Jump to content

Ukraine/Russian Conflict - General Discussion


Smithydog
 Share

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, EdwardV said:

You base this on what? After all, aren’t they kicking down doors right now? 

The Ukraine is neither part of the EU, nor of NATO.

France and Germany are. Further, they have no border with Russia.

Haven't you heard of the present reinforcements to NATOs Eastern borders?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, astro said:

The Ukraine is neither part of the EU, nor of NATO.

France and Germany are. Further, they have no border with Russia.

Haven't you heard of the present reinforcements to NATOs Eastern borders?

Granted but there are plenty of closer NATO member that Russia has threaten. Each of the Baltic States and Poland come to mind. He actually said a portion of Estonia and Latvia actually belongs to Russia. The same type of wording he used against Ukraine prior to invading. 
 

Yes I have. NATO has added several thousand troops and equipment to their existing  deployments in those eastern countries. Considering there is a war going on next door and have been threatened, do you really blame them? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, EdwardV said:

Considering there is a war going on next door and have been threatened, do you really blame them? 

Just pointing to it to show the absurdity of the 'Russian boots in France and Germany' remark.

 

Besides, hasn't it been argued the Russian military  is depleted of trained soldiers, functional equipment and amunition?

Will they send sabre-rattling units on horseback to invade further nations? 🙄

 

Nah, all they will have left is the nuclear threat and I like to believe that menace can be avoided - the war will not be decided by warfare, but be ended at the negotiating table.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Shishi said:

Wrecking Ukraine: The cost of Winning the War with Geopolitics Expert John Mearsheimer.

In this interview the professor explain a wise solution and lots of truths MSM dare to air.

https://youtu.be/q4TV4_taLzE

That was a very insightful interview, making the following valid points:

1. Great powers are sensitive about their position and try to squash challenges from smaller countries. This applies to both the US and Russia. The Thucydides Trap

2. The Ukraine war has triggered a highly emotional response. Well, everything does these days

3. Ukraine has had a stated intention to join NATO since 2008, and has been a de facto member since 2014

4. The US thinks that Ukraine can win the war, France and Germany prefer a diplomatically negotiated settlement. It's a moral argument (in the western view) versus what can realistically be achieved 

5. Pouring arms into Ukraine will ultimately lead to its ruin, as it's unable to win a war against Russia 

6. The US, in its quest to expand NATO into places like Georgia and Ukraine, was based on the premise that Russia was weak and would therefore acquiesce, which was true when the USSR fell but is now a miscalculation. Even Angela Merkel warned the US in 2008 that encouraging Ukraine to join NATO was crossing the "brightest of red lines". Had the US heeded this advice, there would be no war today and Crimea would still be part of Ukraine. 

7. Spreading liberalism and western capitalism is the objective of the US in its eastwards expansion, so Eastern Europe looks like Western Europe, but now it's blown up in their faces. The West sees its Liberal values as everyone's right, and uses NATO as a vehicle to achieve this. Russia sees NATO as an existential threat, particularly since NATO adopted a containment strategy in 2014. "Hitlerising" Putin is a strategy to garner public opinion on the US side, unsupported by France and Germany, and its effect is to harden the Russian stance as Putin is well regarded there.

Thanks to @Shishifor posting this intellectual, rational and unemotional interview - of the kind never reported by the hysterical MSM. Why do Liberals, and the US in particular, think that they have a right to impose their views on others? We see so many examples of this. Why can't America (and its yapping poodle Britain) just mind their own business?

Edited by dbrenn
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, astro said:

" nor will "Russians start kicking down doors".

So the Russians in Ukraine are really politely knocking on doors and asking the ladies for a good time, not looting the place etc etc.

Interesting interpretation of the news.🙃

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, astro said:

Besides, hasn't it been argued the Russian military  is depleted of trained soldiers, functional equipment and ammunition ?

