Russia invades Ukraine

Long, but some interesting insights from political and military officials from the U.S., U.K., and other NATO countries regarding the build-up to the invasion and the preparation of the western response.
 
What I hope for Europe is a next US president is going to be a Democrat again. Though I know of course Americans don't vote based on European interests, but anyway.
 
Well, I hate to say it, but if "these days" means since 20 January 2021, we might had no war in the first place.
Because Trump would have ended NATO like he said he would in his 2nd term and he'd let Putin usurp Ukraine without a second thought rather than stand up to Putin. Trump only knows how to beat downwards and cares nothing about his allies. Trump even cut military aid to Ukraine in his term. We would have had a Russia even further in its strife to dominate its neighbours. Trump would have granted Russia the sphere of influence it stipulated in the prelude to the war, with domination of the baltics, Finland, Sweden, Poland and so on. A world of fascism, where the strong prey upon the weak. If you think it is about anything less than fascist imperialism and that Putin was somehow provoked into this then you are far, far out there.
 
Last edited:
I don't think he would have ended NATO and I don't think Putin would have invaded. But this is my opinion and this was then. I still haven't decided what would be the less damaging option Republican or Democrat as it stands. And I never had the dilemma Republican vs Democrat for anything before. Ever.
 
You have the evidence stacked against you. Putin had already invaded Georgia, Crimea and destabilized Donbass. In 2020 he released an essay labelling Ukraine as Russian, making his intentions known much like China's claim to Taiwan. There is a lot of evidence of Russian imperialism, Trump subserviant stances and zero evidence for how Trump would have stopped a war, and definitely not without accepting any and all Russian ultimatums.
 
Last edited:
Well, I hate to say it, but if "these days" means since 20 January 2021, we might had no war in the first place.

Depends on how you define "war". Most likely Russian forces would have swept the country and butchered civilians much quicker. But if you think Biden's presidency has anything to do with the plan in and of itself, that doesn't make very much sense. You don't plan and start a war of such dimension within a single year. The decision for war was not made in February 2022 or January 2021, it was made longer ago.
 
You don't plan and start a war of such dimension within a single year. The decision for war was not made in February 2022 or January 2021, it was made longer ago.

Very good point. Evidently they were preparing for this since at least 2014 (the never ending ammo & equipment speak volumes).
Yet preparation is one thing, then you need a trigger point. No pragmatic leader wants a war, no matter the rhetoric.
I think Trump would have it handled better like some kind of review of Minsk II and/or strong assurances that Ukraine won't join NATO and that would be it.
 
This is an expression of Russian imperialism. They very clearly stated they wanted to establish a new world order with a Russian sphere of influence essentially covering eastern Europe and a return to pre-1997 NATO. They want to dominate. This is Russia trying to re-establish an empire. It is not about any NATO expansion squabble or Donbass concerns, other than NATO standing in the way of Russian invasions, coupes and takeovers. I think you try to fit the pieces into a puzzle based on what you wish to be true rather than what explicit and implicit evidence demonstrate. Putin wants/needs to expand Russian territory and here we are. Thank H for Biden and Zelenskyj. Putin has waged numerous wars and conflicts before. Not out of necessity or pragmatism but imperialism. He wants to dominate his neighbours by force and has demonstrated it time and time again.
 
Last edited:
No pragmatic leader wants a war, no matter the rhetoric.
Except, russia wants it. Always had. This is pragmatism in russia style. Judging by Your post, You are so out of touch with what russia is all about, it's not even funny. I sense strong rashism propaganda influence in your opinion. And let's not start the debate here. I live near russia, and I - Eastern Europeans - understand perfectly this evil country. I was born in USSR.
 
What you really want is imperialism, it seems.

I don't know how you reached to this conclusion.. What about peace?

And this way, he would have denied Ukraine the right to make a decision as an independent nation.

I sympathise with Ukraine. Cyprus also was invaded some decades ago and still is under occupation. I don't remember the world go crazy and in the verge of nuclear world for Cyprus and I am obviously with that. (Note that there are Leopard tanks as we speak in the soil occupied by Turkish forces.)

