Curious what happened to the Russian invasion thread?

[forrestreid]

On 3/11/2022 at 4:05 PM, tassojunior said:

Insults are all you have because there's no halfway intelligent reason for war with a nuclear power.

To extend this argument a bit, if the US were to, say, threaten Iran with devastating missile attacks unless it halted its nuclear programme, presumably the Iranian government should be regarded as being "not halfway intelligent" if they did not immediately accede to the request, as otherwise they would find themselves in a war with a nuclear power?

Just how generally should this principle be applied?

 

[forrestreid]

But in general in this topic, the main thing to keep in mind is there is a tragedy unfolding now in Ukraine. I dont disagree that many aspects of US foreign policy in the last twenty years (such as the invasion of Iraq or the the support of the extremist Likud position on the occupation of Palestine) have been shameful, but to harp on about these issues in a thread such as this, while also minimizing the blatant use of cluster bombs, the intentional targeting of civilian targets and the confirmed use of vacuum bombs THIS VERY WEEK in Ukraine, in a blatant attempt to shift the narrative, is unsavory.

And I must say that the way in which what I would call "foreign policy leftists" from the USA, in particular, tend to frame this is very irksome to me as a European.  The main geopolitical issue at hand is Russia (or the current ruler there at least) trying to regain the position in Ukraine that it had in Tsarist times. One can argue whether that is a good or bad thing (personally I think it is bad), but one thing it actually has rather little to do with is what the USA were up to in Iraq in 2004 or in Nicaragua in 1985.

But if you read many threads on Ukraine with posts from US (not just here) "foreign policy leftists" seem to be ranting on about irrelevancies such as what Billy Kristol said onetime, or how much Blackwater might make out of Ukraine, or whatever.

The sense in which they are not engaging with the lived reality of an international world system in flux, or the biggest single  refugee situation since WW II, is frustrating.

It seems like in their head they are still arguing with that annoying fellow student who was a foreign policy hawk in a university seminar in 2006.

[tassojunior]

1 hour ago, forrestreid said:

I understand why people are nervous about the threat of nuclear war. It is not something you can take chances about.

But if you look objectively, America under Biden is demonstrating a considerable degree of restraint with its support for Ukraine struggle, for this very reason.

Biden has opposed Russian aggression with sanctions and some arms to Ukraine. But he is very clearly said that, as Ukraine is not part of NATO, the US and NATO will not get involved in assisting Ukraine with either troops or a "no fly zone".

In fact, the United States has even decided that simply allowing the Polish Mig fighters to be transported from Rammstein to Ukraine would be too much of a provocation.

I do not like the fact that all this is helpful to Putin. But I do accept that Biden’s motives are genuine in not wanting to extend to conflict.

I think Biden has clearly shown that Russia will have absolutely no genuine excuse to extend the conflict to a confrontation with NATO, or God forbid, a nuclear war.

But some posters on this site, and others I read, seem to be very exercised on this point and keep going on about how Biden may be about to bring us all to the brink of global nuclear war. Interestingly, I have noticed on this and other sites that they seem to be the same posters who are very exercised about the plight of Russian speaker in Luhansk and Donetsk. A coincidence I am sure

The war's been on for less than 2 weeks. I don't assume it will be over in another 2 or that an incident or escalation won't happen. You can't control wars once they start. Usually if you bet on the worst when a war starts you'll win as the only predictability is that they spiral. 

We need to remember that only 10% of the world's population is "western" and the rest don't march to the western media drummer or care about European drama. Worldwide the China vs western conflict is paramount and certainly China is glad for Russia being "kicked out" of the west, tradewise, financially,  monetary wise, and every way. But "measured response" unfortunately gives away what will happen when China seizes Taiwan.

I saw this online from a Chinese poster:

"Ukraine literally does a Presentation about what the west would react when mainland unify Taiwan:

• 1. Economic sanctions
• 2. Light up the landmark buildings
• 3. Condemn/Protest
• 4. Stand with Taiwan ONLINE
• 5. NEVER SEND TROOPS

How bad could it be? Wake up! Taiwan separatists"

The alternative is the media keeps ramping up it's Germans cutting women's breasts off in Belgium stories until the the west escalates to major war. Once you've unleashed the dogs of media you can't bring them back to reason. I certainly hope I'm wrong but I would have never believed it could get this far either.  Now we're going to get a lot more blood that will escalate tensions and hatred.