People have been told that Russia is suffering unsustainable losses for so long now that the claim is accepted as fact. The lack of equipment and ammo is clearly not true - look at the piles of rubble formerly known as Ukrainian towns or cities. Lack of troops - where have we seen heavy Russian troops losses? In the battle for Kyiv and a failed river crossing. Anywhere else apart from pro Ukrainian propaganda? Russian advances continue in the east with the aim of capturing the Donbas region. People have been told to believe that Russia’s slow progress is a sign of weakness and Ukrainian determination. imo, it is methodical progress and a sign of changed tactics. Where are the happy snaps of large amounts of destroyed Russian equipment, mounds of dead Russian soldiers & queues of dejected Russian POW’s? (hint: look in the March archives) The LPR/DPR claim to be holding 6,000+ Ukrainian POWs. Ukraine is mute on Russian POWs. I watched a week old interview of a French volunteer who fought in Sieverdonetsk. He utters one very telling sentence “I never saw a Russian soldier.”

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, astro said:

I don't think Zelensky and Putin personally committed war crimes.

Who in the chain of command ordered or tolerated it, is still subject to investigation, I believe?

The International war crimes are Documenting them now astro their job is who is committing the war crimes there not taking sides they don't take sides if Ukraine is doing it they will publish it they do not hide anything.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, vlad said:

The International war crimes are Documenting them now astro their job is who is committing the war crimes there not taking sides they don't take sides if Ukraine is doing it they will publish it they do not hide anything.

The problem with that approach is that it will lead to escalation, perhaps all the way to a nuclear war. How could any negotiated peace be achieved if it includes putting leaders of great powers in prison?

It's extremely difficult to see how this will end, even with a negotiated settlement. Ukraine is getting wrecked while the US pours fuel on the fire. The US won't step back, and neither will Russia. We should be trying to find a way out 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, astro said:

The Ukraine is neither part of the EU, nor of NATO.

France and Germany are. Further, they have no border with Russia.

Haven't you heard of the present reinforcements to NATOs Eastern borders?

Yes, just in case, same as Finland and Sweden joining NATO, just in case.

Plus, you may have forgotten, in 1939 the UK and others went to the aid of Poland, for very good reason..😋

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Shishi said:

Wrecking Ukraine: The cost of Winning the War with Geopolitics Expert John Mearsheimer.

In this interview the professor explain a wise solution and lots of truths MSM dare to air.

https://youtu.be/q4TV4_taLzE

I had a look at this and admit I had to discover what is meant by being a "Realist" as in this context it certainly was not what I expected!

I think this article can better rebut the arguments presented by this Professor than I can. I do fear the Professor has spent to much time of his last 40 years in his academic study halls rather than living and experiencing the real world situation.

https://www.dailycardinal.com/article/2022/04/john-mearsheimer-is-wrong-about-the-crisis-in-ukraine

One statement in particular highlighted a flaw in his argument.

"It seems that Mearsheimer has a fundamental double-standard in that he believes the U.S. should be considerate not to hurt Russia’s feelings whenever making a decision about Eastern Europe — but at the same time — Russia’s “Great Power” status enables them to do whatever they please within their sphere of influence."

It seems the Professor with his realism views believes Russia can do whatever they want as they are a "great power", but doesn't feel other "great powers" have rights to do the same. A curious position to hold.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Smithydog said:

I had a look at this and admit I had to discover what is meant by being a "Realist" as in this context it certainly was not what I expected!

I think this article can better rebut the arguments presented by this Professor than I can. I do fear the Professor has spent to much time of his last 40 years in his academic study halls rather than living and experiencing the real world situation.

https://www.dailycardinal.com/article/2022/04/john-mearsheimer-is-wrong-about-the-crisis-in-ukraine

One statement in particular highlighted a flaw in his argument.

"It seems that Mearsheimer has a fundamental double-standard in that he believes the U.S. should be considerate not to hurt Russia’s feelings whenever making a decision about Eastern Europe — but at the same time — Russia’s “Great Power” status enables them to do whatever they please within their sphere of influence."

It seems the Professor with his realism views believes Russia can do whatever they want as they are a "great power", but doesn't feel other "great powers" have rights to do the same. A curious position to hold.

