Is NATO the aggressor in Ukraine?

[Kamaji]

2016--- Oliver Stone Documentary "Ukraine on Fire".  (Video)


https://youtu.be/kGQfiImnZHE

Ron Dreher, writing for the American Conservative, gave this impression: "I expected 'Ukraine On Fire' to be propaganda, and indeed it was. But that doesn't mean it is entirely a lie, ...

So, mostly a lie.  Just like those "mostly peaceful" protests.  I.e., a lie.

[Free Vulcan]

Russia is clearly in the wrong, but the West and NATO has handled all of it so badly that we practically winked, nodded, and goaded them into invading, and it's turning into a quagmire, and possibly, eventually into a nuclear one.

The waste of it all is Ukraine has significant gas reserves. Someone with vision could have avoided the present situation by developing that and cutting out dependence on Russia a long time ago. But they rather spent their time mocking Trump and flipping him the bird when he warned about it (looking at you Germany).

Now with old Klaus and the WEF pressing, any possibilities in that direction are now up in smoke.

[catfish1957]

My wish is that this  be an EU issure instead of NATO.

Then we use our tax dollars fighting our own problems here at home.

[Right_in_Virginia]

So, mostly a lie.  Just like those "mostly peaceful" protests.  I.e., a lie.

You seem to have missed Dreher's point:. "that the West has pushed Ukraine and Russia towards an escalating crisis, needs some consideration (not full endorsement) in order to understand the complexity of the situation"

We are living through a time in our history when the lies from our government are being exposed on a near daily basis.  Not only is the lie being exposed, but so, too, is the concerted effort by our government to coordinate a propaganda campaign with social and legacy media to transform the information we receive from lies to truth.  The control of information has become this regime's weapon of choice against its own citizens. ---- 

It is not possible that our government can provably lie about everything   ----  except Ukraine.

How does one ignore the nexus of corruption and the suppression of free speech, thought and information and believe the history of how we arrived at the brink of another Great War in Europe the regime is rewriting,  the stories it is telling about how the war is unfolding ----- and that all of this is in the best economic and security interests of the United States with blind loyalty?

It takes some courage to watch the video---a video from seven years ago.  Considering the times in which we are living under this regime, it is an imperative for all rational, intellectually honest adults to travel beyond the government ---- even if it leads to uncommon sources ---- for historical context and information.

We're running out of time to think ---- and question. Use it wisely.

[Hoodat]

So, mostly a lie.  Just like those "mostly peaceful" protests.  I.e., a lie.

And not the first time posted on these boards, either.

https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,462610.msg2602948.html#msg2602948

[The_Reader_David]

In answer to the question in the title:  only if you regard the victors in WW I as the aggressors in WW II.

The situation post WW III (aka the Cold War -- any sober strategic analysis will recognize that the Cold War was a world war fought in slow motion with the principals never going at it directly thanks to nuclear deterrence, and that the Berlin Airlift, Korean War, Cuban Revolution, Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam War, liberation of Grenada,... mujahadeen war against the Soviets in Afghanistan,... were actually campaigns, rather than separate wars) was analogous, though the mistreatment of no-longer Soviet Russia was not codified in a treaty as was the mistreatment of no-longer Imperial Germany.  Trampling Russian interests in the Balkans in the 1990's, NATO expansion and the "color revolutions" were the analogues of the demilitarization of the Rhineland, the creation of the Polish corridor and limits placed on the Weimar Republic's military.

Usually Hitler analogies are bad strategic analysis and merely propaganistic.  Unfortunately not in this case.  Putin's revanchism is entirely analogous to Hitler's and needs to be opposed, rather than appeased, for the same reasons.
 

[Kamaji]

In answer to the question in the title:  only if you regard the victors in WW I as the aggressors in WW II.

The situation post WW III (aka the Cold War -- any sober strategic analysis will recognize that the Cold War was a world war fought in slow motion with the principals never going at it directly thanks to nuclear deterrence, and that the Berlin Airlift, Korean War, Cuban Revolution, Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam War, liberation of Grenada,... mujahadeen war against the Soviets in Afghanistan,... were actually campaigns, rather than separate wars) was analogous, though the mistreatment of no-longer Soviet Russia was not codified in a treaty as was the mistreatment of no-longer Imperial Germany.  Trampling Russian interests in the Balkans in the 1990's, NATO expansion and the "color revolutions" were the analogues of the demilitarization of the Rhineland, the creation of the Polish corridor and limits placed on the Weimar Republic's military.

