By all means ignore what I cited and blather on about irrelevancies.

And the US is of course well known for only ever working with offical representatives and not genocidal militias the world over, ever.

Oh right, irrelevant blabber like what is the actual administration ruling Ukraine now is. :roll:

Of course, when Russia annexed Crimea and started the Donetsk and Luhansk uprising, the nearly bankrupt Ukraine didn't have at first nothing than one paratroop brigade and these voluntary battalions to fight in the Donbas as their mobilization was extremely slow. And of course these voluntary battalions proved to be a headache later and naturally the Russians used extensively these people to portray the Ukrainian altogether as nazis (as those fighting in Donetsk and Luhansk are Russians, Novo-Rossija and so on).

But I guess that a volunteer battalion that was taken out of the front line in 2015 (as all other volunteer battalions) and now made one National guard regiment, but likely still has those ulra-rightwing soldiers, means that the whole Ukrainian armed forces of 225 000 (plus the 900 000 reservists) are ...nazis.

Because the Ukrainian army is where the training and support is going. The little that has been given.

This is all well and good but it would also be nice if the US stopped supporting Nazis, which, of course, they are.

Why does he want Ukraine anyway? Access to the sea? We've already talked about why Ukraine doesn't give up. Can't say I understand the region at all.

Mostly about NATO encroachment/threat. Stalin wanted (and got) the whole of Eastern Europe as a buffer zone after WWII. If all Putin gets is Ukraine, it ain't much. And he's not even wanting to take it over, just ensure it's out of NATO clutches.

Mostly about NATO encroachment/threat. Stalin wanted (and got) the whole of Eastern Europe as a buffer zone after WWII. If all Putin gets is Ukraine, it ain't much. And he's not even wanting to take it over, just ensure it's out of NATO clutches. — Baden

Any insight as to why Putin would care?

Any insight into why the US might care if Russia formed a military alliance with Mexico and put its missiles there? Same reason.

Why does he want Ukraine anyway? Access to the sea? We've already talked about why Ukraine doesn't give up. Can't say I understand the region at all. — frank

If people find the subject interesting, I urge people to read what Putin himself has said about Ukraine and Russia, if one dares to venture to the official site of the Kremlin:

Article by Vladimir Putin ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“

There you can read a short introduction to Russo-Ukrainian history, just how close or basically the same country they have been. And that Ukraine has basically been an artificial construction. And how, of course, everything done to break this bond between the two people have been come from outside, from the West (not by Ukrainians seeing that other countries have prospered under the EU). But read it yourself.

And why? Purely on defensive issues, Russia then will have a huge border with NATO. US and NATO tactical combat aircraft can already reach Moscow from the Baltics, but with Ukraine

And why does Putin think that the West is going to attack and get them? Well, a good enemy gives one a reason to stay in power, to fight against "color revolutions" and everything else purely machinated from the evil US. First it was Napoleon, then it was Hitler, and Putin will make it sure it's not going to be Biden or any other US president.

Yeah, the US doesn't need that iceberg they're sitting on.

Any insight into why the US might care if Russia formed a military alliance with Mexico and put its missiles there? Same reason. — Baden

Yet after the Pershing expedition going after Pancho Villa, the US hasn't deployed it's military to fight in Mexico. In fact, Mexican troops were invited by Bush to assist in disaster relief during Hurricane Katrina, this first time since WW2 that Mexican troops were sent abroad.

A Cartoon during the last time US went into Mexico:


Bush with Mexican marines and US Navy Seabees in Gulfport, Missisippi:


But you can just ask how successful the Monroe doctrine has been especially with Cuba and later Venezuela? Or ask President Ortega of Nicaragua. You see, once you start to pressure countries and act as a bully, you might get the whole country backed on the corner and find that there are no more avenues to influence otherwise than direct military attack. Covert actions can go only so far. And then other one won't back down and just face your military. Remember that Fidel Castro wanted the Russians to use nuclear weapons if the US Marines would land on Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis. Sure, the US can be the bully in Guatemala, Haiti, Panama and Grenada, but when it comes to Mexico and especially South America with Brazil, Chile, military intervention would be a huge quagmire. And then the neighboring countries really could ask for help from China or Russia. In it's near abroad, Russia has simply been too aggressive.

Simply put it, you can be a bully up to a point, but friendly relations simply work better.

Yeah, the US doesn't need that iceberg they're sitting on. — frank

Good at least that you offered the Baltic States NATO membership. At least they have enjoyed a moment without been under Moscow's supervision.

