It's quite possible the US had a Ukrainian team carry out (a part of) the operation. This would provide the US with plausible deniability. Considering the scale of the operation, I find it unlikely the Ukrainians did this completely on their own, though. Considering the impact geopolitically and the implications of bombing allied (German) infrastructure, it's almost unthinkable they did this without consulting the US.

Given that we have Seymour Hersh's story, the US incriminating a 'Ukrainian group', and of course the US incriminating itself by constantly threatening to end Nordstream if war were to break out, I think the picture is starting to come together.

I'll give that documentary a watch later. Thanks!

You've really got nothing, do you? :rofl:

The tape surfaced on February 6th 2014. Yanukovych didn't cede power until February 21st, and the worst of the violence happened on February 20th.

But nice try, I guess.

Is this all you have? Blowing smoke in the hopes people aren't well-informed enough to see through it?

Let me remind you why the Euromaidan happened - it was a reaction of Ukrainians to Russia forcing Yanukovych to renege on his promises for trade integration with the EU - this had nothing to do with NATO. — Jabberwock

Except that NATO's big daddy, the US, was directly involved in the coup.

We've even got Nuland on tape, designing the new Ukrainian government before the coup happened. :lol:

Given that it was only six years in between and NATO did not really do anything to change that perception, ... — Jabberwock

'Not really anything', except for expanding NATO by another 7 countries, and planning another 2 - Ukraine and Georgia.

NATO was fully aware what the Russians thought of this. Everybody had been since the fall of the Soviet Union. It's just revisionism that tries to sweep this away into the creases of history.

NATO expansionism had received wide-spread criticism, even from people within the administrations that carried out the policy. You can read the memoires of people like Madeline Albright or Robert Gates.

George Kennan termed NATO expansion as 'starting a new Cold War' back in 1998!

And here you are arguing the 'Russians acted unexpected and irrational'.

What can I say? It's a joke.

Maybe next time just read what you comment on. Then you would not have to complain about your own poor reading skills. Or ask what is the argument about after you comment on it. — Jabberwock

Very impressive, kiddo. :rofl:

What even is your argument? :chin:

The bottomline is your assertions are objectively untrue. We've got Washington officials going on record saying the exact opposite of what you're saying.

It is Russia's reaction that is unexpected and somewhat irrational — Jabberwock

Russia's position on Ukraine / Georgia NATO membership was known well before the 2008 Bucharest Summit, and not 'unexpected' at all. The Russian view is discussed at length in several leaked memos written by former CIA director William Burns, one of which is titled 'Nyet Means Nyet: Russia's NATO Enlargement Redlines'.

Here's are two memos from the lead up to the 2008 Summit:

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW748_a.html
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html


It's honestly quite stunning how poorly read people here are after 511 pages of discussion.

I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee”. Where are these guarantees? — Putin, March 10, 2007, Munich

Unfortunately for some, the archives are actually loaded with proclamations like this. Not just from the Russians themselves, but from people in the Washington establishment too.

This 'head-in-sand' style approach where you hope people won't go digging through the archives to prove you wrong is getting rather tiresome.

The proponents of the theory 'it is all because of NATO expansion' are just content with stating that he suddenly in 2008 started to see Ukraine in NATO as a vital threat, while he was and is perfectly calm about the Baltics or the Scandinavian countries. They feel no need to explain that difference, even though such view is absurdly irrational. — Jabberwock

Concerns over the effects of NATO enlargement literally started as soon as the Soviet Union dissolved, so lets not play coy here.

On your second point, it's obvious why Finland and Sweden pose little threat. Do you know what the Russian-Finnish border looks like?

And let's not forget the 2004 NATO tranche, that added another 7 countries.

Because of energy dependency. In the case of nuclear energy it's more extreme than with oil and gas. I think Rosatom holds something in the range of 90% of the total market share, including all the related services (maintenance, waste disposal, etc.).

I expect there to be militant lobbying efforts against fusion once it starts posing an immediate threat to oil and gas. — Mr Bee

It should be noted that reluctance to swap over to nuclear doesn't just come from oil and gas producers, but also the fact that the nuclear energy market is largely dominated by the Russian company Rosatom.

On a side note, the idea that Russia went to war to prevent NATO expansion into Ukraine has been (for whatever reason) a controversial topic here.

Here's what Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General, said about that recently:

First of all, it is historic that now Finland is member of the Alliance. And we have to remember the background. The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that.

The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.

So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite. He has got more NATO presence in eastern part of the Alliance and he has also seen that Finland has already joined the Alliance and Sweden will soon be a full member.

