by dualstow » Fri Dec 02, 2022 2:22 pm

SilentMajority wrote:
Fri Dec 02, 2022 9:23 am
A CIA coup in 2014 under Obama that overthrew the Ukrainian government and installed an anti-Russian one is exactly what happened here. I didn't know that was even still being disputed anywhere. Hence the Russians moved in to secure some of the heavy Russian populated areas (that were also strategic). They didn't secure the Donbass which is heavily Russian, and the Kiev Regime has been at war with those self-declared republics since 2014 with tens of thousands of casualties and misery for the civilians.

You have obliterated my invocation of the CIA when I said “this is not some CIA coup of the 50s or 60s”, fair enough. I put my foot in it with that sentence, and you may roll your eyes and laugh when I say still not that kind of coup. To clarify, I could not justify something like that which was perpetrated on Mosaddegh in Iran. And I will reiterate that I am not trying to paint a picture of the US and Ukraine as the perfect and the good. If the U.S. in any way supported an Arab Spring in a country where a U.S.-friendly dictator was in power, I would be on board. There is no perfection. And regime changes tend not to be perfectly fair, let alone bloodless.
Do you think it was right of the US intelligence agencies to foment a coup in 2014?
In a word, yes. But, rather than say it was “right”, I’ll say I support it.

Rather than go on and on in one ungainly post, I’ll focus on one thing today. Time constraints, aversion to excessively long posts, etc. And it will give you a chance to give a rebuttal sooner.

I want to pick on the Seumas Milne article in the Guardian that came up with Vinny’s bing search.

The author is big on the illegality and unconstiutional moves by the U.S. He writes,
When the Ukrainian president was replaced by a US-selected administration, in an entirely unconstitutional takeover, politicians such as William Hague brazenly misled parliament about the legality of what had taken place: the imposition of a pro-western government on Russia's most neuralgic and politically divided neighbour.

I know you are well versed on the subject, so you know Yanukovych‘s background and his actions.
Is it right for another country to get rid of him? Not to the extent that I would want the Russians to oust a U.S. president and install a Russia-friendly one. But, I support it. Whether or not you like the current Ukr government, you have to be skeptical that Yanukovych was working for anyone but Moscow.

EDIT: Damn, I left out an important point. Unlike the case with Mosaddegh, I truly believe Ukrainian citizens, though not the ones who came over from Russia since Putin gained power, did not want Yanukovych.

What of Crimea? In this 2014 article, Milne wrote,
After Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to join Russia, the bulk of the western media abandoned any hint of even-handed coverage.

Does Russia not have a history of populating areas of Ukr with Russian-friendly settlers?

And, I keep hearing a refrain about not merely starting at the beginning of the invasion. I don’t know how far back we’re going to go back here (we can see how bogged down it gets when people argue about the middle east), but here’s an excerpt from a piece called ’ ‘Why Did Russia Give Away Crimea Sixty Years Ago?
A sizable population of Tatars had lived in Crimea for centuries until May 1944, when they were deported en masse by the Stalinist regime to barren sites in Central Asia, where they were compelled to live for more than four decades and were prohibited from returning to their homeland. Stalin also forcibly deported smaller populations of Armenians, Bulgarians, and Greeks from Crimea, completing the ethnic cleansing of the peninsula. Hence, in 1954, Crimea was more “Russian” than it had been for centuries.


Admittedly, that excerpt is in a paragraph disputing, not supporting Ukr ties to Crimea. I’m merely using it to show why I don’t see the Russians as victims. (As for the question in the title, there may not be a clear answer, but perhaps
Khrushchev saw the transfer as a way of fortifying and perpetuating Soviet control over Ukraine now that the civil war had finally been won. Some 860,000 ethnic Russians would be joining the already large Russian minority in Ukraine).

SilentMajority wrote:Should the US just go all the way and declare war?

No, the U.S. should continue to avoid direct conflict with Russia, the key word being direct.
If not, what is the purpose here of prolonging the inevitable EXCEPT to destroy Ukraine and kill Russians?