I hope it ends well but it usually doesn't. 

 

[forrestreid]

Yep, It will almost certainly end badly, in that Ukraine will be either physically destroyed or will be forced into a humiliating surrender.

 

Extending to WWW III and ending up with the use of nuclear weapons is less likely, thankfully.

 

By the way, I think the Taiwanese are very well aware that the USA is not going to physically intervene in any invasion from the mainland, and probably has a greater understanding of this than the Ukrainians had.

 

But, like Russia, I think China may be surprised surprised at the strength and depth of the sanctions that take place.

 

Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Chinese government took pause from what a strong defense of their country Ukrainians are putting up, beside despite being hugely outnumbered by Russia.

 

 

[reader]

From Emerging Europe

The Guide is one of the most famous historical dramas produced in modern Ukraine. It takes place during the 1930s, considered by many to be the peak of repression of Ukrainian nationalism and cultural identity.

The film’s main character is a ten-year-old boy from Kharkiv, whose American father is assassinated by NKVD agents for possessing evidence of state atrocities. A blind kobzar, a traditional Ukrainian wandering bard or musician, “adopts” the boy, who acts as the kobzar’s guide. The two then attempt to navigate the turbulent environment of 1930s Ukraine – it should also be noted that kobzars were targeted by the Soviet state for embodying what they considered to be a dangerous romantic ethnonationalism.

Directed by Oles Sanin, the film features beautiful cinematography, inviting many comparisons with Andrey Tarkovsky. To this day, The Guide is the only Ukrainian film to be nominated for best foreign language film at the Oscars and it is a worthy representation of the country’s cinema.

 

 

[tassojunior]

Oliver Stone's landmark documentary "Ukraine on Fire" history of Ukraine from 2016 is free on YouTube:

 

 

[tassojunior]

Things that popped out today: there was no mention of the nationalities of those killed in the attack on the training base. It had been called "Camp Gator" and was run by the Florida Nat'l Guard. If there were any Americans it would set off demands for war with Russia. If they were spirited out by the US two weeks ago it means the US realized this might happen. Of 2 dozen missiles, stinger missiles shot down 18. Ukraine in retaliation unleashed missles on the Donbas capital building killing 17 civilians but there was hardly a peep from the war media. 

Biden is going to have to give into a no-fly zone after Zelensky speaks to Congress wednesday. That is an act of war if a plane is shot down. But there have been very few Russian planes as the missiles were shot from airplanes over Russia. They go that far. 

The war is still spiraling. 

[reader]

If you get tired of carrying water for Putin, Syrian President Bashar Assad is looking for a horse holder. Assad, like you, says Russia's attack on Ukraine is a correction of history.

I think it would be the making of a beautiful friendship.

[tassojunior]

On 3/15/2022 at 8:08 AM, reader said:

If you get tired of carrying water for Putin, Syrian President Bashar Assad is looking for a horse holder. Assad, like you, says Russia's attack on Ukraine is a correction of history.

I think it would be the making of a beautiful friendship.

If you don't think this war is growing that's your right to that opinion. But nasty personal insults are all you know. 

[reader]

These aren't insults. They are an accurate reflection of positions you have been putting forward since the war began. You've defended and attempted to rationalize Putin's actions. You've criticized Ukraine for not acquiescing to Putin's demands for Crimea and the Donbas.

And you're certainly in agreement with Assad's characterization of Putin's war.

[reader]

From PBS

FRONTLINE tells the story of what led to Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukraine. Veteran filmmaker Michael Kirk and his team examine the events that shaped the Russian leader, the grievances that drive him and how a growing conflict with the West exploded into war in Europe.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/putins-road-to-war/

 

[tassojunior]

41 minutes ago, reader said:

These aren't insults. They are an accurate reflection of positions you have been putting forward since the war began. You've defended and attempted to rationalize Putin's actions. You've criticized Ukraine for not acquiescing to Putin's demands for Crimea and the Donbas.

And you're certainly in agreement with Assad's characterization of Putin's war.

All you do are personal insults. 

[Latbear4blk]

I bet you are American, @reader . At least when I insinuated it earlier on in this very thread you did not correct me. Even if you are not American, you act typically like one.

