Russia invades Ukraine

[____no5]

Actually it’s not even secret, US had very visibly meddled in the coup. There are even leaked conversations where Victoria Nuland handpicking the next government, the famous Fuck the EU quote is from there. Here Jeffrey Sachs explains that despite all parties (Russia, US, EU, Ukraine) had agreed to a certain plan, the very next day when Nationalists did the coup, Obama immediately supported them.
Also that this was the real reason that Russians seized Crimea, out of fear that Sebastopol would end up to NATO. They hadn’t done so for 20+ years nor there were territorial issues up to that point.

Jeffrey Sachs is extremely knowledgeable and good willing individual. You should listen what he has to say to have a more rounded opinion.

I heard something interesting the other day. US -EU only talk about victory against Russia as if it were the only way.
That would mean direct NATO countries war with Russia, since there’s no way Ukraine can win alone.
And since this could lead to WWIII, we should be start thinking about a compromise, read negotiations. Nobody should want a direct confrontation with Russia.
But if they do, at least to communicate it clearly to the voters because this is where we heading if we really mean victory.

 

[Christopher Baines]

Actually it’s not even secret, US had very visibly meddled in the coup. There are even leaked conversations where Victoria Nuland handpicking the next government, the famous Fuck the EU quote is from there. Here Jeffrey Sachs explains that despite all parties (Russia, US, EU, Ukraine) had agreed to a certain plan, the very next day when Nationalists did the coup, Obama immediately supported them.
Also that this was the real reason that Russians seized Crimea, out of fear that Sebastopol would end up to NATO. They hadn’t done so for 20+ years nor there were territorial issues up to that point.

Jeffrey Sachs is extremely knowledgeable and good willing individual. You should listen what he has to say to have a more rounded opinion.

I heard something interesting the other day. US -EU only talk about victory against Russia as if it were the only way.
That would mean direct NATO countries war with Russia, since there’s no way Ukraine can win alone.
And since this could lead to WWIII, we should be start thinking about a compromise, read negotiations. Nobody should want a direct confrontation with Russia.
But if they do, at least to communicate it clearly to the voters because this is where we heading if we really mean victory.

I agree if there are no negotiations this is only going to end one way. If Russia is defeated Putin is not going to hide away in a corner or get overthrown. The only way to end this is negotiations and whether the west likes it or not that means some concessions, as it does for Putin. At the moment all thats happening is more and more Ukrainians are being killed as noone is prepared to negotiate.

 

[Perun]

Nobody should want a direct confrontation with Russia.

I'm pretty sure the Ukrainians and Georgians will be the first to agree with this!

 

[Azas]

From Wikipedia:

After reading this, there's no way I will take him seriously. Another one pro russia trumpeter.

 

[Vaenyr]

There's one individual who could put an immediate end to all of this: Vladimir Putin. Entering "negotiations" and conceding even more parts of a sovereign nation to a foreign invasor is neither a reasonable nor a moral proposition in my opinion. Instead of blaming the West for not supporting Putin, the blame should be put on Putin himself, since he's the reason for this mess in the first place.

 

[Christopher Baines]

There's one individual who could put an immediate end to all of this: Vladimir Putin. Entering "negotiations" and conceding even more parts of a sovereign nation to a foreign invasor is neither a reasonable nor a moral proposition in my opinion. Instead of blaming the West for not supporting Putin, the blame should be put on Putin himself, since he's the reason for this mess in the first place.

My point is he is never going to so all out war would be the only option if the that are the wests terms.

 

[Perun]

So we negotiate. Putin gets to expand his empire, we have peace for two years. He licks his wounds and then attacks again. And again negotiations are better than all-out war. Where do we draw the line? Why don't we just hand over all of Europe to the Kremlin right away?

 

[LooseCannon]

The big thing Putin wants isn't territory or the independence of the Donbas, he wants guarantees that Ukraine will not join NATO and the EU, because he recognizes that territory under the protection of NATO and the EU is not territory he can rapidly gain. This is why he's supported bullshit fake republics in multiple non-aligned territories, because he knows neither organization will admit a country with territorial integrity questions.