When we listen to the interview with Professor Mearsheimer, he's already explained the following points raised by the Daily Cardinal:

Your point: It seems that Mearsheimer has a fundamental double-standard in that he believes the U.S. should be considerate not to hurt Russia’s feelings whenever making a decision about Eastern Europe — but at the same time — Russia’s “Great Power” status enables them to do whatever they please within their sphere of influence.

Professor Mearsheimer makes it clear that Ukraine is in Russia's backyard, which it is, and that the US is using NATO to "make Eastern Europe like Western Europe". He also makes the valid point that NATO was a hostile military bloc during the Cold War, so it's understandable that Russia would want a bulwark between an ever expanding NATO, now that it has the capacity to enforce this on the ground. In any case, how is it reasonable that the US's sphere of influence includes across the Atlantic past Western Europe, ever expanding eastward to include Ukraine, but Russia's sphere of influence is only allowed by the US to extend to it's western border, a few hundred kilometres from it's capital - Professor Mearsheimer uses the analogy of Canada having to move its capital to Ottawa to get it further away from the US, where its original capital (Toronto) was located.

On the subject of great powers feeling hurt, how do you think the US would feel if the Warsaw Pact had not been disbanded, and was courting Mexico as a candidate member? It's common sense. Why does NATO still exist, when the Cold War ended in 1991?

Worthy of note too is that Russia showed no hostility to an independent Ukraine until the Bush administration invited it to join NATO in 2008, and NATO membership was subsequently enshrined into Ukraine's constitution.

Daily Cardinal also makes another erroneous statement: Mearsheimer seems to conveniently forget that Poland joined NATO on March 12, 1999, without any sort of military provocation from Russia. From a land perspective, Poland is nearly as close to Russia as Ukraine. Furthermore, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are all also member states of NATO, and they directly border Russia.

Professor Mearsheimer explained that NATO expanded in three tranches - the first (which included Poland) and second tranches were undertaken when Russia was weakened following the collapse of the USSR - you may remember at that time it underwent a massive contraction, with government servants and military not getting paid. Since, as Professor Mearsheimer explained, Russia  has become powerful again and is able to act. Ukraine, as Professor Mearsheimer went on to say, is also a much more strategic asset than Poland, being on the confluence of East and West. It was the last straw that broke the camel's back - when the unrelenting eastern expansion of NATO "blew up in America's face".

I note that you also write Professor Mearsheimer off as an academic. Who do you think would be more qualified to put forward an analysis like this? The Democrat Party?

Edited by dbrenn
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dbrenn said:

When we listen to the interview with Professor Mearsheimer, he's already explained the following points raised by the Daily Cardinal:

Your point: It seems that Mearsheimer has a fundamental double-standard in that he believes the U.S. should be considerate not to hurt Russia’s feelings whenever making a decision about Eastern Europe — but at the same time — Russia’s “Great Power” status enables them to do whatever they please within their sphere of influence.

Professor Mearsheimer makes it clear that Ukraine is in Russia's backyard, which it is, and that the US is using NATO to "make Eastern Europe like Western Europe". He also makes the valid point that NATO was a hostile military bloc during the Cold War, so it's understandable that Russia would want a bulwark between an ever expanding NATO, now that it has the capacity to enforce this on the ground. In any case, how is it reasonable that the US's sphere of influence includes across the Atlantic past Western Europe, ever expanding eastward to include Ukraine, but Russia's sphere of influence is only allowed by the US to extend to it's western border, a few hundred kilometres from it's capital - Professor Mearsheimer uses the analogy of Canada having to move its capital to Ottawa to get it further away from the US, where its original capital (Toronto) was located.

On the subject of great powers feeling hurt, how do you think the US would feel if the Warsaw Pact had not been disbanded, and was courting Mexico as a candidate member? It's common sense. Why does NATO still exist, when the Cold War ended in 1991?

Worthy of note too is that Russia showed no hostility to an independent Ukraine until the Bush administration invited it to join NATO in 2008, and NATO membership was subsequently enshrined into Ukraine's constitution.