I would also sympathise with Mexico having the right to partner with China and allow nukes on their soil. But if this involves tens of thousands killed, prices rising up by 25% in my country and most importantly risk of a nuclear war, then no, the right of Mexico to be parter with China is not my top priority. Or Ukraine's. And I sympathise with Cypriots but not at the risk of a nuclear war.

Now if this is making me a imperialist, so be it. And provided one is not Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian or Polish, what this reckless "Russia must lose at all costs" make them?
There are many Ukraines and Taiwans in the world. And we don't even know them. Or do, but remain silent. Or even approve Leopards for the invaders, like in Cyprus. That even Zelensky when addressed to its parliament, chose not to talk about the invasion. Not to upset Erdogan I guess. And when the president of the Cypriot parliament started to talk about it, the line suddenly "broke". Come on.

So you see, I don't talk easy. There's an example in my backyard of an invasion still unsolved. And many other things in that backyard. And I would never support inserting our "rights" in the constitution if our neighbours were the greatest nuclear power. Hell, I don't support it even now that they aren't.
Is this imperialism? In my opinion this is responsibility. So don't expect me to go crazy for Ukraine's "right" to partner with US in the backyard of Russia. Let alone this being inserted in their constitution. And I wouldn't ever support our "right" for 12 miles to be put in our constitution.
 
I don't know how you reached to this conclusion..

Through your assertion that decisions concerning Ukraine's foreign relations should be made between Washington and Moscow. This means that Ukraine has no say about itself and it should be used as a chess piece between the US and Russia. This is textbook imperialism.
If Ukraine wants to join NATO, this matter should be discussed between Kiev and Brussels, not between Washington and Moscow.

What about peace?

Yeah, what about it? Suppose Trump had given Putin a guarantee that he will prevent Ukraine from joining NATO because the alternative is nuclear annihilation - what's next? Putin forcing the annexation of Ukraine? Putin forcing the Baltics to be kicked out of NATO? Putin forcing the Russian flag to be hoisted on the Reichstag once more? By this logic, any demands should be met.
We have historical precedent for this. It's called Appeasement Policy and the Munich Agreement. In 1938, the UK and Nazi Germany did exactly what you are requesting here: Negotiate over the heads of small nations for the sake of peace. One year later, Hitler had broken all the agreements reached and unleashed war nevertheless, and everyone saw it coming. We've known for years that Putin has an imperialist agenda and that he ultimately wants to annex Ukraine and other countries to Russia, just like people knew what Hitler really wanted, and in both cases, the response had been for too long that "he won't actually do this" until it was too late.

I sympathise with Ukraine. Cyprus also was invaded some decades ago and still is under occupation.

Enter the straw man. But OK, I'll play along for a moment.

I don't remember the world go crazy and in the verge of nuclear world for Cyprus and I am obviously with that.

Yeah, because Turkey didn't and doesn't have nuclear weapons of its own. Turkey was also part of NATO, as were all the countries that would have sided with Cyprus, so this made it far more complicated for all the countries involved. Last but not least, Turkey's invasion, criminal though it was, had a limited goal. It is more comparable with Russia's actions in 2014.

I would also sympathise with Mexico having the right to partner with China and allow nukes on their soil. But if this involves tens of thousands killed, prices rising up by 25% in my country and most importantly risk of a nuclear war, then no, the right of Mexico to be parter with China is not my top priority. Or Ukraine's. And I sympathise with Cypriots but not at the risk of a nuclear war.

Where is the automatism that mandates Mexico allying with China resulting in "tens of thousands killed, prices rising up by 25% in my country and most importantly risk of a nuclear war"? Why is that the necessary outcome of this hypothetical scenario?

And provided one is not Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian or Polish, what this reckless "Russia must lose at all costs" make them?

Not imperialist, because Russia is fighting a war of imperialist expansion. If I want Russia to lose, it's precisely because I don't want a new empire to emerge.

There are many Ukraines and Taiwans in the world. And we don't even know them. Or do, but remain silent.

Who's "we"? I'm quite outspoken myself. I've had numerous discussions about such conflicts with other people. Besides - so what? Why does this mean we should just let Russia have it's way with Ukraine?
That even Zelensky when addressed to its parliament, chose not to talk about the invasion. Not to upset Erdogan I guess. And when the president of the Cypriot parliament started to talk about it, the line suddenly "broke". Come on.