Ol' Jens here saying the quiet part out loud. Russia voiced clear concerns about NATO enlargement, and what did NATO do? It doubled down. We sure showed those Russians not to tell us what to do, eh?

It's clear to me that this war was purposefully provoked.

Pre-2014, some sort of commitment to neutrality backed up by action could have probably avoided this war.

War became virtually inevitable when Washington expressed its wishes to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, and then backed up that intention by supporting a coup and by starting to train and arm the Ukrainians.

Even if NATO membership was being held off, the Russians feared Washington would create a fait accompli when it started arming the Ukrainians to such an extent that in time the Russians wouldn't be able to object.

The importance of Ukraine is especially tied to Crimea and Sevastopol. Ukraine entering a rival military alliance would mean Russian access to the Black Sea and its strategic partners could be cut off at any point in time. It had a long-term lend lease deal, which Ukraine could simply cancel and then it would be up to Russia to invade, which would at that point be completely unfeasible.

Everybody involved at the political level is (or should be) aware of this, which is why Washington's attempt to change Ukraine's neutral status in 2008 and 2014 should be seen as a deliberate attempt at escalation.

EU membership may be a difficult point. The EU isn't a military alliance, but the Europhiles in Brussel certainly fantasize about turning the EU into a 'United States of Europe', with a European army, etc., which would essentially create the same situation as if Ukraine would join NATO. One could argue that such a situation is far away, but the nature of geopolitics is long-term.


Right now it will be very difficult to come to a peace agreement, since trust between Russia and the West has been completely shattered (it should be attempted regardless).

Russia is not going to return the territories it now occupies, simply because the trust isn't there to leave Crimea in the same vulnerable situation that it was in. That was the point of their invasion. And it is unlikely Ukraine (and Washington) would agree to a peace deal that doesn't return territory.

The harsh truth is that the rest of Ukraine is only of marginal importance to Russia and Washington, and it will likely end up being the pawn in the geopolitical game for years to come. I only see things getting worse for Ukraine.

I miss more efforts by European institutions to let Russia be part of those. I am not asking for a full membership because I understand that Russia needs deep changes in its public administration and system, as an overall. But, again, I think that Frankfort (or Paris, depending on the context) should have made more efforts towards Russia and tried to take a more neutral position, as much as Switzerland has always done. — javi2541997

I don't think Russia would want to be part of the EU or NATO, even though such options have been explored in the past, mainly because it would entail ceding some sovereignty to Brussels (or Washington in the case of NATO).

However, economic ties had been strengthened in the period before the 2014 (and even after). Perhaps Washington felt the Russians and Europeans were in fact cozying up to each other a little too much, to such an extent that the Europeans could no longer be counted on to pick the American side if a conflict were to break out between say, the United States, China and Russia.

In this sense, I perceive that Ukraine is playing two sides: the U.S. and the European Union. When Zelensky is not able to get funding to keep fighting or has some disagreement with an EU state (such as Poland), he quickly goes to Washington; and if Republicans will the 2024 elections, he will ask for some integration in the EU. I cannot trust the behaviour of a nation like this one, and Zelensky is demanding more than Ukraine should get in real circumstances. — javi2541997

I know very little of Zelensky, and considering he had an acting career in the past it is hard to gauge whether he's acting or being genuine. But I do have some sympathy for him, and certainly for the Ukrainian people.

They've been led down the primrose path, and now they're being hung out to dry.

Being a European myself, I put a lot of blame with the weak European leadership, who should have been savvy to what the Americans were up to in Ukraine and given a clear 'no'.

My sense is that Washington's intention was to use Ukraine as a means to bind Russia in a 'forever war' while simultaneously souring Russia's relations with Europe, which in turn would benefit the US.

The reason I say this is because there are various things within Washington's behavior that simply don't make sense otherwise.

Why would they course for war for 20 years straight while refusing any meaningful dialogue with Russia? To me that implies they intentionally sought to start a conflict.

Why would they take this course, while simultaneously being unwilling to commit to a victory? There's not analyst in the world that gave Ukraine any chance of victory prior to this war. To me that implies that a military victory was never Washington's objective in the first place.

While the war is ongoing, why would they boycot a peace deal and also use diplomatic negotiations as a tool to mislead the Russians, intentionally souring the little trust that may have been there and making negotiations impossible for the foreseeable future? To me that implies Washington is not interested in a diplomatic solution to this war, and wishes for it to continue for as long as possible.

I keep giving you chances to prove you can converse like an adult, and you keep disappointing me.