I remember when the Baltic States had just re-emerged as independent states that the US and UK in diplomatic talks asked both Sweden and Finland if the two countries would guarantee the independence of the Baltic states. Both were horrified about the idea: the two barely can guarantee their own sovereignty (Finland even more trouble with that), so the two neutral Nordic cordially rejected the idea. There was both in Helsinki and Stockholm true happiness when the Baltic states joined NATO, but immediately both militaries noticed that there wasn't any plan how to defend them as NATO didn't exercise in the Baltics. That all changed after the annexation of Crimea. Now NATO has exercises even in Finland and Sweden. It's a lot colder now in this region than before 2014.

It's a lot colder now in this region than before 2014. — ssu

What do you mean?

Imagine if the general Covid response under Trump would have been "go to work if you have Covid and if you would be so kind, kindly just fucking die for the economy kthx".

Liberals would have lost their shit and screamed "Trump bad" till they were blue in the face. But because their opposition to Trump is purely aesthetic and premised on the fact that Trump does not have the right class markers to be as incompetent and murderous a pig as Biden actually is being, the latter simply gets a free pass.

"In the early days of the pandemic, Democrats excoriated then-President Donald Trump for not doing enough to allow people to stay home from work. “Flatten the curve” was the phrase of the month, and even centrist Democrats found their inner democratic socialist, at least temporarily. ...Now, that rhetoric is nowhere to be found, even though most public health indicators are worse now than at any other time during the pandemic... Now, the entire political establishment has arrived at the consensus that little, if any additional help will be forthcoming. Renters in New York State face an expiring eviction moratorium. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki spoke out against the Chicago Teachers Union’s calls for a safer workplace. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky downplayed the risk Omicron poses, saying it was “encouraging news” that people who have died from the variant had at least four comorbidities."

https://truthout.org/articles/how-did-we-go-from-stimulus-checks-to-go-to-work-with-covid/

A worse Covid response than Trump. Utter crickets by liberals. May all of them be swamped in misery when Trump returns to power.

Sorry man, but that post was flat ridiculous.

A complement from you.

---

Guess this is what Biden meant by flattening the curve.

A complement from you. — StreetlightX

:razz:

I'm assuming you're engaging this stuff for some purpose? I know you aren't stupid enough to believe any of it. Just curious.

idk I feel the same about everything you say ever so

idk I feel the same about everything you say ever so — StreetlightX

So you won't share? Fine.

What do you mean? — frank

Basically that tensions have escalated and the threat of war has basically increased to the level that we saw during the Cold War.

Yet here I have to say that during the Cold War the threat of war in Northern Europe (Sweden and Finland) was basically low compared to places like the Middle East or here earlier in the 1930's (then the Finnish Army considered a war with Soviet Russia basically a certainty, not a probability).

After the Russo-Georgian war in 2008 basically only few analysts and the Baltic States raised the alarm. Yet Obama decided (again) to reboot the US-Russian relations, try to be friends with Russia while NATO was focused on it's "new missions": things like operations in Afghanistan and later Libya.

2014 changed all that. The annexation of Crimea took the US and the West totally at surprise, but then NATO basically "found back to it's roots". Suddenly NATO troops did start exercises in the Baltics. If the 2008 war and annexation of parts of Georgia didn't wake people up, the annexation of Crimea did it. And the climate truly changed. After that now US and NATO troops have exercised in both Sweden and Finland and basically are all but in name in NATO. For me it's nearly a culture shock to see foreign troops, young British soldiers, in one of our naval bases eating pizza at the soldiers home.

Yet that fig-leaf of not being a member of NATO is crucial for Russia and for the two countries. And naturally gives a similar option for NATO to withdraw if there would be crisis in Finland or Sweden with Russia.

B-52's practiced mine-laying in Swedish waters in Baltops 2015. Here one of the bombers posing with Swedish fighters for a photo in Swedish airspace:


Sweden has raised it's readiness by deploying more troops to the Gotland Island and rolled armored vehicles into the street of Visby just two days ago:


I remember Neil Ferguson commenting a week ago that the chance of the war escalating in Ukraine is about 50-50. 50% probability is quite high in my opinion. Let's hope we get lucky and these tensions ease...

Is it that Putin wants to grow Russia back into a regional power? It just seems like he would benefit financially from good relationships with western Europe. Why alienate them?

Retirment age in USA: 62 - 66.7 years (Wikipedia)

Joe Biden: 79 years old

:chin:

Is it that Putin wants to grow Russia back into a regional power? — frank

Start from what Putin thinks of the collapse of the Soviet Union:

“First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” Putin said. “As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory."

The classic quote from Putin. That is his World view.

It just seems like he would benefit financially from good relationships with western Europe. Why alienate them? — frank

Yeah. In fact without annexing Crimea and trying to act as an mediator in Ukraine NATO countries (except the US) would have continued to dismantle their armed forces, the basket case of an economy Ukraine likely wouldn't have gotten into NATO and many Ukrainians would supprt Putin, who along with Russia would have been treated in high esteem (after all, he is a talented smart leader).