Because he had something different to talk about. He's not the one who can solve the Cyprus conflict right now because he fucking has Russian boots on his own soil.

So you see, I don't talk easy. There's an example in my backyard of an invasion still unsolved. And many other things in that backyard. And I would never support inserting our "rights" in the constitution if our neighbours were the greatest nuclear power. Hell, I don't support it even now that they aren't.
Is this imperialism? In my opinion this is responsibility. So don't expect me to go crazy for Ukraine's "right" to partner with US in the backyard of Russia. Let alone this being inserted in their constitution. And I wouldn't ever support our "right" for 12 miles to be put in our constitution.

I know you believe you're not "talking easy", but you're slipping a bit here. Ukraine is not Russia's backyard. It's an independent country with its own interests and rights to international relations. It's a country of 40 million people who have good reasons to want to be independent of Russia. Thinking of countries as "backyards" or "spheres of influence" is precisely imperialist thought.
 
I applaud Perun. Educated, well informed in politics, simply wise man/citizen of the world (I am no judge here, so please don't start)
N5 on other hand is a textbook ..... (whataboutist at the very least)
 
Last edited:
Through your assertion that decisions concerning Ukraine's foreign relations should be made between Washington and Moscow. This means that Ukraine has no say about itself and it should be used as a chess piece between the US and Russia. This is textbook imperialism.
If Ukraine wants to join NATO, this matter should be discussed between Kiev and Brussels, not between Washington and Moscow.

Yeah, what about it? Suppose Trump had given Putin a guarantee that he will prevent Ukraine from joining NATO because the alternative is nuclear annihilation - what's next? Putin forcing the annexation of Ukraine? Putin forcing the Baltics to be kicked out of NATO? Putin forcing the Russian flag to be hoisted on the Reichstag once more? By this logic, any demands should be met.
We have historical precedent for this. It's called Appeasement Policy and the Munich Agreement. In 1938, the UK and Nazi Germany did exactly what you are requesting here: Negotiate over the heads of small nations for the sake of peace. One year later, Hitler had broken all the agreements reached and unleashed war nevertheless, and everyone saw it coming. We've known for years that Putin has an imperialist agenda and that he ultimately wants to annex Ukraine and other countries to Russia, just like people knew what Hitler really wanted, and in both cases, the response had been for too long that "he won't actually do this" until it was too late.

Enter the straw man. But OK, I'll play along for a moment.

Yeah, because Turkey didn't and doesn't have nuclear weapons of its own. Turkey was also part of NATO, as were all the countries that would have sided with Cyprus, so this made it far more complicated for all the countries involved. Last but not least, Turkey's invasion, criminal though it was, had a limited goal. It is more comparable with Russia's actions in 2014.

Where is the automatism that mandates Mexico allying with China resulting in "tens of thousands killed, prices rising up by 25% in my country and most importantly risk of a nuclear war"? Why is that the necessary outcome of this hypothetical scenario?

Not imperialist, because Russia is fighting a war of imperialist expansion. If I want Russia to lose, it's precisely because I don't want a new empire to emerge.

Who's "we"? I'm quite outspoken myself. I've had numerous discussions about such conflicts with other people. Besides - so what? Why does this mean we should just let Russia have it's way with Ukraine?

Because he had something different to talk about. He's not the one who can solve the Cyprus conflict right now because he fucking has Russian boots on his own soil.

I know you believe you're not "talking easy", but you're slipping a bit here. Ukraine is not Russia's backyard. It's an independent country with its own interests and rights to international relations. It's a country of 40 million people who have good reasons to want to be independent of Russia. Thinking of countries as "backyards" or "spheres of influence" is precisely imperialist thought.

I'm not going to answer to you quote by quote. I laid down my thoughts in the previous post anybody can read and have their conclusions.