You know the purpose of resistance here. You simply don’t believe in it. Additionally, built into your question is a premise that I reject.

I accept and respect that you’re not trying the “argument by question” tactic. Similarly, I have a question for you and I want you to take it at face value and not as a dig or as snark: Milne uses “Kiev” in his article as (perhaps) everyone did back in 2014. I have no idea if he uses Kyiv nowadays, but it has not gone unnoticed that you maintain the use of Kiev. Frankly, I hate the new spelling because I always want to put the i before the y, but I’m trying to go with the flow here even if I don’t fly the blue and yellow flag in my window.
My question is, is your use of Kiev your way of saying you not only disapprove of the West’s involvement but that you support Russia in this conflict? If not, why do you continue to use it?
- - -
Oh dear. This got long anyway, didn’t it.
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by vnatale » Fri Dec 02, 2022 10:34 pm

vnatale wrote:
Thu Dec 01, 2022 5:07 pm

Xan wrote:
Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:33 pm

I have to admit to being somewhat baffled at the idea that the proper response to an invasion is to surrender immediately in order to minimize the casualties.


For both Poland and France in World War II it was not immediately but not far off?


Another World War II example?

"While Lundeen was racking up bullseyes, the Germans were invading Holland. The campaign began May 10 and ended just four days later, as the Dutch came to realize that the German Air Force would easily decimate their cities."
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by vnatale » Fri Dec 02, 2022 10:44 pm

I see many parallels between what I have cited below and the assertions and the reasons given why our country should not be supporting Ukraine because of all the issues with Ukraine.

'The surge in heated rhetoric testifies to the increasing difficulty of the challenge facing Moran, Scholz, and others carrying out the Führer’s Order. Hitler wanted to persuade foreign powers to remain neutral, but neutrality was looking like a more and more untenable position. By fall 1940 the Germans had toppled nonaligned states like Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, demonstrating how little respect the Nazis had for neutrality. Yet Moran had to convince his fellow Americans that neutrality was the best choice for the United States. In his October 7 circular, Moran wondered aloud what patriotic Americans should do “if a declaration of war is made by a power-mad administration against the will of the people.” The British, Moran wrote, did not deserve America’s help, because they were not fighting “for principles which are the basis of American life.” Indeed, Moran thought the British were duped into the war by Jews. “We ask you, do you believe the English people are fighting even for themselves?” he asked rhetorically, while rambling about Jewish infiltration of the royal family and the Bank of England—“there is not one Gentile on the Governing Board of the Bank of England.” No, Britain was fighting “to satisfy the hatred of the Jews for Hitler.” The choice for Americans was obvious. “We of the Christian Front of America, as Christians and as citizens, therefore would refuse unequivocally to participate in a war at the demand of a corrupt administration except in the case of invasion.”26"
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by vnatale » Sat Dec 03, 2022 9:29 am

SilentMajority wrote:
Sat Nov 26, 2022 2:06 pm



Don't forget the Finnish example. They lost territory and hundreds of thousands of lives by refusing the Soviet offer/demand rather than gain territory and save lives. No certainty as to how it would have played out otherwise but that's what happened. The Polish example and the Finnish one should have been instructive to Kiev but they are taking their marching orders from Washington.


This morning Facebook put in front of me something I'd put there five years ago today. It was from some book I was reading on World War II.



I have read a lot regarding World War II. But I don't know if I ever knew that Russia had invaded Finland during the early part of the war.

The human costs were staggering....

"The peace Stalin imposed bemused the world by its moderation. He enforced his territorial demands, amounting to 10 per cent of Finland’s territory, but refrained from occupying the entire country, as he probably could have done. He appears to have been uneasy about provoking international anger at a moment when much larger issues were at stake. His confidence had been shaken by his losses – at least 127,000, perhaps as many as a quarter of a million, dead, against Finland’s 48,243 killed and 420,000 homeless. Soviet prisoners released by the Finns were dispatched by Stalin to the gulag to contemplate their treachery in having accepted captivity.