It is so American to become passionate enemies of foreigner monsters, criticizing them for everything they themselves have done, and continue doing. It is so American to denounce human rights violations in other countries when themselves are master human rights violators; to become offended at invasions while being occupiers; to find political prisoners everywhere, while hiding their own; to preach nuclear non proliferation when they have been the only ones actually going beyond the threats and incinerating innocent civilians in mass.

If you are not an American fitting in this stereotype, forum friends, I am not talking about you. But the rest of the world knows very well these stereotypical Trumpian clowns parading the world with their hypocritical superiority. None in Gayguides (the other forum is filled with these characters) has demonstrated this iconic caricature of Americans as @readerhas.

Putin is a horrible monster. It is sad when other horrible monsters feel better about themselves by pointing fingers. I cannot disagree more with @tassojunior in most political issues, if not in all. I also disagree with him on this. But your passion, @reader, says very little about how wrong he is, and a lot about how dirty your American conscience is.

Of course, I may be wrong. Perhaps you have shown in the past the same passion to condemn innocent civilian lives and abuses of weaker nations by the USA. I doubt it, you justified the human annihilation (let's hope you do think Asians are human) in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you are probably similarly blind at other atrocities committed by your own tribe. But if I am wrong, and you have in the past called out USA's massacres and abuses, I do apologize.

[reader]

Ouch, Latbear.

Such outrage, such unmitigated umbrage, such unbridled hated, such invective, such  vituperation, such....

Think I liked you better when you were fucking all the superpowers.

Man of your education should be able to better than that. ☺️

 

[Latbear4blk]

45 minutes ago, reader said:

Ouch, Latbear.

Such outrage, such unmitigated umbrage, such unbridled hated, such invective, such  vituperation, such....

Think I liked you better when you were fucking all the superpowers.

Man of your education should be able to better than that. ☺️

 

I guess another attempt to creativity and comedy. Keep trying, I let you know when you start getting better.

[tassojunior]

6 hours ago, reader said:

You've criticized Ukraine for not acquiescing to Putin's demands for Crimea and the Donbas.

When America is in "go to war" fever it's worse to try and be neutral and look at both sides' views than to be the enemy. My training to see both sides in international matters doesn't fit well with the pro-war mob whether it's Iraq or Russia. Good. Damn good.

From well before the war started I repeated that adherence by Ukraine to the Minsk treaties signed by Russia and Ukraine and negotiated by Germany and France was the best course for Ukraine. Does anyone sane think the war in Ukraine now is better than recognizing the autonomy of Donbas? It wasn't even worth the 14,000 lives there since that 2015 treaty. 

Worse,  avoiding nuclear war should be any sane person's #1 goal and we weren't even this close to war in the Cuba missile crisis. President Zelenskyy today on NBC evidently told Lester Holt that we may now be in WWIII. Indeed we may. Wars don't stay limited or diminish. They always spiral.

And all this airplane talk shows how we don't realize what war is now. It's all missiles (and drones). The cruise missiles that hit the training base were launched from airplanes in Russia over 800 miles away. Most of the hundreds of missiles fired do not hit their target but land and expode somewhere. I just read in a Brit paper that yesterday the US moved two huge batteries of Patriot missiles to the airbase in Poland next to the Ukraine border pointed at Ukraine and Russia. I think it's the same missile base that Russia started this war over. No one cares that we are rapidly moving to nuclear war. 

I remember how Iraq was also going to be a glorious short war and the people would welcome NATO with parades for saving them. Ditto Libya, Syria, Vietnam, etc etc etc. This war will most likely follow that spiral or worse. I don't think this was worth the many lives that will be taken and certainly not a nuclear war just to save Ukraine from recognizing Donbas's autonomy. 

I don't have to support my country's genocides or corporate manipulation into serial wars to be a patriot. Fuck anyone who says that. And anyone who doesn't mind a WWIII is crazy.  

 

 

 

[vinapu]

19 minutes ago, tassojunior said:

 

Does anyone sane think the war in Ukraine now is better than recognizing the autonomy of Donbas? .....

....

I don't think this was worth the many lives that will be taken and certainly not nuclear war to save Ukraine from recognizing Donbas's autonomy. 