Daily Cardinal also makes another erroneous statement: Mearsheimer seems to conveniently forget that Poland joined NATO on March 12, 1999, without any sort of military provocation from Russia. From a land perspective, Poland is nearly as close to Russia as Ukraine. Furthermore, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are all also member states of NATO, and they directly border Russia.

Professor Mearsheimer explained that NATO expanded in three tranches - the first (which included Poland) and second tranches were undertaken when Russia was weakened following the collapse of the USSR - you may remember at that time it underwent a massive contraction, with government servants and military not getting paid. Since, as Professor Mearsheimer explained, Russia  has become powerful again and is able to act. Ukraine, as Professor Mearsheimer went on to say, is also a much more strategic asset than Poland, being on the confluence of East and West. It was the last straw that broke the camel's back - when the unrelenting eastern expansion of NATO "blew up in America's face".

Tell me why free countries join NATO........?

Forget quoting Joe Blogg's etc, just your own thoughts.....😊

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, dbrenn said:

When we listen to the interview with Professor Mearsheimer, he's already explained the following points raised by the Daily Cardinal:

Your point: It seems that Mearsheimer has a fundamental double-standard in that he believes the U.S. should be considerate not to hurt Russia’s feelings whenever making a decision about Eastern Europe — but at the same time — Russia’s “Great Power” status enables them to do whatever they please within their sphere of influence.

Professor Mearsheimer makes it clear that Ukraine is in Russia's backyard, which it is, and that the US is using NATO to "make Eastern Europe like Western Europe". He also makes the valid point that NATO was a hostile military bloc during the Cold War, so it's understandable that Russia would want a bulwark between an ever expanding NATO, now that it has the capacity to enforce this on the ground. In any case, how is it reasonable that the US's sphere of influence includes across the Atlantic past Western Europe, ever expanding eastward to include Ukraine, but Russia's sphere of influence is only allowed by the US to extend to it's western border, a few hundred kilometres from it's capital - Professor Mearsheimer uses the analogy of Canada having to move its capital to Ottawa to get it further away from the US, where its original capital (Toronto) was located.

On the subject of great powers feeling hurt, how do you think the US would feel if the Warsaw Pact had not been disbanded, and was courting Mexico as a candidate member? It's common sense. Why does NATO still exist, when the Cold War ended in 1991?

Worthy of note too is that Russia showed no hostility to an independent Ukraine until the Bush administration invited it to join NATO in 2008, and NATO membership was subsequently enshrined into Ukraine's constitution.

Daily Cardinal also makes another erroneous statement: Mearsheimer seems to conveniently forget that Poland joined NATO on March 12, 1999, without any sort of military provocation from Russia. From a land perspective, Poland is nearly as close to Russia as Ukraine. Furthermore, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are all also member states of NATO, and they directly border Russia.

Professor Mearsheimer explained that NATO expanded in three tranches - the first (which included Poland) and second tranches were undertaken when Russia was weakened following the collapse of the USSR - you may remember at that time it underwent a massive contraction, with government servants and military not getting paid. Since, as Professor Mearsheimer explained, Russia  has become powerful again and is able to act. Ukraine, as Professor Mearsheimer went on to say, is also a much more strategic asset than Poland, being on the confluence of East and West. It was the last straw that broke the camel's back - when the unrelenting eastern expansion of NATO "blew up in America's face".

I note that you also write Professor Mearsheimer off as an academic. Who do you think would be more qualified to put forward an analysis like this? The Democrat Party?

So what about Cuba then?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rookiescot said:

So what about Cuba then?

He's not answering, his Google and spell check have packed up.....🤓

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, palooka said:

So the Russians in Ukraine are really politely knocking on doors and asking the ladies for a good time, not looting the place etc etc.

Interesting interpretation of the news.🙃

Your words, not mine. That's just silly.

You obviously have not followed the exchange you started about France & Germany. Neither are going to be invaded.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, astro said:

Your words, not mine. That's just silly.

