Russia invades Ukraine

They are not stupid but they may be desperate. Dollar is at stake. If they won't commit any major BS in Donbas, we'll may get over it.
 
Russia's suffered massive geo-political setbacks due to their attack on Ukraine. Whether or not it is a proxy war is irrelevant. If NATO/EU had just stood by while Russia rolled over Ukraine then we'd be morally bankrupt. Ukraine wants to fight, not because of us but because of them, and sometimes you just need to give them the tools.

There would be no war if Russia had not chosen an illegal, unjustified invasion of another country.
 
russia has lost already. just a matter of time.
 
Last edited:
LooseCannon said:
If NATO/EU had just stood by while Russia rolled over Ukraine then we'd be morally bankrupt.
Click to expand...

Morality is irrelevant in Geopolitics and you know it.
NATO /EU /US stood still when Turkey invade in Cyprus and still occupy the 40% of it, 50 years later.
When Zelensky addressed to Cyprus parliament his line was suddenly "dropped" when Cypriots started to talk about this. And this was how the event ended.
Moral what?
Turkey bombed North Iraq last week and it's in the small letters on the news. I don't go further because it should be understood that there's no morality in Geopolitics, just interest pure and simple.

LooseCannon said:
There would be no war if Russia had not chosen an illegal, unjustified invasion of another country.
Click to expand...

Sure. And I agree it was as bad as it was stupid. So what?
It's like China tries to make a defence pact with Mexico and transfer some Nuclear weapons there. US invades Mexico and all the world goes US is the aggressor. Of course it is Mexico's right to chose its partners, but myself, I won't be surprised. And surely I would not say anything about moral, illegal and all. One pokes the bear in the eye what you expect the bear will do?
To conclude I remind you Monroe doctrine is still alive. Ukraine was Russia's equivalent of that. And everybody in the know knew it. Kissinger has warned about it since 2014 in his Washington Post article.
 
____no5 said:
It's like China tries to make a defence pact with Mexico and transfer some Nuclear weapons there. US invades Mexico and all the world goes US is the aggressor. Of course it is Mexico's right to chose its partners, but myself, I won't be surprised.
Click to expand...
I think the dividing line here would be the introduction of Chinese nuclear weapons on Mexican soil. The U.S. would probably tolerate a defensive pact between the two countries if it couldn’t avoid that outcome, but China using Mexico as a proxy for locating weapons of mass destruction in a place where they’d be able to hit us much faster and more accurately would be unacceptable, just as it was with Soviet missiles in Cuba. We’d make it clear that this was untenable for us from a national security perspective; and if they plowed ahead with the plan anyway, then yes, after all diplomatic options failed, we would go take out the missle sites proactively, just as we would have warned them we would.

To be clear, I think the U.S. would go out of its way diplomatically to prevent a defensive pact between Mexico and China in the first place, and I think we’d be successful in doing that. And if the situation in Ukraine was a result of Ukraine joining NATO and having the U.S. place nuclear missiles there, I think international sentiment about the idea of Russia striking Ukraine would be significantly different, depending on how they did it (e.g. very targeted attacks against missile sites, no claiming of territory, no war crimes, etc.).

____no5 said:
To conclude I remind you Monroe doctrine is still alive. Ukraine was Russia's equivalent of that. And everybody in the know knew it. Kissinger has warned about it since 2014 in his Washington Post article.
Click to expand...
This is a valid point and Kissinger’s article is well worth reading. It doesn’t justify Putin’s actions at all, but it does provide useful context.
 
I liked a lot your post.

Jer said:
The U.S. would probably tolerate a defensive pact between the two countries if it couldn’t avoid that outcome,
Click to expand...

Above quote had an immediate & revealing impact in my thought, thanks for that. Yeap, it seems quite believable to me.
Well, US due to democracy, formidable military power and strong institutions have an elegance in their acts that rest of big powers will never have in the foreseeable future. Just to be clear, elegance not in absolute terms, there was no elegance in Iraq, but relating to other superpowers (i.e. Russia) yes even for Iraq they tried to somehow justify it in the eyes of International Community and seek for alliances.

Jer said:
but China using Mexico as a proxy for locating weapons of mass destruction in a place where they’d be able to hit us much faster and more accurately would be unacceptable,
Click to expand...

The problem is that installation of nuclear weapons in Ukraine was well in the horizon after Zelensky was elected. Probably some people inside NATO used him by giving him high hopes, because despite being elected on a peace agenda, he doubled down his rhetoric (i.e. demanding of nuclear weapons) when in power. The non compliance with Minsk Agreement II played some role too, thought not that much in my opinion as Putin would like us to believe.
Also, check this RAND report from 2019, same year that Zelensky was elected.