Be more specific.

So if Russia will require demilitarization of Ukraine (a radical reduction of its army), neutral status for Kiev (and a mechanism to control it) and the recognition of some form of territorial changes, to end this war with Ukraine, then Ukraine must make such "uncomfortable but necessary concessions" to end "this senseless waste of human life". Right? — neomac

I get you're really desperate to frame me as being 'pro-Russian', but perhaps you can tone it down a little.

That often requires uncomfortable but necessary concessions from both sides. — Tzeentch

Note the keyword. I even underlined it for you.

Would it be perfectly fine with you for whatever reason to let Russia win according to that definition of Russian victory? — neomac

This is mumbo jumbo to me.

"Denying the Russians victory" sounds like a quote from Dr. Strangelove's General Jack Ripper.

I would worry about ending this senseless waste of human life as soon as possible, and steer towards a stable peace. That often requires uncomfortable but necessary concessions from both sides.

What's even worse is that early on I also put it to the "pro-Ukrainians" that if Ukrainian former lands is so important, why not send NATO boots on the ground to defend it? — boethius

I doubt many will want to swallow this pill, but this is the worst part, isn't it?

NATO has goaded Ukraine into picking a fight with the Russians. Ukrainian leaders probably were fed some ambiguous shit like "The US/NATO will support Ukraine in their fight against Russia!"

Now that push has come to shove, that support seems to be limited to sending arms, and not a single NATO country is willing to put boots on the ground in Ukraine.

To me, that implies incredible cynism on the part of NATO. Not that I want NATO to send troops to Ukraine and spark WWIII, but it dangled that promise of safety infront of the Ukrainians only to hang them out to dry.

You're right, and it's very disingenuous how our position is repeatedly framed as being 'pro-Russian', when in fact what we are asking is why we, (presumably) Western onlookers, should support Ukraine in some hope-fueled offensive strategy when it's clear Ukraine does not have the capability to go on the offensive.

It will only lose more if it doesn't seek a diplomatic solution, and I think the biggest obstacle to that course of action is the United States. More specifically, the egos of the neocons that have been cultivating this conflict since at least the early 2000's like Nuland. The whole Biden administration is extremely hawkish on Ukraine, going back decades, and it's no coincidence this conflict boiled over when Biden took office.

Honestly, I don't recall nor wish to go into most of them. (We studied literature or contemporary doctrine, not textbooks, but I assume that's what you meant)

I'll say that by far the most influential book, 'eye-opening' if you will, I've read on the matter is Unrestricted Warfare (1999), written by two Chinese colonels.

When I looked up that link I noticed there's a version out from 2015 that's called 'Unrestricted Warfare: China's Master Plan to Destroy America', which is hilariously ironic since the book analyses the American way of warfare and extrapolates trends that are believed to carry into the future and transform the nature of warfare.

Then you understand how stupid the whole idea of Ukraine somehow making a breakthrough to Melitopol or even to the Sea of Azov is. Without air superiority that isn't going to happen. — ssu

Of course. That's what I and many others have been saying for months.

Genuinely curious, what did you study in your military studies? — ssu

Military history and military thinkers, the development of contemporary land, naval and air doctrine, irregular warfare, modern conflicts, etc. I also had the opportunity to follow courses on propaganda (euphemistically called 'information warfare') - very eye-opening.

I gather you have no military training and little knowledge of warfare, tactics or military history in general. — ssu

Wrong on all accounts. Unfortunately for you I even hold an academic degree in military studies. But nice try, I guess.

It's a materiel battle, Tzeentch. — ssu

Ah, the next buzzword is introduced, since 'counteroffensive' obviously didn't work out so well.

If what you're trying to do is convince me that people standing on the sideline fueled by media propaganda can produce an endless supply of hopium, don't bother. I am already aware.

Why do you assume Ukrainian operations to be "ill-advised"? If you don't have air superiority and Russia still has a lot of artillery, large scale attacks on the Surovikin line would be foolish. Something like what was witnessed last year cannot happen because of the Surovikin lin. If you haven't noticed, it's basically small scale attacks and advances are small. — ssu

The amount of preparation, manpower and materiel that goes into an offensive means that it must make some form of strategic impact. If it cannot do that, it's a waste. And Ukraine being in the position it is in cannot afford to waste anything.

It was obviously a huge failure. Calling it 'small attacks and advances' is nonsense. To go on the offensive, you must first break through the enemy's defenses. This must be done as quickly and decisively as possible. The longer an offensive is stuck on the enemy's defenses, the more it suffers, and that seems to be what happened. (It's the point of defense-in-depth)

Moreover, it gives the enemy time to adapt their defensive lines to account for any possible breakthrough, which would nullify any advances made.