Just remember, Putin rose into by starting a war, the second Chechen war, with a very likely "false flag" operation of killing Russians citizens in a distant sleeping suburb to get the "casus belli" to go after the Chechens after a peace agreement had been signed with them. Then his popularity got up with the Russo-Georgian war (where the Georgians overplayed their hand) and finally got huge popularity boost by annexing Crimea.

You think this guy really thinks about the economy, the stock market and foreign relations first?

So he's a petty warlord. Very Russian.

petty warlord — frank

I believe that's an oxymoron. Maybe not...I ain't sure.

So he's a petty warlord. Very Russian. — frank

He is a Silovik, something like a "securocrat". And an awesome spymaster.

Perhaps the problem with all the US administrations is that US Presidents basically seem to assume that other leaders are like them, that they are also people that have risen through a political party system to gain the highest places in their country. Not so with the career spy and FSB director that Yeltsin just put on the chair of the prime minister. There were no elections, no election campaign for Putin to get that job. His election campaign for President was to fight and destroy the Chechens in the second Chechen war. That's a totally different world than making speeches in New Hampshire. And that reality makes you think about the World differently.

I guess only George Bush senior as a former CIA director himself and perhaps a military man like Eisenhower would have understood Putin right away. But the current one's with their administrations have seemed to have tried to make "a reset" and then have been disappointed in the end of the outcome.

I mean, literally, they have tried to push "the reset button":



At least Biden didn't try to push it. Not yet.

So you love him too. Good for you.

So you love him too. Good for you. — frank

Of course.

What else could you think of a person who starts their political career by killing 300 totally innocent Muscovites and other Russians to restart a war that then kills from 50 000 to perhaps 150 000 people, because the first war before was an unmitigated disaster?

I thought you were admiring his ingenuity. Sorry.

I thought you were admiring his ingenuity. Sorry. — frank

Oh don't be sorry.

To admire someone means that you have overall positive image of the person. Yet one can admire, or acknowledge something in a person, even if other things are negative. Ingenuity and shrewdness Putin definitely has, and balls too. People have their good and bad sides.

I just think he has started to believe his own lies, that the US is out to get Russia, the public reasoning behind everything including his insistence in staying in power. Not that he's trying to act as the he can get the Soviet Empire somehow or at least partly back together. Basically he just didn't understand that to keep calm, be positive and you could get your way. Simply put it, the US couldn't uphold the Monroe doctrine if all the other countries would truly feel threatened by it.

In fact Central Asia is a perfect example how Russia could defeat "the imperialist" US. By mid-1994,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, had joined NATO’s partnership for peace program (PfP), and officers from these states, plus Tajikistan, began participating in PfP exercises as of 1995. Then happened 9/11. Suddenly Uzbekistan, in particular, and to a lesser extent Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan became frontline states in the U.S.-led struggle against the Taliban and the Al Qaeda network. Top U.S. officials streamed through Central Asian capitals. And what do you know, the US had then bases all over in Central Asia! Tajikistan even had both a Russian military base and a US base.

(This is how it looked before the US withdrawal from Central Asia. Now east of Iran there are no US bases, except those in the Far East facing China.)


Then simply the US withdrew and now the Central Asian states hold military exercises with Russia and Kazakhstan had to ask for military help to quell riots, which Putin gladly assisted with. I guess now Kazakhstan has quietly buried the defense cooperation agreement it made with the US. So what happened? Russia simply operated in the shadows, didn't start to threaten (not at least openly) the countries and in the end just waited it out that the US became exhausted and pulled away leaving the place back in the sphere of itself. They got the message, just which country would defend them against possible "muslim extremists" from Afghanistan.

The the biggest error Putin made was to go and annex Crimea, simply put it. But the glory to take it back was perhaps too much for him. The fact is that his actions have made it so the we and the Swedes are having a real discussion about NATO. Sweden even got back it's military conscription.

He won't actually threaten the Nordic states will he?

I think the focus is on Ukraine, but action against Ukraine will have effects on relations with other countries also.

If either Finland or Sweden or both join NATO, of course there's going to be sanctions and extremely tense relations and a strong response from Russia. But then again, something like a large invasion of Ukraine might trigger that and the countries could see that "enough is enough". Remember, things aren't just about a full scale occupations, but all the ways that then Russia can pressure both countries. Putin might be very happy if the times of "Finlandization" come back and Finns will have none it. It's not 1945, he's not Stalin and present Russia isn't the Soviet Union.

And then there is the other side to the equation: now Finland and Sweden have far more better relations with Russia than NATO countries and both would be happy if things would be OK as now. A passive Russia likely would mean that neither countries would join NATO. There isn't a desperate urge to join the alliance.

Of course an "out-of-the-blue" occupation of let's say of demilitarized the Åland Islands or the Swedish island of Gotland is a possibility, but I think that probability is still very low.