The Finnish campaign was irrelevant to the confrontation between Germany and the Allies, but it importantly influenced the strategy of both. They alike concluded that the Soviet Union was a paper tiger; that Stalin’s armies were weak, his commanders bunglers. After the armistice Finland, having failed to gain useful help from Britain and France, turned to Germany for assistance in re-arming its forces, which Hitler was happy to provide. The Russians learned critical lessons from the Finnish war, and set about equipping the Red Army with winter clothing, snow camouflage and lubricants for sub-zero temperatures, all of which would play a vital role in future campaigns. The world, however, saw only that Russian prestige had been debased by one of Europe’s smallest nations."
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14231
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by dualstow » Mon Dec 05, 2022 9:29 am

WSJ headline “ U.S. Altered Himars Rocket Launchers to Keep Ukraine From Firing Missiles Into Russia”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-altere ... 1670214338
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
SilentMajority
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:10 am

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by SilentMajority » Mon Dec 05, 2022 12:50 pm

Dualstow I don't know how to respond with all cut-up quotes, it's beyond my skills with this platform so I'll just /paraphrase/summarize your comments (VERY briefly).

1. You recognize that the CIA/US/West etc. did overthrow the Kiev government in 2014, but you support the overthrow and new government because Yanukovych was presumably working for Moscow (I'm not disputing that, I don't know, but I do know they had peace in the country).
2. Crimea is filled with Russians, but prior to 1944 it was not and therefore it's preferable that it not be part of the Russian federation but instead ruled from Kiev regardless of the referendum in 2014.
3. You support indirect war against Russia from the US but not direct military conflict.
4. I asked what the purpose of extending the conflict and suffering was and you said I knew the purpose of resistance already and there was a premise in my question that you reject.


Let me take these in turns, also briefly.

1. I think it's a violation of the constitution and international law when the US government engages in overthrowing and installing governments in other countries. The federal government does not have that enumerated power and overthrowing elected governments must be illegal according to international law, even if some people in the US like it.

2. Israel is filled with Jews of European descent there prior to 1944. How long do they have to be there before they should be allowed to pick their leaders? I think the Jews should get to get to pick their leaders in Israel now. For better or worse they are there now. Same with the Russians in Crimea. Per Wikipedia, in 2014 at the time of the US coup, 85% of Crimea spoke Russian as their first language and less than 4% spoke Ukrainian. The demand that they be ruled from Kiev because the Soviets put a lot of Russians there 80 years ago is unreasonable.

3. Why do you oppose direct military conflict with Russia? I oppose direct and indirect so it is a consistent stance. Trying to understand here....

4. I understand why some Ukrainians would resist the Russian military invading. What I was asking is the purpose of the US/West/NATO supporting Kiev to extend the conflict rather than end it (one way or another).

5. I spell it "Kiev" because that's how I've seen it written my entire like and that's how I've heard it pronounced my entire life until this year. Writing Kyiv or saying "KEEEVE" feels like virtue signaling to me, like putting a Uki flag next to my userID.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14231
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by dualstow » Mon Dec 05, 2022 5:36 pm

Blue text:
(3) is correct and I wouldn’t change anything.
(2) is technically right, but the wording is so comical that it made me smile. There’s no context there, but ok, you did say you were going to be brief.

Black text:

First, I’ll quickly say that I understand about (5). We’ve all said and read Kiev all of our lives. All of us except the very young. I also encountered someone elsewhere online who was indignant that I would even ask about Kiev/Kyiv and Ukraine/the Ukraine. He’s an American living there and seems to think it’s the center of the universe. He, of course has been saying Kyiv for years. I can see why it looks like virtue signaling, but for me, it’s just calling the country the way the locals would like it to be called. Not the Soviet way.

(2) I hope you’re not forgetting that the Russians in the Crimea have Russia if they need it. The Jews of European have what? Poland? Iraq? They fled to Israel for a reason, and if the Russians fled Russia for Crimea, well, then they wouldn’t be voting for Russian rule in a referendum, would they. A better analogy would be China and Tibet. China has a policy of filing Tibet with Han Chinese, intermarrying with Tibets, and taking over the place. You can guess how they would vote in a referendum, but it doesn’t tell the whole story.