 

[____no5]

The big thing Putin wants isn't territory or the independence of the Donbas, he wants guarantees that Ukraine will not join NATO and the EU, because he recognizes that territory under the protection of NATO and the EU is not territory he can rapidly gain. This is why he's supported bullshit fake republics in multiple non-aligned territories, because he knows neither organization will admit a country with territorial integrity questions.

Good point about fake republics but as you said it is not about territory, or expanding any Empire, Ukraine in NATO is viewed as an existential thread from them something that we knew but we kept pushing anyway. Because it was not about Ukraine in the first place it was and it is about expanding and possibly breaking Russia.
In recent Swiss peace conference, Polish president Duda, openly called for Russia's break up into smaller countries as part of it's "decolonisation" weeks after Estonia PM called for something similar. This didn't just happen out of the blue. It's a line of strategic thought that goes back at least 30 years, see below, but quite possible nearly 200, since Crimean War.

In the RAND report of 2019 Ukraine's role as a tool to extend Russia is revealed. This is why nobody in ruling class US /EU /NATO talks about peace or negotiations. It was never about Ukraine and it's not about peace for the West. Brzezinski's article is from 1997, about 30 years old, almost everything he laid out, did happen.

Loading…

www.rand.org

A Geostrategy for Eurasia

Eurasia is the axial supercontinent. It is home to most of the world's politically assertive states and all the historical pretenders to global power. Accounting for 75 percent of the world's population, 60 percent of its output, and 75 percent of its energy resources, Eurasia's potential power...

www.foreignaffairs.com

So we negotiate. Putin gets to expand his empire, we have peace for two years. He licks his wounds and then attacks again. And again negotiations are better than all-out war. Where do we draw the line? Why don't we just hand over all of Europe to the Kremlin right away?

No need to draw any line. We start with a position that Ukraine may not join NATO and start discussing a new security architecture with Russia. We may fail but we tried at least. Except that if really we want peace we won't fail. But as said above it's not about Ukraine, it's a game of dominance by US and we are just dragged in it. And I can understand that politicians have invested interests or they are just too weak to resist.
But when I see you Perun and other people whom I consider bright, repeating politicians' narratives and not being at least sceptical this is what worries me the most.

 

[Perun]

But when I see you Perun and other people whom I consider bright, repeating politicians' narratives and not being at least sceptical this is what worries me the most.

I'll give that straight back to you. From my perspective, you are repeating propaganda lies from the Kremlin without questioning them one bit, and the worst thing is that you don't even seem to be aware of it.

You really don't seem to understand that it takes two to tango. In your view, it's all a matter of whether "the west" is willing to concede. Don't you see that this is setting a precedent? Today, Putin will settle for Luhansk, Donezk and Crimea. Tomorrow, he will attack Kiev again on some pretext. Then we decide it's better to stand by as he takes Ukraine to avoid a major war. And then Putin will attack Latvia or Poland. You really don't see this, do you? You really seem to think that all agency here is in Washington.

 

[Perun]

Also, @____no5, I've been debating all week whether I should reply to your recent posts, because they are drenched with lies spread by the Russian government. I know you believe they are true, that's why I'm not calling you a liar. But many of the points you think you are making are in fact lies that have been exposed many times. I'm still not sure if I should make the effort to go through them; it would take a lot of time out of my day, but I also feel guilty for leaving them unwithspoken. I'll see if I can find the time and calm after work today.

 

[____no5]

I'll give that straight back to you. From my perspective, you are repeating propaganda lies from the Kremlin without questioning them one bit, and the worst thing is that you don't even seem to be aware of it.

Ok let's start from what I've posted today. What about RAND Report & Brzezinski's article? Are they lies & propaganda too? Have you read them?

You really don't seem to understand that it takes two to tango. In your view, it's all a matter of whether "the west" is willing to concede. Don't you see that this is setting a precedent?