People were suggesting this offensive would go all the way to Melitopol. Now it's clear they won't be able to take Tokmak - the first village of some significance on the way there. Hardly anything new, of course. People have warned that this would be the predictable outcome long before the offensive even started. It's just tragic.

The pressing question is, why did the West push Ukraine into this disaster? You suggested it was due to media pressure - I kind of doubt that, but if western media is dictating the Ukrainian war effort then things are even more dire than I thought.

With a bit of luck, we're not talking an "end state", more like regress or progress, authoritarianism or democracy, etc. Ukraine and the UN have repeatedly said "No" to Putin's regressive Russia, to the bulging-by-land-grab of Putin's authoritarian Russia, etc. Can't have missed it. — jorndoe

Right, so there's no plan. Just vacuous rhetoric with no sense of the human cost, which this offensive was a shining example of. This we already knew.

(As an aside, Putin admits to Ukraine conducting a COUNTERoffensive, i.e. a response to the invasion by the Kremlin. Different from prior rhetoric, aside from the excuse.) — jorndoe

He'd be wrong. It was an offensive. Not a counteroffensive, since there was no Russian offensive to counter; that had already ceased months prior.

It's just a buzzword now. It sounds flashy, and flashy sounding language might goad people into supporting senseless waste of human lives.

Who is the "us" in this statement? — Paine

I'm talking from the West's perspective.

Define what 'Ukraine winning' looks like, and then explain how wasting thousands of lives on ill-advised offensives brings us closer to that end state.

And the Ukrainian counter-offensive? Going as anything would go without an air arm / air superiority. The whole "offensive" is more of Western media expectations (as last year Ukraine could gain a lot of ground). Now Ukrainians are facing deep entrenched lines from the Black Sea up to the northern border between Ukraine and Russia. And Russia still enjoys an advantage in artillery, even if the amount of munitions they use has gone down dramatically. That means that Ukrainians would be crazy if they made a head on assault on the defensive line with concentrated large forces. Hence it's a war of attrition. — ssu

So can we conclude Ukraine taking back Crimea is a pipedream?

I'm just wondering if this failed offensive is what will break the western media bubble, or if people in the West will keep puffing copium until there's not a single Ukrainian man left to fulfill their fantasies.

The whole Biden administration belongs to the US Ukraine portfolio, so it's kind of obvious what's wrong on, really.

Whatever happened to that offensive, though?

Without the lockdowns, you would have gone outside in the morning to see what the people in 1918 saw: dead people laying in their yards. — frank

That would be pretty grim.

Nowadays people are at least dying out of sight, part of the pool of 'unexplained' excess deaths.

Yet here you are. :chin:

When governments can no longer be seen as honest brokers of information it puts a bomb underneath the narratives concerning a wide variety of social and political issues. That's why people are getting so cramped about it.

Everything ultimately comes back to this stupid, simplistic, perception-warping belief. — Mikie

There's nothing so simplistic as believing reality begets only one interpretation.

If there was any chance aliens had visited Earth, don't you think the other nations would be a little more interested in this?

Why do you think literally no one outside the US cares about this at all?

Transient myocardial injury in itself (eg. an elevated level of substance) is harmless and therefore not an adverse effect. — Benkei

Nonsense. You yourself equated the damage to heavy exercise. There are plenty of people from whom heavy exercise would be potentially dangerous, so you're just contradicting yourself at this point.

Fuck of man and get real. — Benkei

You're welcome to leave the conversation whenever you like, angry little man. :lol:

Myocarditis is included. — Benkei

Yes, it is listed as being very rare, whereas myocardial injury is apparently very common. To list one and omit to other I find misleading. Period.

Transient myocardial injury isn't an adverse effect. Otherwise the consequences of exercising would be too. — Benkei

You equated it to heavy exercise. Heavy exercise can definitely be a health risk to certain people.

But ultimately it is not up to the pharmaceutical company or relevant institutions to determine for the patients what risks they deem acceptable. It's up to the patient. And the patient can only make an informed decision if they are aware of the adverse effects a certain medication has.

This has always included things which are mostly harmless. Headaches, nausea, dizziness, etc.

Again, it's not up to the makers of the product to decide whether those things are important enough to list.

A lot of angry raving, but your suggestion that adverse effects don't have to be included on medical labels simply because they may not be dangerous or damaging remains phoney, and you know it.