The Briefing Room
Exclusive Content => Editorials => Topic started by: unite for individuality on October 11, 2022, 07:50:22 pm
-
I posted an article on this forum about Ukraine on December 13, 2016,
but the forum archive goes back only to July 1, 2017.
So here is my original post again,
followed by my current comments:
+++++++++++++ ORIGINAL POST +++++++++++++
The media has been caterwauling about Ukraine for several years now,
and has yet to tell us anything meaningful about the situation.
To understand any country,
first you have to start by looking at some maps.
Here's a map showing the borders of Ukraine through history:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Simplified_historical_map_of_Ukrainian_borders_1654-2014.jpg)
Notice, a large part of the country was added to it
AFTER it was conquered by the Soviet Union!
There's a reason for that.
The Soviets drew the borders to include millions of
Russian people and Russian-speaking Ukrainians
to make sure that Russian interests would win
whenever the Soviets conduct their sham elections.
This map shows where the ethnic Russians
and Russian-speaking Ukrainians live:
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/ukraine/images/map-ethno-linguistic.jpg)
Notice how strongly the election results (below)
correlate to the ethnic makeup of the country:
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/ukraine/images/map-election-2012-district.jpg)
This map is at least as important as the historic and ethnic maps.
It shows the routes of the pipelines through which Russia
sells petroleum to Europe.
(http://www.geocurrents.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Ukraine-pipelines-map.png)
When the Soviet Union disbanded in 1991,
there was the question of who would control the nuclear weapons
the Soviets had based in Ukraine.
The decision was made that the nukes would be given to Russia,
and in exchange for that,
the USA pledged to come to Ukraine's defense in case of attack.
Then the pipelines were built,
and Ukraine's strategic value increased.
Since 1991, Ukraine has been teetering between
alignment with Europe or with Russia.
A few years ago, Ukraine elected a pro-Russia president.
George Soros was very displeased by this,
so he sent some henchmen to assassinate their President
and conduct a coup.
So, in response, Russia invaded eastern Ukraine.
And we all witnessed the "robust response" by Obama,
in spite of the standing agreement to come to Ukraine's defense.
(George Soros must be awfully disappointed at
having such a wimpy puppet!)
I suggest the following solution:
Let Russia annex the eastern and southern parts of Ukraine,
and let the rest of Ukraine join NATO.
Establish a joint security force to protect the pipelines.
It seems to me that that solution would be
the most fair arrangement possible for all sides.
If Russia rejects it, that is a signal that
Vladimir Putin wants to conquer all of Ukraine.
If Europe rejects it, that is a signal that
George Soros wants to conquer all of Ukraine.
How much of the above information
has been reported by the "mainstream" media?
If you're wondering why not, consider:
the MSM is owned mostly by George Soros and his cronies.
That's why the MSM always reports the situation as
being a case of "Russian aggression"
and never reports the aggression by Soros' henchmen
as being the REAL cause of the ongoing crisis.
And now Donald Trump wants to appoint the President of Exxon
to be Secretary of State.
Do you think the President of Exxon would like to have a peaceful Ukraine
through which to buy Russian oil?
And do you think Mr Putin would like to have a peaceful Ukraine
through which to sell Russian oil?
Donald Trump might be the best thing that ever happened
to help bring about world peace!
+++++++++++++ CURRENT COMMENTS +++++++++++++
Is NATO the aggressor in Ukraine?
It's pretty universally accepted that Vladimir Putin is quite ruthless.
But that's no guarantee that his victims are blameless either.
Sometimes, BOTH sides in a conflict are monsters!
It's pretty hard for Russia to justify their actions when they're the one doing the invading.
But there are reports that the reason Putin is invading Ukraine is,
NATO is planning to place IRBMs (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles)
in Ukraine, just 300 miles from Moscow.
Russia could legitimately see that as a very serious strategic threat.
We should also remember that, to a large extent,
NATO is run by George Soros.
If there is anyone on Earth possibly more ruthless than Vladimir Putin,
it would be George Soros.
I previously wrote about Ukraine, proposing that the country be partitioned.
The ethnic Russian part can be given to Russia,
and the ethnic Ukrainian part can be independent,
and join NATO if they choose.
I wish to add to my proposal that
ballistic missiles not be based in Ukraine,
and Russian inspectors be allowed to tour the country
to verify that the agreement is being followed.
-
Very informative, well written post. I enjoyed reading it.