Usually Hitler analogies are bad strategic analysis and merely propaganistic.  Unfortunately not in this case.  Putin's revanchism is entirely analogous to Hitler's and needs to be opposed, rather than appeased, for the same reasons.
 

[catfish1957]

There probably has been more combat deaths per square inch in Europe than anywhere else on earth. And I don't see that changing anytime soon.

[Kamaji]

There probably has been more combat deaths per square inch in Europe than anywhere else on earth. And I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Don't know about that.  One interesting source:  https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace

[Hoodat]

My wish is that this  be an EU issure instead of NATO.

Then we use our tax dollars fighting our own problems here at home.

I think everyone can get on board with that.  Unfortunately, Russia blocked that from happening back in 2014.  Ukraine was at the verge of EU membership, but that effort was sabotaged by the Russian puppet, Yanukovych.  Putin paid off Yanukovych to reject the EU offer and keep Ukraine isolated.  When the Ukrainian people rose up to depose Yanukovych, Russia invaded.

btw, Yanukovych is still around living in Russia.  He has been one of the biggest proponents of this war against Ukraine.  He envisions himself back in office as the new Premier of the Ukraine SSR.

[unite for individuality]

In answer to the question in the title: 
only if you regard the victors in WW I as the aggressors in WW II.

The situation post WW III (aka the Cold War --
any sober strategic analysis will recognize that
the Cold War was a world war fought in slow motion
with the principals never going at it directly thanks to nuclear deterrence,
and that the Berlin Airlift, Korean War, Cuban Revolution, Cuban Missile Crisis,
Vietnam War, liberation of Grenada,... mujahadeen war against the Soviets in Afghanistan,...
were actually campaigns, rather than separate wars) was analogous,
though the mistreatment of no-longer Soviet Russia was not codified in a treaty
as was the mistreatment of no-longer Imperial Germany. 
Trampling Russian interests in the Balkans in the 1990's,
NATO expansion and the "color revolutions" were the analogues of
the demilitarization of the Rhineland, the creation of the Polish corridor
and limits placed on the Weimar Republic's military.

Usually Hitler analogies are bad strategic analysis and merely propaganistic. 
Unfortunately not in this case. 
Putin's revanchism is entirely analogous to Hitler's
and needs to be opposed, rather than appeased, for the same reasons.

To paraphrase,
"Germany was abused after losing World War I,
which goaded them into a much greater aggression later.
Likewise, Russia has been abused after losing the Cold War,
and is now responding with aggression rather like Germany did."


I would like to observe about World War I -
an entire generation of German children grew up fatherless,
because their fathers had been killed in the Great War.
The absence of fathers warped that generation in a way
that made them especially susceptible to a demogogue like Hitler.

(That explains why the leftists have been
waging a war on fatherhood in recent decades,
brainwashing children in school with feminist propaganda
that claims that all men are predators, etc.

This has trained many girls to hate men,
and reject the family as a social institution.
Single women vote Democrat by a 37 point margin.
It has also trained many boys to either become effeminate,
or to actually become the predators that they're told they're destined to be.

Many of these mentally warped children are now adult age,
and are easily swayed by the same lying leftists
who warped them to begin with.)


Getting back to our main subject -
Russia didn't lose an entire generation of fathers from the Cold War.
Russia just has a history and a culture of
the most ruthless people seizing power.

Come to think of it, most of the world is that way.
Only America has always had a tradition of civility in politics.
And that's been under severe assault
by the Democrats in recent decades.

Anyway, Russia definitely is an aggressor.
They did the invading.
But the global ruling clique is not innocent, either.
A reasonable solution would be to partition Ukraine.
Give the part that's inhabited by Russians to Russia,
let the rest be free to join NATO.

By the way, the part of Ukraine that's inhabited by Russians
has NEVER been inhabited by Ukranians!
Crimea was once inhabited by Turks,
but the Russians drove them out centuries ago.
So I don't see the Turks having any say in this.