 

does anyone really think that recognizing autonomy of Donbas would satiate Putin's appetite for long.

If that would be his goal then this is where his armies were deployed , not all over Ukraine.

He doesn't want Donbas , he wants whole Ukraine , it's why all that talk about artificial creation of republic by Lenin. 

For him is renegade province , not separate nation.

After that mission will be accomplished , his sights will be  Baltics, perhaps Poland, Finland  and who knows what next.

It's just imperialistic logic , more and more.

Letting Hitler to get Austria, then Sudetenland , Czechia , Klaipeda did not stop him from going further.

Some argue that Russia is right to be afraid of West encroachment. Don't other countries have right to be afraid of Russia getting too close. 

American sins elsewhere can't be used to absolve Putin and his action, agression and resulting war. 

 

 

[tassojunior]

22 minutes ago, vinapu said:

does anyone really think that recognizing autonomy of Donbas would satiate Putin's appetite for long.

If that would be his goal then this is where his armies were deployed , not all over Ukraine.

He doesn't want Donbas , he wants whole Ukraine , it's why all that talk about artificial creation of republic by Lenin. 

For him is renegade province , not separate nation.

After that mission will be accomplished , his sights will be  Baltics, perhaps Poland, Finland  and who knows what next.

It's just imperialistic logic , more and more.

Letting Hitler to get Austria, then Sudetenland , Czechia , Klaipeda did not stop him from going further.

Some argue that Russia is right to be afraid of West encroachment. Don't other countries have right to be afraid of Russia getting too close. 

American sins elsewhere can't be used to absolve Putin and his action, agression and resulting war. 

 

 

I understand international relations well; I do not understand war. I don't know why Russia used this as a reason to go to war with Ukraine as a whole country but maybe that's the way wars work. IDK. I would have preferred an international, maybe UN, peacekeeping force on the ceasefire line in Donbas. But Ukraine and US would say "no". 

I think Ukraine, Russia, Europe, and the poor 3/4 in the US, will be much much worse off now, even if the fighting stopped tomorrow. (it won't). And yes, in the US half our budget and much of our economy is based on military weapons and corporations and so war is really good for the rich. So we keep going into one after another killing millions of people in the meantime. Cannon fodder for Wall Street. 

The rich who get richer off our wars and would love a WWIII have unfortunately never had to consider what nuclear war would do to their bottom line and are just batshit crazy enough to think it won't harm them.  

[reader]

10 hours ago, tassojunior said:

 I just read in a Brit paper that yesterday the US moved two huge batteries of Patriot missiles to the airbase in Poland next to the Ukraine border pointed at Ukraine and Russia.

Patriot batteries are defensive systems used to counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft. They are not offensive weapons. The ones you mention have been supplied to provide Poland with the means to defend itself from attack. One of their advantages is that they can be operational within 30 minutes of delivery.

Now you may choose to believe that Patriot systems are bad because they do in fact represent a threat to an attacker's offensive capability. But a funny phenomenon frequently occurs in the minds of citizens when their country is threatened by an aggressor: the need to protect themselves. That's why similar Patriot systems are in service in Germany, Greece, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Poland, Sweden, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Romania, Spain, and Taiwan. Surely you wouldn't deprive these nations of such a safeguard.

8 hours ago, tassojunior said:

I would have preferred an international, maybe UN, peacekeeping force on the ceasefire line in Donbas. But Ukraine and US would say "no".

According to UN protocols, it would have been the parties involved in the conflict (Russia and Ukraine) and somehow I think Russia would have been the first to object. Here's a quote from the UN on the use of peacekeeping forces:

UN Peacekeeping is guided by the basic principles:

• Consent of the parties;
• Impartiality;
• Non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate.

 

 

[tassojunior]

3 hours ago, reader said:

Patriot batteries are defensive systems used to counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft. They are not offensive weapons. The ones you mention have been supplied to provide Poland with the means to defend itself from attack. One of their advantages is that they can be operational within 30 minutes of delivery.

Now you may choose to believe that Patriot systems are bad because they do in fact represent a threat to an attacker's offensive capability. But a funny phenomenon frequently occurs in the minds of citizens when their country is threatened by an aggressor: the need to protect themselves. That's why similar Patriot systems are in service in Germany, Greece, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Poland, Sweden, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Romania, Spain, and Taiwan. Surely you wouldn't deprive these nations of such a safeguard.