Food for thought: I am coming to the conclusion that Democrats are the ones who have the obsession with Russia, when Republicans are more focused in China. I even question myself if we would still have war should Republicans were at the helm.

Jer said:
This is a valid point and Kissinger’s article is well worth reading. It doesn’t justify Putin’s actions at all, but it does provide useful context.
Click to expand...

Nothing justifies an invasion to a sovereign country. Nevertheless we should read those fine lines in Geopolitics as Kissinger mentions, in order to avoid them. Not only for Ukraine, but in all cases.

EDIT: I added some text in blue to make it more clear.
 
Last edited:
LooseCannon said:
Russia's suffered massive geo-political setbacks due to their attack on Ukraine.
Click to expand...

This is true and makes US the most successful strategic player so far.
Though it can still backfire for US (i.e. rise of Yuan as Dollar alternative) in case Putin survives this. Of course if Putin is out and especially if he's replaced by a West -friendly leader, I can't think of a better scenario for the continuation of US dominance in the next decades to come. And this is what US is pursuing in my opinion.

Time will tell but maybe US should not proceed to all those hard sanctions so early, since they pushed Russia to China's arms. Should they wait with the sanctions maybe China & India were less determined and more confused. This was maybe the more logical thing to do (for their own interest) and the reason why Putin was not expecting that.

This rush to proceed to those hard sanctions plus tons of arms and intel in support that might escalate to doomsday heights show me someone who's desperate to maintain his grip on the planet. Maybe they shouldn't. They weren't to lose their dominance anytime soon. US has built a network of strong alliances after the New Deal that their foes will never manage to achieve. For one, they don't have the mentality (yet) to do so.

I keep saying to my local colleagues, economic and even military might alone, will not get you world dominance. You need allies. You need friends. Thus you need time. Plenty of it. US strategists made 40 -50 years plan ahead during Roosevelt (FDR) time. And it still pays off. What a president.
 
Last edited:
I'm more and more convinced and worried the west will push Putin too far and he'll press the button. He wont bluff for much longer if the west keep sending weapons to Ukraine. All i hear further suggestion from western politicians that think Ukraine should have more weapons and Putin should be stopped which i think will push Putin to do it.
 
I’m struggling to see any conclusion to the war that doesn’t result in more escalation. I can’t see the Ukrainians accepting any loss of territory and I can’t see Russia stopping until it’s achieved its constantly shifting goals.

And if Ukraine gets in a position where it can push back Russian forces then Russian pride might lead to something more terrible than we’ve already witnessed.

Anyway this is why I have a go bag prepared.
 
Christopher Baines said:
I'm more and more convinced and worried the west will push Putin too far and he'll press the button. He wont bluff for much longer if the west keep sending weapons to Ukraine. All i hear further suggestion from western politicians that think Ukraine should have more weapons and Putin should be stopped which i think will push Putin to do it.
Click to expand...
Letting Putin do as he pleases is not an option. Arms are needed to fight a war.
 
Christopher Baines said:
At the risk of nuclear war?
Click to expand...
We can only hope that somebody will end him before he does that. Still, the lies and threats of a manipulator should not stop us from fighting the war that needs fighting. It is unfortunate that this war is unraveling on Ukraine’s territory but we’re witnessing an important moment in time where we actually have the power to say: “Hold up, Russia, we won’t let you keep bullying your neighbors as you always have.”
 
Would the Russian people accept it if Putin started using nuclear weapons?
Sorry for the comparison, but recently the uncontrolled shaking of Putin's hands recalls Hitler, when he knew the war was lost.
 
Appeasement doesn't work. Putin's not looking to just take Ukraine. If he's allowed to take Ukraine, he goes to Moldova. And then where? Finland? Latvia? Poland?

Ukraine wants to fight Putin. They didn't want that fight in 2014 - and structurally, they weren't capable of it in 2014, either, but they spent 8 years getting ready. I see no problem with giving them weapons.
 
I mean, it's tough not to see the parallels there. Especially between Zelensky and Churchill - a charismatic leader in a challenging time, who has captivated the broader English-speaking world with his dedication, speeches, and presence, and who is rallying the larger but ostensibly neutral countries to supply him with the weapons he needs to fight a more powerful foe. If Zelensky gave a speech that ended with "give us the tools and we shall finish the job", we wouldn't be shocked.
 
The hatred and determination during this very dangerous escalation worries me. There were no valid reason why Russia would invade a NATO country or Finland. And I agree with the appeasement argument to an extent but here we have an actual NATO -Russian war with Ukrainian soldiers. Sanctions alone would be enough. Arms we gave a lot. Billions of military help already. Now it’s going too far. No single country is so important for such a high risk for all the rest. Should Russia invades in NATO territory let’s reply. We should take a step back or see how to extinguish the fire instead of fuelling it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top