You obviously have not followed the exchange you started about France & Germany. Neither are going to be invaded.

Given the pathetic advances of the mighty Russian army then Lichtenstein probably fancies its chances too 😆 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, astro said:

Your words, not mine. That's just silly.

You obviously have not followed the exchange you started about France & Germany. Neither are going to be invaded.

Correct, NATO members, isn't it great......🥳

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Smithydog said:

It seems the Professor with his realism views believes Russia can do whatever they want as they are a "great power", but doesn't feel other "great powers" have rights to do the same. A curious position to hold.

The article got one thing right. 

From a realist perspective, the United States will have benefitted geopolitically from this conflict regardless of the outcome for Ukraine”

This begs the question as to when will Elenskyy realize that he is the mark at the table? Judging from his talk about refusing to move to the negotiating table it may be a while coming - another 20% of Ukraine or just access to the Black Sea? If he loses either stake his political fate is likely sealed.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Transam said:

Yes, just in case, same as Finland and Sweden joining NATO, just in case.

Plus, you may have forgotten, in 1939 the UK and others went to the aid of Poland, for very good reason..😋

What's your point?

Any relation to what I said at all, i.e. France & Germany won't get their doors kicked in by Russia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, astro said:

What's your point?

Any relation to what I said at all, i.e. France & Germany won't get their doors kicked in by Russia?

Any NATO nation will not get their doors kicked in, unless Heir Putin makes another big mistake....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Fanta said:

The article got one thing right. 

From a realist perspective, the United States will have benefitted geopolitically from this conflict regardless of the outcome for Ukraine”

This begs the question as to when will Elenskyy realize that he is the mark at the table? Judging from his talk about refusing to move to the negotiating table it may be a while coming - another 20% of Ukraine or just access to the Black Sea? If he loses either stake his political fate is likely sealed.

And if the war drags on and Putin cannot find a way to end this soon what happens to him?

He has sacked a lot of people over this war and his very rich friends have been sanctioned.

Probably not winning Eurovision is a biggie too. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

So what about Cuba then?

I presume you're referring to the Cuban Missile Crisis. That's a valid point, but it was back in 1962 at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union was a major threat to the Western world. That said, the Soviets backed down when the US made a stand by blockading Cuba with its Navy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Outsider said:

Looks to me like this thread is devolving rapidly into snide sniping already. I am happy to observe "debate" and offered opinion without the constant  demands for providing somebody else's "verifiable fact " in support of such opinion. Quite a different thing to parroting "accepted and approved" msm or partisan information. If Google search is a recommendation try looking up the definition of "debate". Have  fun children.

Yeah in the old thread you couldn't post links to nutjob sites. In this thread you can't do that either.

Somewhere, over the rainbow, way up high. There's a website for you, where conspiracy theorists lie. 

Shit I cant get that tune out of my head now.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dbrenn said:

I presume you're referring to the Cuban Missile Crisis. That's a valid point, but it was back in 1962 at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union was a major threat to the Western world. That said, the Soviets backed down when the US made a stand by blockading Cuba with its Navy.

Yes but you still quote the second world war for references so its good enough. 

So following your logic the US should have been free to invade Cuba because its in Americas back yard?

Oh and the estimable Professor Mearsheimer seems to utterly disregard WHY countries want to join NATO.

They do so out of their own free will because they want protection from Russia.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Given the pathetic advances of the mighty Russian army then Lichtenstein probably fancies its chances too 😆 

Now that you mention it Russian forces are in the center of Lysychansk so 2 weeks to mop up the remaining UAF and it’s a Russian wrap for the Luhansk oblast. Donetsk oblast is next and is already 50% under Russian control. Taking the last 50% will likely be a tough slog as it is the most heavily fortified battlefield area in Ukraine.  Hopefully that is “special military operation” complete and the Russian advance stops. Unless you believe that Ukraine with it’s 8 x HMLRS and less than 200 new artillery pieces can turn the tide. If so I have some crypto currency you might be interested in getting into while it is still in beta. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By posting on Thaiger Talk you agree to the Terms of Use