(3) “ Why do you oppose direct military conflict with Russia?” That could spell the end of the world.

(1) You’re not wrong. I don’t feel guilty about Saddam or Ghaddafi either. I mean, I feel bad that we wrecked Iraq, even though “there was peace” before we invaded. And, if I could turn back time, I would be against the US invasion of Iraq. If you could turn back time, would you be against the Russian invasion of Ukr? You have made it clear that a high priority is avoiding the loss of life, but you don’t seem to have a problem with Putin’s invasion because of … the Russian enclaves? Is it only the resistance that is to blame for this loss of life?

More in a couple days…
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by stuper1 » Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:14 pm

What we have here is idealism versus realism. In an ideal world, Ukraine of course should be free to choose its allies however it wants. In the real world, things are much more complicated -- a little country next to a big country, especially a little country who houses a lot of people that came from the big country, needs to mind its manners. The big problem here is the idealists, with their tilting at windmills, are getting a lot of innocent people killed needlessly.

Here is the proof of what I say: let's go back to 1962. Kennedy tells Kruschev that the missiles have to leave Cuba. Kruschev says hey hold the line, I just need to check with Castro on that. 10 minutes later Kruschev takes Kennedy off hold and says sorry, no can do, Castro told me he won't allow the missiles to leave and since he is the leader of a sovereign nation I need to follow what he says and he has the right to defend his nation. What do you think happens next? Does the USA take this lying down or do they immediately begin an all-out invasion of Cuba?

The USA has its Monroe doctrine and woe unto any country who crosses it. We need to have just a tiny little bit of humility and understand that other major players in the world also have interests close to home that they are willing to protect.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by vnatale » Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:33 pm

stuper1 wrote:
Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:14 pm

What we have here is idealism versus realism. In an ideal world, Ukraine of course should be free to choose its allies however it wants. In the real world, things are much more complicated -- a little country next to a big country, especially a little country who houses a lot of people that came from the big country, needs to mind its manners. The big problem here is the idealists, with their tilting at windmills, are getting a lot of innocent people killed needlessly.

Here is the proof of what I say: let's go back to 1962. Kennedy tells Kruschev that the missiles have to leave Cuba. Kruschev says hey hold the line, I just need to check with Castro on that. 10 minutes later Kruschev takes Kennedy off hold and says sorry, no can do, Castro told me he won't allow the missiles to leave and since he is the leader of a sovereign nation I need to follow what he says and he has the right to defend his nation. What do you think happens next? Does the USA take this lying down or do they immediately begin an all-out invasion of Cuba?

The USA has its Monroe doctrine and woe unto any country who crosses it. We need to have just a tiny little bit of humility and understand that other major players in the world also have interests close to home that they are willing to protect.


Your proof is a hypothetical?

From just recently having read a book ... I seem to remember that Khrushchev made his decision without consultation with Castro and told Castro after he'd told the United States. Castro was not pleased.

Before the final decision / outcome Kennedy was receiving all kinds of conflicting advice from his advisers. Just about as soon as the missiles were discovered many in the military high commands wanted to go out full out invasion. No talking for them! The book makes the case that the military were rather reckless in the stances they took during this short time period.

Since the actions of Hitler in World War II in invading and taking over other countries on flimsy premises .... what other countries have invaded a neighboring (little) country that has a lot of people in it from the invading country?
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
SilentMajority
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:10 am

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by SilentMajority » Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:44 pm

stuper1 wrote:
Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:14 pm
What we have here is idealism versus realism. In an ideal world, Ukraine of course should be free to choose its allies however it wants. In the real world, things are much more complicated -- a little country next to a big country, especially a little country who houses a lot of people that came from the big country, needs to mind its manners. The big problem here is the idealists, with their tilting at windmills, are getting a lot of innocent people killed needlessly.