Just a few objections: I never applied Ukraine is not responsible for its future, on the contrary through my post I criticised how reckless this decision was, i.e. committing in a constitutional way.
Calling other names i.e. straw man, it's not a respectful way to conduct a conversation.
Regarding Turkey there were north of 7,000 killed /mia so it was not like Crimea. Nothing to say about Leopards in occupying territory against international law. And you missed my point for Turkey. Presicely because they had no nukes you'd expect the World to be more vocal. And precisely because Russians have, I'd expect West to be more careful all the way.
Also the excuse you gave for Zelensky addressing Cypriot parliament is not convincing. As mentioned the line was "broken" when the speaker of the house was addressing the invasion. And he did have the time to make parallelisms with his nazis when he addressed to the Greek house. You shouldn't try to defend him, there are no excuses for either incident.
Finally, regarding backyards, I don't agree. Mexico is the backyard of US and part of US is the backyard of Mexico, same with any neighbouring countries and I don't see anything wrong with that. I didn't use it with the way that you pointed out. And you should know it as I mentioned "backyard" other times and with obvious geographical meaning.

N5 on other hand is a textbook ..... (whataboutist at the very least)

You are entitled in your opinion, but I think you're wrong. I gave examples that involve my own country. I pointed out how reckless the decision to commit entering NATO in their constitution was and said that I wouldn't support such a thing in our lawful right to 12 miles or something similar even if our neighbour is not a nuclear power. This is not textbook sorry.
 
I'm not going to answer to you quote by quote. I laid down my thoughts in the previous post anybody can read and have their conclusions

Well, this is too bad, because this way you can easily avoid addressing a lot of arguments I made. And indeed, you just ignored (in the sense of not responding to) what I consider the key arguments in this whole thing. You didn't answer to my arguments about appeasement policy and only very fleetingly to my core and main argument that Ukraine is an independent nation whose fate should not be decided on by other countries. You have not answered to my question why Mexico allying with China would result in the situation you described. It is impossible for me to follow your conclusions, I seriously don't know why you think half the things you think and say half the things you say, and when I ask, you refuse to answer.
I'm sorry that I feel the urge to address every argument, but this is a topic where so much misinformation is floating around that I don't see any other way than to pinpoint and address individal points. If not for the sake of convincing you, then at least for the sake of providing the full story to any potential reader of this exchange.

I never applied Ukraine is not responsible for its future, on the contrary through my post I criticised how reckless this decision was, i.e. committing in a constitutional way.

But you argued that the decision of war and peace depended on who is currently president of the US. You've been told by others that this is not the case, and the reasons why we think so. You didn't address these, and instead suggested the culprits are in Kiev and Washington. And this is not true. At every single step along the way, Russia had the option not to invade Ukraine. Even now, it is their choice to withdraw troops and cease the fighting.
Ukraine is simply responding to the Russian threat. The Russian threat exists because Ukraine exists, because Putin can't stand the fact that Ukraine exists and wants to change this. What is Ukraine supposed to do? Just sit there and hope it will turn out alright? The constitutional amendment you find so objectionable was signed in 2019, when Russian troops had already occupied and annexed parts of Ukraine and the country had every reason to believe that without integrating itself into international alliances, the whole country is threatened by Russia. The Russian invasion proved Ukraine's fears right. If the constitutional amendment was the trigger for Russia's aggression (it wasn't, Russia's aggression goes back to 2014), Ukraine was right because that means any act of independent foreign policy would have triggered Russia. If the amendment wasn't the trigger, that means Ukraine was always under threat of Russian invasion. Either way, Ukraine had to act to preserve its independence as a nation and the safety of its people. That is not reckless, it's the exact opposite of recklessness. If your neighbour will attack you for your attempt to guarantee your own security, your neighbour is the problem.

Calling other names i.e. straw man, it's not a respectful way to conduct a conversation.

I didn't call you a straw man, I pointed out that you used a straw man argument, which you did.

Regarding Turkey there were north of 7,000 killed /mia so it was not like Crimea.

I'm not playing the numbers game. It makes no difference for the dead people how many they were or not. Every dead person is one too many, in Cyprus, in Crimea, anywhere and everywhere.

Nothing to say about Leopards in occupying territory against international law.

This has nothing to do with Ukraine or Russia. We can open a Cyprus thread if you want to discuss this, and I will probably agree with you on a lot of points. The Turkish occupation of North Cyprus was criminal and is a wrong that has never been righted in many ways, but it has nothing to do with Russia and Ukraine.