Yes I get that point of precedent, but let's be open to talk at least. Let's try for fucks sake. What alternatives do we got? Can't you see where our leaders are dragging us? If the only outcome we can accept is victory over Russia the cost will be too high I am afraid, even for a conventional war.

Now I don't know where you see the propaganda and lies, but please listen without prejudice for a second.

 

[Perun]

Ok let's start from what I've posted today. What about RAND Report & Brzezinski's article? Are they lies & propaganda too? Have you read them?

As I said, I'll think about replying in-depth later today. But I'll just say this: The RAND report is 354 pages long, so if you expect me to read it and form an opinion on it, this will take a while. I also know that the RAND Corporation has, let's say, not the best reputation in terms of sincerity and academic standard, so I'd take what they say with a bucket of salt - but even they say, on the page you linked to, that "Russian entities and individuals sympathetic to Putin's decision to invade Ukraine have mischaracterized this research in recent weeks". You should at least read the sites you link to!
Everything else later.

 

[____no5]

As I said, I'll think about replying in-depth later today. But I'll just say this: The RAND report is 354 pages long, so if you expect me to read it and form an opinion on it, this will take a while.

You should be aware of /read this report since the war started. And there is much respect to you when I say this.

but even they say, on the page you linked to, that "Russian entities and individuals sympathetic to Putin's decision to invade Ukraine have mischaracterized this research in recent weeks". You should at least read the sites you link to!

Yes I know that quote I was unsurprised when I saw it and frankly I don’t get the point you even mentioned it.

 

[Azas]

@Perun will invest his time, arguments and logic to debunk what No5 is saying. @____no5 will engage, will be super polite and... nothing will change. Several days later he will be spreading the same pro imperialistic nonsense. It is what it is.

He does not understand one fundamental thing. For a country to remain in a ruzzian sphere of influence is a whole different thing, than to be in sphere of influence of Europe and USA.

 

[Christopher Baines]

One maybe irrelevant question, maybe not, why has Putin left it until his 70's to do this?

 

[____no5]

That's not correct @Azas. We need to maintain the dialogue and especially when we don't agree. I want Perun to change my view if possible and I'm trying to make him think from another angle at the very least.

But even if "nothing changes", the arguments will be still there which is a good thing.

One maybe irrelevant question, maybe not, why has Putin left it until his 70's to do this?

Good question. The way I read it, he is very cautious and sometimes views confrontation as the last resort. So he went for Minsk agreements instead of attacking in 2014 -15. Or now, that he fights ultra cautiously without engaging large part of his army at all.
Another read is that he wasn't ready. Third is the stubborn nature and inability to diplomacy of Joe Biden and the fact that major players as Biden, Blinken, Nuland & Sullivan were already heavily involved with Maidan events /Ukraine since 2014 and before. As a side-note, I am certain there wouldn't be a war under Trump or Obama. Yes Obama was president in 2014, but he was smart enough to understand that Russia had the "escalatory advantage" in that region and he would have tried to come in terms in December 2021 if not earlier.
Of course, it could be a combination of all the above, plus bad consultation by hardliners in his government, who knows.

I'm curious to see what other people will say.

 

[Vaenyr]

One maybe irrelevant question, maybe not, why has Putin left it until his 70's to do this?

Take it with a mountain of salt, but there have been rumours about Putin having some kind of terminal cancer. Facing your mortality can lead you down strange roads.

I think it's impossible to tell what is actually going through Putin's mind. Delusions of grandeur? Decades of paranoia finally catching up to him? We'll probably never truly know.

 

[Azas]

As a side-note, I am certain there wouldn't be a war under Trump or Obama. Yes Obama was president in 2014, but he was smart enough to understand that Russia had the "escalatory advantage" in that region and he would have tried to come in terms in December 2021 if not earlier.

After 2014 Crimea annexation I view Obama in a negative light (he did nothing serious to punish Putin) If USA and Europe would have reacted then, today there would be no major invasion. On a large scale, appeasement does not work.

Very to the point

 

[Azas]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1810294810902688175