Here is the proof of what I say: let's go back to 1962. Kennedy tells Kruschev that the missiles have to leave Cuba. Kruschev says hey hold the line, I just need to check with Castro on that. 10 minutes later Kruschev takes Kennedy off hold and says sorry, no can do, Castro told me he won't allow the missiles to leave and since he is the leader of a sovereign nation I need to follow what he says and he has the right to defend his nation. What do you think happens next? Does the USA take this lying down or do they immediately begin an all-out invasion of Cuba?

The USA has its Monroe doctrine and woe unto any country who crosses it. We need to have just a tiny little bit of humility and understand that other major players in the world also have interests close to home that they are willing to protect.
The hypothetical should include that 8 years prior the Soviet Union overthrew the USA friendly Cuban government and installed Castro, who subsequently invited Moscow to park missiles in Cuba.

I'm interested in hearing how the invasions of Iraq and Libya, which wrecked both of them, are virtuous but but the Russians securing their border from a hostile alliance setting up on its border in a country they just occupied via coup is problematic.
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by stuper1 » Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:46 pm

vnatale wrote:
Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:33 pm
stuper1 wrote:
Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:14 pm
What we have here is idealism versus realism. In an ideal world, Ukraine of course should be free to choose its allies however it wants. In the real world, things are much more complicated -- a little country next to a big country, especially a little country who houses a lot of people that came from the big country, needs to mind its manners. The big problem here is the idealists, with their tilting at windmills, are getting a lot of innocent people killed needlessly.

Here is the proof of what I say: let's go back to 1962. Kennedy tells Kruschev that the missiles have to leave Cuba. Kruschev says hey hold the line, I just need to check with Castro on that. 10 minutes later Kruschev takes Kennedy off hold and says sorry, no can do, Castro told me he won't allow the missiles to leave and since he is the leader of a sovereign nation I need to follow what he says and he has the right to defend his nation. What do you think happens next? Does the USA take this lying down or do they immediately begin an all-out invasion of Cuba?

The USA has its Monroe doctrine and woe unto any country who crosses it. We need to have just a tiny little bit of humility and understand that other major players in the world also have interests close to home that they are willing to protect.
Your proof is a hypothetical?

From just recently having read a book ... I seem to remember that Khrushchev made his decision without consultation with Castro and told Castro after he'd told the United States. Castro was not pleased.

Before the final decision / outcome Kennedy was receiving all kinds of conflicting advice from his advisers. Just about as soon as the missiles were discovered many in the military high commands wanted to go out full out invasion. No talking for them! The book makes the case that the military were rather reckless in the stances they took during this short time period.

Since the actions of Hitler in World War II in invading and taking over other countries on flimsy premises .... what other countries have invaded a neighboring (little) country that has a lot of people in it from the invading country?
Yes, sorry if I did not make that clear, it is a hypothetical.

Some questions can't be answered with empirical data; they need to be looked at using logic and common sense from first principles. A little humility to look at things from the other side's perspective goes a long way too. George Kennan was one who could do this. He was the author of the containment policy toward expansion of the Soviet Union. After the Cold War ended, he prophesied that expanding NATO farther eastward was only going to cause problems, and he was right. In other words, he was a realist not an idealist.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by vnatale » Mon Dec 05, 2022 8:18 pm

stuper1 wrote:
Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:14 pm

What we have here is idealism versus realism. In an ideal world, Ukraine of course should be free to choose its allies however it wants. In the real world, things are much more complicated -- a little country next to a big country, especially a little country who houses a lot of people that came from the big country, needs to mind its manners. The big problem here is the idealists, with their tilting at windmills, are getting a lot of innocent people killed needlessly.

Here is the proof of what I say: let's go back to 1962. Kennedy tells Kruschev that the missiles have to leave Cuba. Kruschev says hey hold the line, I just need to check with Castro on that. 10 minutes later Kruschev takes Kennedy off hold and says sorry, no can do, Castro told me he won't allow the missiles to leave and since he is the leader of a sovereign nation I need to follow what he says and he has the right to defend his nation. What do you think happens next? Does the USA take this lying down or do they immediately begin an all-out invasion of Cuba?