Presicely because they had no nukes you'd expect the World to be more vocal. And precisely because Russians have, I'd expect West to be more careful all the way.

It was wrong back then to let Turkey blackmail its allies into accepting its aggression, and it is wrong now for Russia to blackmail the world into accepting its aggression. Just because the response was wrong in 1974 doesn't mean it should be wrong now.

Also the excuse you gave for Zelensky addressing Cypriot parliament is not convincing. As mentioned the line was "broken" when the speaker of the house was addressing the invasion. And he did have the time to make parallelisms with his nazis when he addressed to the Greek house. You shouldn't try to defend him, there are no excuses for either incident.

I'll tell you something, since you first mentioned this only in a stream-of-consciousness style, I didn't really know what you were referring to with "And when the president of the Cypriot parliament started to talk about it, the line suddenly "broke". Come on." - I had to read up on this. So I admit that when first replying to this, I had misunderstood you and should have asked what exactly you meant.
Having read up on this now, I don't know if the interruption of the live stream was deliberate or not, and frankly, I don't care. There will be missteps by the defending side. I don't know why Zelensky would want to avoid talking about the Turkish invasion of Cyprus when talking to people of Cyprus. Maybe indeed to avoid angering Erdogan, because it seems like he's deciding anew every day which side he's on. I don't know. But this is not and cannot be an argument against supporting Ukraine. The people holding out in bomb shelters in Ukrainian cities should not be held hostage to the diplomatic mistakes of their president. If this is what our support depends on, shame on us.

Finally, regarding backyards, I don't agree. Mexico is the backyard of US and part of US is the backyard of Mexico, same with any neighbouring countries and I don't see anything wrong with that. I didn't use it with the way that you pointed out. And you should know it as I mentioned "backyard" other times and with obvious geographical meaning.

No, I'm sorry, when talking about "backyards" in a geopolitical sense, we're talking about what major powers consider their sphere of influence. That's not my guess or approximation, but established terminology. This is the way any political analyst understands and uses the term; if you want to use it differently, don't expect me or anyone else to know that you are deviating from the common use of the term.
And I maintain my point: Russia has no right to decide how Ukraine shapes its international relations, just as the US have no right to decide how Mexico shapes its international relations. If they claim this right, they are behaving as imperialists. Which is my point.
 
Where is the automatism that mandates Mexico allying with China resulting in "tens of thousands killed, prices rising up by 25% in my country and most importantly risk of a nuclear war"? Why is that the necessary outcome of this hypothetical scenario?
The first part is suspect, but the other two parts are pretty much guaranteed. We already know what happened when Russia put nukes in Cuba, and if China put nukes in Mexico there’s no way the U.S. would stand for it. We would sanction the shit out of China and Mexico, and if the missiles weren’t removed we would hit the sites militarily to remove them. If China chose to launch anything before we took them all out, then hello nuclear winter.

In this scenario it’s an unacceptable provocation for an adversarial power to introduce weapons of mass destruction into a nearby country with the implicit threat that they will be used against you. I’m less clear on how this applies to the Ukraine situation, since my understanding is that they agreed to forfeit their nukes in exchange for their independence in the first place, and no one was talking about reintroducing nukes there.
 
@Perun, it’s late here, I must go to bed, just on the conclusion.

Russia has no right to decide how Ukraine shapes its international relations, just as the US have no right to decide how Mexico shapes its international relations.

We basically agree in the main point. The difference is that you treat the right of each country to decide its future as nearly sacred whereas I take a pragmatic approach. This is why I brought the examples of Greece and Cyprus to show that even for my interests I wouldn’t go that far in the name of those rights to provoke Cassius Beli with my neighbor, let alone a major nuclear power.

Sure everyone has the right to poke the bear but I’m talking about consequences here. And I expect responsibility from each country. A nuclear war will affect us all, so must be careful no matter our rights (enter the example of 12 miles etc)
This is why I judge Ukraine’s behavior to constitutionally commit to joining NATO as reckless and therefore I rather support a different approach i.e. negotiations than full escalation.
 
Back
Top