It looks like neither side is willing to compromise.
It looks like BOTH sides want to grab ALL of Ukraine.
And it looks like the WTO/NATO wants this war to continue,
for the purpose of causing Russia to spend itself into exhaustion.
That means that Putin is not just an aggressor,
he is also a fool.

[Hoodat]

A reasonable solution would be to partition Ukraine.
Give the part that's inhabited by Russians to Russia

In other words, we should reward ethnic cleansing.

Case in point, Crimea.  Crimea has been inhabited by Tatars for centuries.  But after the 2014 invasion, Russians have moved there en masse, making Russian the predominate language.  Does this mean we should give Crimea to Russia because their plan worked?  Russians have never been friends of Tatars.

[berdie]

Well, @unite for individuality , I disagree with much of your post.

But the part I will address is your solution.

Using your logic, if Mexico invades Texas...just let it go? Alrighty then.

[unite for individuality]

Well, @unite for individuality , I disagree with much of your post.

But the part I will address is your solution.

Using your logic, if Mexico invades Texas...just let it go? Alrighty then.

For the last four or five decades, Mexico HAS been invading Texas.
We should never have allowed that.
During all that time, the politicians have promised to secure the border.
And all of them, except Trump, and few in Congress, have continuously broken that promise.
Borders matter.  Borders MUST be enforced, to prevent worse crises.

And borders need to be placed correctly.
The border with Mexico was located when the land was mostly unpopulated.
The border between Ukraine and Russia was misplaced, for political reasons.
And now Russia is exploiting that misplaced border,
trying to take ALL of Ukraine.

I've stated what I thought would be a reasonable solution.
But it looks to me like both sides don't want a reasonable solution.

About the Tatars in Crimea -
Almost every nation on Earth lives on land that it took from some other nation.
This idea of "don't invade your neighbors" is actually a pretty recent idea,
like within the last hundred years or so.
After a land has been invaded, after enough time goes by,
we have to recognize that the land now belongs to the invaders.
Otherwise, the USA would have to be given back to the Indians,
which would be completely impractical.
Even more impractical than the "reparations for slavery"
that some politicians are trying to force on us.

To sum up, I think that, in general,
the land should be governed by the people who live there.
Borders should be located to reflect the population.
And countries should enforce their borders
to keep people with foreign allegiances from moving in.

[Hoodat]

I've stated what I thought would be a reasonable solution.
But it looks to me like both sides don't want a reasonable solution.

It is reasonable advantageous for the aggressors.  It is not reasonable for those being invaded.  Russia would (temporarily) "settle" for the annexation of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and the port of Odesa.  Would you consider this to be a reasonable solution?  I am sure Mexico would consider it "reasonable" if we ceded all land from the 1848 war over to them.

[Kamaji]

It is reasonable advantageous for the aggressors.  It is not reasonable for those being invaded.  Russia would (temporarily) "settle" for the annexation of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and the port of Odesa.  Would you consider this to be a reasonable solution?  I am sure Mexico would consider it "reasonable" if we ceded all land from the 1848 war over to them.

[The_Reader_David]

The only way in which Ukraine ceding any territory to Russia as part of a peace settlement would be at all reasonable, would be if the settlement included NATO membership for the rump Ukraine.  Were that on the table, in the sense of approval by all NATO countries and agreement by Russia as part of the settlement, it would then be reasonable to cede those areas that (1) were predominantly Russian speaking before 2014, (2) in which Yanukovic's Party of the Regions won sizable majorities in both the election that made Yanukovic Prime Minister and the previous election in which his party ran second, and (3) are under Russian control at the cessation of hostilities, perhaps with some border tidying to give both sides more defensible borders.  Such a settlement should also include a voluntary (not forced) exchange of populations so that those in the cede areas who prefer to be Ukrainian, rather than Russian could be resettled in Ukraine, and those in Ukraine who would rather be Russian could be resettled in Russia.

[DB]

The only way in which Ukraine ceding any territory to Russia as part of a peace settlement would be at all reasonable, would be if the settlement included NATO membership for the rump Ukraine.  Were that on the table, in the sense of approval by all NATO countries and agreement by Russia as part of the settlement, it would then be reasonable to cede those areas that (1) were predominantly Russian speaking before 2014, (2) in which Yanukovic's Party of the Regions won sizable majorities in both the election that made Yanukovic Prime Minister and the previous election in which his party ran second, and (3) are under Russian control at the cessation of hostilities, perhaps with some border tidying to give both sides more defensible borders.  Such a settlement should also include a voluntary (not forced) exchange of populations so that those in the cede areas who prefer to be Ukrainian, rather than Russian could be resettled in Ukraine, and those in Ukraine who would rather be Russian could be resettled in Russia.

And what about the massive damage Russia has done to Ukraine and the tens of thousands murdered in their homes? Russia is way past the point of no return.

[Hoodat]

If anyone should be ceding territory, it is Russia.  Putin should have to surrender all territory west of the Don from Rostov to Russian Donetsk.

[catfish1957]

If anyone should be ceding territory, it is Russia.  Putin should have to surrender all territory west of the Don from Rostov to Russian Donetsk.

Losing Crimea as a port and an critical Black Sea outlet would be the "jewel".  Plus the deathknelt to Putin, as I am guessing he'd be diposed pretty quickly.

[Smokin Joe]

   Quote from: art.prout on January 20, 2023, 07:37:08 am
It (both Russia and NATO) is well beyond "willing"
(to draw the world into a larger war)
It is the intention.
   /Quote

Hoodat's comment appears to be intended as sarcasm,
making the point that Putin is NOT being manipulated by NATO,
but is the sole aggressor.

It looks to me like NATO and Russia BOTH deserve blame for the war.
It looks to me like BOTH of them are monsters,
each wanting to eat the other one.

In the original post, I proposed what I thought
might be a reasonable compromise.
It's really looking to me like
NEITHER side is interested in a peaceful solution.

In 2015, when Barry Soetoro, alias Barack Obama, was in office,
Russia seized Crimea.

When Trump was in office, the place stayed quiet.
(Having a reputation for being a "loose cannon"
as in, "We have no idea what sort of crazy response Trump might make!"
can deter other countries from engaging in aggression.)

Now that B.S./B.O.'s protege, Dementia Joe, is in office,
every bad actor in the world feels free to aggress all they want.

Recall the concept of detente: we stay on our respective sides of the proverbial fence and be good neighbors because we both have the ability to make anything else a bad day?

Well, after the Afghanistan debacle, Russia appears to have forgotten that.

We aren't undeniably directly involved (providing arms and training is not the same as 'boots on the ground and direct confrontation, which the USSR did during Korea and Vietnam, and the Chinese did during both wars as well).

Russia can stop the war by withdrawing from Ukraine any time they want.

As an aside, my experience is that being 'nuts' enough to be unpredictably dangerous is a greater deterrent than being billy badass.

[Smokin Joe]

The only way in which Ukraine ceding any territory to Russia as part of a peace settlement would be at all reasonable, would be if the settlement included NATO membership for the rump Ukraine.  Were that on the table, in the sense of approval by all NATO countries and agreement by Russia as part of the settlement, it would then be reasonable to cede those areas that (1) were predominantly Russian speaking before 2014, (2) in which Yanukovic's Party of the Regions won sizable majorities in both the election that made Yanukovic Prime Minister and the previous election in which his party ran second, and (3) are under Russian control at the cessation of hostilities, perhaps with some border tidying to give both sides more defensible borders.  Such a settlement should also include a voluntary (not forced) exchange of populations so that those in the cede areas who prefer to be Ukrainian, rather than Russian could be resettled in Ukraine, and those in Ukraine who would rather be Russian could be resettled in Russia.

I do not see Ukraine ceding 87% of their known oil and Gas reserves to the Russians, contained in the Donbas.

[DB]

I do not see Ukraine ceding 87% of their known oil and Gas reserves to the Russians, contained in the Donbas.

Strange coincidence that's where all the "Nazis" were isn't it...

[Kamaji]

Strange coincidence that's where all the "Nazis" were isn't it...

Very strange!

[Timber Rattler]

No.

Next question.