The USA has its Monroe doctrine and woe unto any country who crosses it. We need to have just a tiny little bit of humility and understand that other major players in the world also have interests close to home that they are willing to protect.


You also have me wondering about size.

By geographical size:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... es_by_area

Russia #1 (6.6 square miles)
Ukraine #45 (233,000 square miles) (not that much smaller than France who was close to defeating Russia under Napoleon)

By GDP:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _(nominal)
Russia #9
Ukraine #56

By Population:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... %20rows%20
Russia #9 (145 million)
Ukraine #36 (41 million)

So while Russia is about 30 times as big in area it is only about 3.5 times as big in population.

Is that a big enough population ratio to expect an automatic victory from the invader?
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
SilentMajority
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:10 am

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by SilentMajority » Tue Dec 06, 2022 3:45 pm

dualstow wrote:
Mon Dec 05, 2022 5:36 pm
That could spell the end of the world.
Hey Dualstow, that was your response to the question of why you support indirect rather than direct US warfare against Russia.

I agree we don't want the world to end, but I think you're overlooking how much risk the indirect warfare against Russia holds.

1. The US gov't bombed or otherwise directed the operation against the Nordstream pipeline, I think we can all agree on that and it's clearly direct aggression.
2. Someone has just launched missiles and/or drone attacks against Russian air bases several hundred miles into Russia. The claim is that it's the Ukrainians, but if they're using US weapons with US advisors and trainers and it's US spec ops guiding the weapons onto the targets inside Russia, this is just semantics. The Russians I am sure view this as direct attack from NATO and not "Ukraine". Imagine the US invades Mexico and Russia supplies them with long-range munitions and has advisors help them to launch and direct into US bases. Would you really say that Mexico hit our bases or Russia?

The US government is for all practical purposes at war with Russia, and we're just an incident or two away from something really bad that could, as you say "spell the end of the world". The maniacs at the helm now are doing everything possible to provoke a Russian response so they can trigger article whatever of the NATO charter, which I'm sure lots of people would cheer about. The Ukrainians get to suffer in the meantime while these people use the puppet government in Kiev to fight a proxy war.

Looks like Macron and Orban are making some positive statements towards peace and consideration of Russia's security concerns. Hopefully they follow with action and other Euro states come around and support peace soon. Maybe if only Poland and the US are left they will pull the plug on Kiev and Poland can get back the 70,000 sq miles it lost to Ukraine and some 10M of the population or thereabouts (exact figures not known with certainty by me).
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14231
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by dualstow » Tue Dec 06, 2022 6:17 pm

SilentMajority wrote:
Tue Dec 06, 2022 3:45 pm
dualstow wrote:
Mon Dec 05, 2022 5:36 pm
That could spell the end of the world.
Hey Dualstow, that was your response to the question of why you support indirect rather than direct US warfare against Russia.
...
Incorrect. It is why I don't support direct warfare between Russia and the U.S., period. The way you phrased it, it looks like I support indirect war in order to stop WW3 and nothing could be further from the truth.

1&2 It may turn out that the Russians agree with your definition of 'direct', but I certainly don't, and I don't see it as semantics. In fact, it would be helpful if you could give a hypothetical example of what you would consider indirect. Even war has rules, and as terrible as things are, both sides seem to be following them: We have not shot or bombed Russian soldiers. They have not shot or bombed us.
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14231
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by dualstow » Tue Dec 06, 2022 6:26 pm

SilentMajority wrote:
Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:44 pm
I'm interested in hearing how the invasions of Iraq and Libya, which wrecked both of them, are virtuous
...
So am I. I'm also interested in whom the comment is directed. Clearly not me, since I wrote
I don’t feel guilty about Saddam or Ghaddafi either. I mean, I feel bad that we wrecked Iraq, even though “there was peace” before we invaded. And, if I could turn back time, I would be against the US invasion of Iraq
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by vnatale » Tue Dec 06, 2022 7:35 pm

SilentMajority wrote:
Tue Dec 06, 2022 3:45 pm

dualstow wrote:
Mon Dec 05, 2022 5:36 pm

That could spell the end of the world.