Boundary changes in countries have gone on for centuries in every part of the world...for whatever reason. Consider the boundaries in the US.
The US agreed to supply aid if Ukraine was ever invaded after relinquishing nukes. Seems to be the case in today's time.
The placement of ballistic missiles as an excuse for invasion by Russia seems to be insincere. Ballistic missiles in today's world can travel far further than 300 miles, can they not?
The crux of this appears to me to be about oil acquisition and transportation. The NWO, and by association, Soros is opposed by the alliance of Russia, China, Iran, Saudia Arabia, et al. How can we pick that poison?
I can't agree with your solution. If Russia decided to, and was allowed to, build their pipelines in another country and then decided that it was a bad idea...too damn bad. It equates to many poor decisions. Sort of like the US building refineries, etc. in Venezuela. There is no reason for Ukraine to give up territory or allow "inspectors". I will say that I have little trust for Russia, Ukraine or the media on either side.
Like I said. you are a very good writer that conveys your thoughts well. I, sadly, am not. If I wrote a book about the Titanic...it would say...the ship sank. :laugh:
-
Is there any NATO culpability for the current war in Ukraine?
Before answering that, let me suggest an analogous question: was the treatment of Germany at Versailles after WWI to blame for the German seizure of Czechoslovakia and subsequent invasion of Poland?
The answer to both questions is "yes" in equal measure. Unfortunately, the fact that the answer to the first is "yes" is as irrelevant to the policy questions facing the US and NATO as the fact that the answer to the first question was "yes" was to policy makers in London and Paris in late 1939.
The trampling of Russian interests in the Balkans under Clinton, together with NATO expansion and the fomenting of "color revolutions" to replace pro-Russian governments with pro-Western government were this century's analogue of the demilitarization the Rhineland, limits on the size and capabilities of the German army, and reparations requirements imposed at Versailles. Neither should have been done, but that doesn't somehow mean it wasn't necessary to fight Hitler and isn't necessary to fight Putin.
-
The placement of ballistic missiles as an excuse for invasion by Russia seems to be insincere. Ballistic missiles in today's world can travel far further than 300 miles, can they not?
For several decades, Moscow has been protected by an anti ballistic missile system.
It appears that this system is not able to respond quickly enough
to stop a missile launched from just 300 miles.
So, Russia does have reason to feel threatened.
I don't want to give Russia a complete pass.
Several years ago, Russia installed a puppet government in Belarus.
Upon further reflection, I'm thinking that Russia tried to do the same in Ukraine.
When that failed, Russia then decided to invade.
I tend to think that, if Donald Trump was still in office,
he would have negotiated a reasonable settlement,
something like what I proposed in the original post.
But with NATO in the hands of puppets of people like George Soros,
who are willing to spend millions of lives to increase their own power,
it looks to me like both sides are totally willing to drag us all into a larger war.
20th Century -- "I killed over a hundred million people in wars, and even larger numbers in purges!"
21st Century -- "Hold my latte."
-
Here's a comment I posted over in
World News »
The CIA Thought Putin Would Quickly Conquer Ukraine. Why Did They Get It So Wrong?
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,482029.0.html
It's also relevant here, so here it is:
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,482029.msg2722232.html#msg2722232
Re: The CIA Thought Putin Would Quickly Conquer Ukraine. Why Did They Get It So Wrong?
« Reply #10 on: Today at 01:21:29 pm »
unite for individuality
From the start of this war, I figured that
Ukraine was fighting so fiercely because
they remembered the Holodomor.
In the 1930s, the Soviet Union
went into every home in Ukraine and took all the food,
intentionally starving to death several million people.
You can be sure that the survivors of this atrocity
told their children and grandchildren,
so that the knowledge of this
would be as fresh today as it was 90 years ago.
Every single Ukranian knows that surrender means death -
a very long, drawn out, painful death.
Every single Ukranian does not hesitate even slightly
to fight the Russians in the most daring ways possible
because they know that dying in battle is A LOT less painful
than what would happen to them if the Russians win.
-
Several years ago, Russia installed a puppet government in Belarus.
Upon further reflection, I'm thinking that Russia tried to do the same in Ukraine.
When that failed, Russia then decided to invade.
That is exactly what happened. Ukraine ousted the Russian puppet, after which Russian troops entered Ukraine.
-
Here's a comment I posted over in
World News »
The CIA Thought Putin Would Quickly Conquer Ukraine. Why Did They Get It So Wrong?
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,482029.0.html
It's also relevant here, so here it is:
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,482029.msg2722232.html#msg2722232
Re: The CIA Thought Putin Would Quickly Conquer Ukraine. Why Did They Get It So Wrong?
« Reply #10 on: Today at 01:21:29 pm »
unite for individuality
From the start of this war, I figured that
Ukraine was fighting so fiercely because
they remembered the Holodomor.
In the 1930s, the Soviet Union
went into every home in Ukraine and took all the food,
intentionally starving to death several million people.
You can be sure that the survivors of this atrocity
told their children and grandchildren,
so that the knowledge of this
would be as fresh today as it was 90 years ago.
Every single Ukranian knows that surrender means death -
a very long, drawn out, painful death.
Every single Ukranian does not hesitate even slightly
to fight the Russians in the most daring ways possible
because they know that dying in battle is A LOT less painful
than what would happen to them if the Russians win.
I, too have mentioned the Holodomor as reason for the Ukrainians fighting so hard, simply because that genocide reduced some of the survivors to eating their dead. No one likes to mention it, but starving people will survive whether it is a plane crash in the Andes or sitting on a cleaned out farm, where even the seed grain has been stolen at gunpoint.
Forget? Never.
Fight? Like never before.
-
NATO is at fault for Russia becoming an Authoritarian nightmare:
I recommend reading Helen Andrews book about the boomers: https://www.amazon.com/Boomers-Promised-Freedom-Delivered-Disaster/dp/0593086759
Basically, Jeffrey Sachs screwed over Russia after we won the Cold War. Sachs was a deep stater leftist, and left a trail of bodies behind him from Moscow to Kyiv. Without Sachs "kicking the Russians while they were down" in the 90s, it is arguable Putin would not have risen, and we would not have a war in Ukraine today.
The Deep State caused this war.
-
I suggest the following solution:
Let Russia annex the eastern and southern parts of Ukraine,
and let the rest of Ukraine join NATO.
Establish a joint security force to protect the pipelines.
It seems to me that that solution would be
the most fair arrangement possible for all sides.
Most fair? I suggest that Russia get the hell out of Ukraine and stop launching missiles and artillery shells at Ukrainian civilians. And if they don't like Ukraine's borders, then they should blame themselves for drawing them. They should have to live with their decision.
-
For several decades, Moscow has been protected by an anti ballistic missile system.
It appears that this system is not able to respond quickly enough
to stop a missile launched from just 300 miles.
So, Russia does have reason to feel threatened.
I don't want to give Russia a complete pass.
Several years ago, Russia installed a puppet government in Belarus.
Upon further reflection, I'm thinking that Russia tried to do the same in Ukraine.
When that failed, Russia then decided to invade.
I tend to think that, if Donald Trump was still in office,
he would have negotiated a reasonable settlement,
something like what I proposed in the original post.
But with NATO in the hands of puppets of people like George Soros,
who are willing to spend millions of lives to increase their own power,
it looks to me like both sides are totally willing to drag us all into a larger war.
20th Century -- "I killed over a hundred million people in wars, and even larger numbers in purges!"
21st Century -- "Hold my latte."
It is well beyond "willing"
It is the intention.
-
Most fair? I suggest that Russia get the hell out of Ukraine and stop launching missiles and artillery shells at Ukrainian civilians. And if they don't like Ukraine's borders, then they should blame themselves for drawing them. They should have to live with their decision.
:thumbsup:
-
It is well beyond "willing"
It is the intention.
:thumbsup:
Since the invasion of Ukraine our government from the top down has repeatedly called for a regime change in Russia, even calling for the assassination of its head of state.
Our government has pledged unlimited support in time, money, more and more advanced military hardware and the opposition leader in the Senate has declared this war to be the most important issue in the United States today.
We have directly countered, not on behalf of NATO, Russian threats with our own specific to nuclear weapons.
We refuse to disavow using NATO as a threat on behalf of a non-member ---- turning NATO from a defensive alliance into an offensive one.
We support the expansion of NATO with the admission of Sweden and Finland -- further boxing in Russia (poke, poke, poke).
We have "advisors" on the ground in Ukraine and US troops placed around Ukraine's borders ----- ready and, apparently, willing to cross them.
We refuse any attempt at negotiations, choosing instead to give a hero's welcome to a man beating the drums of war in a public forum before the most powerful political body in the world.
Our government is pleased with this war and has made it quite clear we intend to continue it.
-
It is well beyond "willing"
It is the intention.
Clearly, Putin is taking marching orders from Brussels. Which NATO commander do you think ordered the attack last year?
-
Clearly, Putin is taking marching orders from Brussels. Which NATO commander do you think ordered the attack last year?
:mauslaff:
-
Since the invasion of Ukraine our government from the top down has repeatedly called for a regime change in Russia, even calling for the assassination of its head of state.
This has zero connection with Russia's decision to invade and their continuation of this war.
Our government has pledged unlimited support in time, money, more and more advanced military hardware and the opposition leader in the Senate has declared this war to be the most important issue in the United States today.
This has zero connection with Russia's decision to invade and their purposeful continuation of this war.
We have directly countered, not on behalf of NATO, Russian threats with our own specific to nuclear weapons.
This has zero connection with Russia's decision to invade and their purposeful continuation of this war.
We refuse to disavow using NATO as a threat on behalf of a non-member ---- turning NATO from a defensive alliance into an offensive one.
This has zero connection with Russia's decision to invade and their purposeful continuation of this war.
We support the expansion of NATO with the admission of Sweden and Finland -- further boxing in Russia (poke, poke, poke).
This wouldn't have happened had Russia not invaded Ukraine. Russia is the one guilty of the poking.
We have "advisors" on the ground in Ukraine and US troops placed around Ukraine's borders ----- ready and, apparently, willing to cross them.
This has zero connection with Russia's decision to invade and their purposeful continuation of this war.
We refuse any attempt at negotiations, choosing instead to give a hero's welcome to a man beating the drums of war in a public forum before the most powerful political body in the world.
Ukraine is not ours to negotiate away. And none of this has any connection with Russia's decision to invade and their purposeful continuation of this war.
Our government is pleased with this war and has made it quite clear we intend to continue it.
This has zero connection with Russia's decision to invade and their purposeful continuation of this war.
-
“Your fight is our fight, 2017 will be the year of OFFENSE". (Video)
https://rumble.com/embed/vtyxeb/?pub=4
"Brutus in Russia?" (Video)
https://youtu.be/23D0w6sO36k
"Graham speaking in Kyiv: "If Putin gets away with this, there goes Taiwan. If Putin's successful in Ukraine and isn't prosecuted under international law, everything we've said since WWII becomes a joke. He will continue beyond Ukraine." (Video)
https://mobile.twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1616474706349015040
-
Disclose.tv
@disclosetv
JUST IN - Allies to provide "heavier weapons" to Ukraine, says NATO chief Stoltenberg at Klaus Schwab's World Economic Forum.
12:27 PM · Jan 18, 2023
-
Disclose.tv
@disclosetv
Henry Kissinger, Klaus Schwab's mentor, told the World Economic Forum today that Ukraine should join NATO.
1:47 PM · Jan 17, 2023
-
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
Clearly, Putin is taking marching orders from Brussels.
Which NATO commander do you think ordered the attack last year?
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.
-
"Jeffrey Sachs: US government "definitely contributed to the overthrow of Yanukovych... I know this from inside, not just from outside. I know from top people involved in these issues." Media & self-proclaimed supporters of Ukraine would be silent.". (Video)
https://mobile.twitter.com/I_Katchanovski/status/1617369041223442433
https://youtu.be/C1EwmYbK7QA
-
"Jeffrey Sachs:
US government "definitely contributed to the overthrow of Yanukovych...
I know this from inside, not just from outside.
I know from top people involved in these issues."
This is a good example of how closely linked the global ruling clique is with academia.
Jeffrey Sachs (not part of Goldman Sachs) is an economist at Columbia U.
who has been hired as a consultant by several countries around the world.
In the above post, he boasts that he personally knows the people who
overthrew the pro-Russian government in Ukraine,
which prompted Putin to invade the country.
Do not ever think that the war in Ukraine is between
the pro-democracy West and the Russian oligarchy.
It is actually a war between
the global ruling clique (the European oligarchy)
and the Russian oligarchy.
NATO can be most accurately described as
the military arm of the World Trade Organization.
The fact revealed by Jeffrey Sachs that
the U.S. government was involved in the overthrow Ukraine's government
reveals that the U.S. government, the D.C. swamp,
is a COLONY of the WTO's global empire!
More about Jeffrey Sachs -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs
-
In the above post, he boasts that he personally knows the people who
overthrew the pro-Russian government in Ukraine,
which prompted Putin to invade the country.
Just want to be clear about what happened. Russia invaded Ukraine. It is their war. They started it. They alone are the aggressors. And they can end it whenever they choose.
-
Just want to be clear about what happened. Russia invaded Ukraine. It is their war. They started it.
Angelo Fazio
@TheLoFaz
How can so many stand for the planet, healthcare and humanity and at the same time advocate for WW3?
I get the “he started it” argument (I have a 6 year old), not grounds to fan the flames of mass destruction.
Pick one, either you want to save the world or destroy it.
9:39 AM · Jan 26, 2023
-
Angelo Fazio
@TheLoFaz
How can so many stand for the planet, healthcare and humanity and at the same time advocate for WW3?
I get the “he started it” argument (I have a 6 year old), not grounds to fan the flames of mass destruction.
Pick one, either you want to save the world or destroy it.
9:39 AM · Jan 26, 2023
:mauslaff:
-
2016--- Oliver Stone Documentary "Ukraine on Fire". (Video)
The film premiered at the Taormina Film Festival in Italy on 16 June 2016; thereafter, it did not receive a general theatrical release but was published as DVD on 18 July 2017. Later, the documentary became available also in the video on demand market via Apple TV and Amazon Prime and since June 2021 also on YouTube.
In March 2022, it was reported that the documentary had been removed from YouTube and Vimeo. YouTube explained they "removed this video for violating our violent or graphic content policy, which prohibits content containing footage of corpses with massive injuries, such as severed limbs"; subsequently, the film was uploaded to Rumble for free viewing. As of 12 March 2022, the documentary was again available on YouTube, this time with a content warning attached.
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, and in any case, it's important to know how the other side regards a conflict, if only to understand how they are likely thinking." He confirmed that some NGO are in the political change business as seen personally observed in Hungary and argues against a black hat vs. white hat interpretation of the situation. According to his assessment, the argument by Mearsheimer and Kennan, 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.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_on_Fire
https://youtu.be/kGQfiImnZHE
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
:thumbsup:
-
:thumbsup:
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:thumbsup:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
Strange coincidence that's where all the "Nazis" were isn't it...
Very strange!
-
No.
Next question.
-
Strange coincidence that's where all the "Nazis" were isn't it...
Russian-speaking nazis at that.
-
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.
That is another issue that would need to be resolved in in a peace treaty. I merely pointed to what I regard as the only circumstance in which Ukraine ceding territory as part of a peace treaty would make sense.
-
We've been itching for this war for a long time....
Michael Tracey
@mtracey
In October 2005, Donald Rumsfeld attended a meeting in Lithuania with the Defense Minister of Ukraine and vowed US support for Ukraine joining NATO. Take a wild guess who he was accompanied by. You'll never believe it. That's right, Victoria Nuland
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpwHpcWWYAMosz-?format=jpg&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpwHrS8X0AQxYF4?format=jpg&name=small)
1:26 PM · Feb 24, 2023
-
Michael Tracey
@mtracey
Leaving aside the substantive question of whether the war was "unprovoked" or not, it's enormously creepy that they're all using the exact same word as though it was programmed directly into their brains
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpyK-zYXgAMWUNq?format=jpg&name=360x360).
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpyLAVeXwAAI3OE?format=jpg&name=360x360)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpyLCC0WcAAflYL?format=jpg&name=360x360).
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpyLZ68WIAA548Q?format=jpg&name=360x360)
11:02 PM · Feb 24, 2023
-
Michael Tracey
@mtracey
Leaving aside the substantive question of whether the war was "unprovoked" or not, it's enormously creepy that they're all using the exact same word as though it was programmed directly into their brains
The reason they all call it an unprovoked attack is because it was an unprovoked attack.
-
Michael Tracey
@mtracey
In October 2005, Donald Rumsfeld attended a [NATO] meeting in Lithuania with the Defense Minister of Ukraine and vowed US support for Ukraine joining NATO. Take a wild guess who he was accompanied by. You'll never believe it. That's right, . . .
. . . The US Ambassador to NATO.
We've been itching for this war for a long time....
There is zero connection between your claim and that 2005 meeting. Clearly, critical thought is not your strong suit.
-
We've been itching for this war for a long time....
Nonsense. The context of that meeting was the Global War on Terror, and bringing in Ukrainian troops to support U.S. troops in Iraq, with the potential reward of joining NATO (which didn't happen unfortunately).
Ukrainians complete mission in Iraq,
By Sgt. Rodney FolienteDecember 11, 2008
https://www.army.mil/article/15056/ukrainians_complete_mission_in_iraq
The Ukrainian Army hosted an end of mission ceremony at Camp Echo in Central Iraq, Dec. 9.
More than 5,000 Ukrainian troops have served in Iraq during Ukraine's five years of service in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
"Enduring peace, stability and prosperity are common values to fight for in the modern world. Your mission in Iraq has been successfully completed," said Viktor Nedopas, Charge d'Affairs of the Ukrainian Embassy in Iraq.
The Ukrainians served as the third-largest Coalition forces contingent in Iraq, with about 1,700 soldiers from 2003-2005.
-
Nigel Farage: "Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is totally abhorrent, but it was also entirely predictable. I warned in 2014 that EU and NATO expansion would lead to war." (Video)
https://mobile.twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1629078271186055169
-
Nigel Farage: "Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is totally abhorrent, but it was also entirely predictable. I warned in 2014 that EU and NATO expansion would lead to war." (Video)
In 2014, EU and NATO expansion was thwarted. Yet Russia chose to invade anyway. Go figure.
-
"❗️Biden's speech at the Atlantic Council. 1997
"- And then the Russians tell me: "If you continue to expand NATO, we will make friends with China. Laughed and replied "good luck to you guys. If it doesn't work out with China, try Iran” (Video)
https://mobile.twitter.com/DagnyTaggart963/status/1629524540953862144
-
[spam]
"❗️Biden's speech at the Atlantic Council. 1997
"- And then the Russians tell me: "If you continue to expand NATO, we will make friends with China. Laughed and replied "good luck to you guys. If it doesn't work out with China, try Iran” (Video)
LOL !!! You're relying on something lying-ass Joe Biden said? This is your argument?
Let's have a look at that, shall we?
1997 - Joe Biden says something stupid
1999 - The Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary join NATO.
2004 - Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Bulgaria join NATO.
2009 - Croatia and Albania join NATO.
2017 - Montenegro joins NATO.
2020 - North Macedonia joins NATO.
2023 - Someone posts words here about Russia's relations with China that came from Joe Biden 26 years ago as if they had any relevance at all to Russia aggressively invading Ukraine for their oil, gas, manufacturing, resources, and ports.
This argument was asinine on the other thread (https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,492620.msg2789422.html#msg2789422), and it is just as asinine here as well.
-
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.
@catfish1957
Over the centuries,China is the all-time "murder king".
And I don't see that changing. They are,and always have been a murderous police state,so that is all they know.
-
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.
@berdie "IF"????????
-
"Why would Putin be concerned?" (About NATO). (VIDEO)
https://mobile.twitter.com/amuse/status/1629667722282901506
-
"Why would Putin be concerned?" (About NATO). (VIDEO)
https://mobile.twitter.com/amuse/status/1629667722282901506
What country or people has NATO taken by force in its 70 year history.
Now do the same for Russia.
Get a freaking clue!
-
DC_Draino
@DC_Draino
This right here is what it was always about
NATO getting a foothold right on Russia’s border despite previously promising to not do so
This dangerous provocation may spark WW3
Disclose.tv
@disclosetv
·3h
NEW - NATO chief: "Allies have agreed that Ukraine will become a member of our alliance" in the long term."
9:24 AM · Feb 28, 2023
Video:
https://mobile.twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1630574558523670534
-
DC_Draino
@DC_Draino
This right here is what it was always about
NATO getting a foothold right on Russia’s border despite previously promising to not do so
This dangerous provocation may spark WW3
Disclose.tv
@disclosetv
·3h
NEW - NATO chief: "Allies have agreed that Ukraine will become a member of our alliance" in the long term."
This comment was made OVER A YEAR AFTER RUSSIA INVADED!
Again, logic and truth are not your strong suits.
-
"NEW—Zelensky warns the US what will happen if Ukraine loses:
“The US will have to send their sons and daughters exactly the same way as we are sending our sons and daughters to war... because it's NATO that we're talking about, and they will be dying." (Video)
https://mobile.twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1630706019340005376
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/BenMcCulley/status/1630704858050498560