According to UN protocols, it would have been the parties involved in the conflict (Russia and Ukraine) and somehow I think Russia would have been the first to object. Here's a quote from the UN on the use of peacekeeping forces:

UN Peacekeeping is guided by the basic principles:

• Consent of the parties;
• Impartiality;
• Non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate.

 

 

My point is there are missiles flying everywhere in Ukraine and because there are so many more than other wars (and possibly because the Russians are masters at missile evasion technology), a large percentage do not hit their target and land at random. And those little shoulder-launched missiles are rarely accurate in urban areas.  Doubling, tripling or quadrupling the number of missiles already flying around is not civilian population-friendly. But that's our US plan.

People need to realize that air war now is not airplanes, and certainly not helicopters, but missiles and drones. A lot of them. And they can be launched from hundreds or even thousands of miles away from planes, ships, or land. And they're not as precise as the military corporations propagandize us to believe they are. 

The US Patriot missiles just placed on the border with Poland on the same base there are nuclear missiles pointed at Moscow are an acknowledgement that in the training base attack many of Russia's missiles got through. (And they were launched from Russia so Ukrainian/US anti-missile missiles had almost 1000 miles to detect and destroy them). What happens when a nuclear missile on the ground is hit by an incoming missile?

• I'd be surprised if neither side launches a big false-flag incident to escalate. In the west at least only PR and spin matters, not reality. Russia also needs to rally popular support. 
• Sanctions almost always lead to increased government support. We've been through this many times including Iraq and Venezuela. And being friendly to the US is going to become very dangerous in Russia again as hate of America increases.  
• Ultimately the US must keep the U.S. dollar as the universal financial currency or our economy collapses. Our best friends the Saudis just saying they might switch to the Chinese Yuan last week had the US and Boris groveling while they beheaded 84 people, including gays. Kicking Russia off the dollar has a downside too.    

 

 

 

Obviously I'd say Ukraine and Russia should have agreed to ceasefire line observers in Donbas. Or autonomy. Or something. They signed the treaty.  

[reader]

8 minutes ago, tassojunior said:

My point is there are missiles flying everywhere in Ukraine and because there are so many more than other wars (and possibly because the Russians are masters at missile evasion technology), a large percentage do not hit their target and land at random.

If they're so masterful why do so many not hit their target?

13 minutes ago, tassojunior said:

The US Patriot missiles just placed on the border with Poland on the same base there are nuclear missiles pointed at Moscow are an acknowledgement that in the training base attack many of Russia's missiles got through.

(1) Where do you get your information that Poland has nuclear weapons on its soil?

(2) You previously told us that a "large percentage do not hit their target" and now you say many got through?

[tassojunior]

24 minutes ago, reader said:

If they're so masterful why do so many not hit their target?

(1) Where do you get your information that Poland has nuclear weapons on its soil?

(2) You previously told us that a "large percentage do not hit their target" and now you say many got through?

The Russians invested a lot in decoys for their missiles that can overwhelm anti-missile systems. Those decoys had never been inspected by the US before. When anti-missile missiles miss their target because of decoys they explode somewhere. The US claims 3/4 of the Russian missiles were shot down in the training base attack. Where did they land when shot down? Probably at random, just as many missiles and anti-missile missiles do. In urban areas that's deadly. And even admitting 1/4 got through to their targets means the US is a long way from any Iron Dome type defense system. 

The "defensive" missiles on the US base on the Polish/Ukrainian border can and probably secretively do use some nuclear warheads. There's no "inspections". That puts missiles an hour from Moscow. That's what experienced people from all sides have been warning the US not to do or it would provoke war. We did it anyway.  

[reader]

13 minutes ago, tassojunior said:

The "defensive" missiles on the US base on the Polish/Ukrainian border can and probably secretively do use some nuclear warheads.

But this is all speculation on your part. And it fits with what Putin would like the world to believe.

[tassojunior]

I think any normal unbiased person would assume country A is putting nuclear warheads on "defensive" missiles outside country B's capitol if that's a strategic advantage militarily and there's no inspection. 

p.s.- there's no Easter Bunny either. 

[reader]

As usual, you have no proof about any of your suppositions.