Hey Dualstow, that was your response to the question of why you support indirect rather than direct US warfare against Russia.

I agree we don't want the world to end, but I think you're overlooking how much risk the indirect warfare against Russia holds.

1. The US gov't bombed or otherwise directed the operation against the Nordstream pipeline, I think we can all agree on that and it's clearly direct aggression.
2. Someone has just launched missiles and/or drone attacks against Russian air bases several hundred miles into Russia. The claim is that it's the Ukrainians, but if they're using US weapons with US advisors and trainers and it's US spec ops guiding the weapons onto the targets inside Russia, this is just semantics. The Russians I am sure view this as direct attack from NATO and not "Ukraine". Imagine the US invades Mexico and Russia supplies them with long-range munitions and has advisors help them to launch and direct into US bases. Would you really say that Mexico hit our bases or Russia?

The US government is for all practical purposes at war with Russia, and we're just an incident or two away from something really bad that could, as you say "spell the end of the world". The maniacs at the helm now are doing everything possible to provoke a Russian response so they can trigger article whatever of the NATO charter, which I'm sure lots of people would cheer about. The Ukrainians get to suffer in the meantime while these people use the puppet government in Kiev to fight a proxy war.

Looks like Macron and Orban are making some positive statements towards peace and consideration of Russia's security concerns. Hopefully they follow with action and other Euro states come around and support peace soon. Maybe if only Poland and the US are left they will pull the plug on Kiev and Poland can get back the 70,000 sq miles it lost to Ukraine and some 10M of the population or thereabouts (exact figures not known with certainty by me).


Curious how some of the above fits in with the Korean War? It was clear that China was heavily supporting North Korea yet the United States and China never fought a direct war.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
SilentMajority
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:10 am

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by SilentMajority » Tue Dec 06, 2022 8:13 pm

dualstow wrote:
Tue Dec 06, 2022 6:17 pm
SilentMajority wrote:
Tue Dec 06, 2022 3:45 pm
dualstow wrote:
Mon Dec 05, 2022 5:36 pm
That could spell the end of the world.
Hey Dualstow, that was your response to the question of why you support indirect rather than direct US warfare against Russia.
...
Incorrect. It is why I don't support direct warfare between Russia and the U.S., period. The way you phrased it, it looks like I support indirect war in order to stop WW3 and nothing could be further from the truth.

1&2 It may turn out that the Russians agree with your definition of 'direct', but I certainly don't, and I don't see it as semantics. In fact, it would be helpful if you could give a hypothetical example of what you would consider indirect. Even war has rules, and as terrible as things are, both sides seem to be following them: We have not shot or bombed Russian soldiers. They have not shot or bombed us.
Let me clarify what I attempted poorly to say:

You do not support direct US military engagement with Russia because it risks WW3/end of the world.

You do support the continued supply of military equipment, training, intelligence, American mercenaries (maybe, because this is happening), logistics and domestic aid, money, etc. for the purpose of enabling the Ukis to fight the Russkis. I am sure you support the funding of anti Putin agents inside Russia to overthrow Putin as well as cutting off their trade with other countries, the use of international banking, the confiscation of Russian owned property around the world. Stop me if I'm wrong on any of those. By any definition that has be "indirect warfare".

If you support it, I assume that means you think this doesn't risk the end of the world.

My point is it does, because until one side backs down it will keep escalating, and there's always the threat of an incident or false flag that sparks the big fireworks. Remember when Ukrainian missiles hit Poland and Zelinsky said they were Russian and NATO needed to go to war???? Has he backed off that claim yet?

If you don't think the US Navy was involved in bombing Russian pipelines in the Baltic or that US military "assisting" the Ukrainians in hitting target deep in Russia is direct conflict, ok. I disagree and think and everyone supporting continuation of the war is underestimating the possibility of horrific outcomes for everyone, not just Russia and Ukraine.
Last edited by SilentMajority on Tue Dec 06, 2022 8:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply