Do we hear from you what was wrong there? — ssu

The title alone makes me not take it seriously - trying to claim authority by presenting 'fresh evidence', as though anything is going to top the three corresponding Ukrainian accounts that have been out there for years, and the Western press has done everything in its power to ignore.

Then they mention some details and pretend 'this makes everything different' - how convenient. Plausible deniability achieved, etc., people who have been searching for any excuse to dismiss the clear picture we already had now have a little yarn to spin.

I don't waste my time on such 'journalism'. That's why I dismissed it.

What? :brow:

These aren't 'Kremlin lies' - these are common views held among many Western scholars. If you don't want to debate, don't debate, but don't throw this weak nonsense at me.

We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance [...]

, that's not very ambiguous, is it?

You really think a commitment to the very the thing that sparked this whole catastrophe was going to set the Russians at ease in 2021?

How harmless do you believe the Russians viewed this as, considering 'ambiguous' commitments in 2008 led to over a decade of Western involvement in Ukraine, complete with coup d'etat and military training and armament - all of which clearly intended to make Ukraine jump the gun on a Russian intervention and create a fait accompli?

[...] yet there are many Putin apologists like one frequent commentator on the thread who promote "realpolitik" and the anti-American narrative and tow the Kremlin-line. — ssu

What's your deal with getting so personal?

Well, what did you expect?

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but NATO has been involved in a proxy war against Russia for about three years now. We're launching missiles into Russia. Imagine if the roles were reversed, and it was Russia firing missiles into Europe.

You're looking at the world through star-spangled glasses, that's why 579 pages in you still haven't gotten beyond the surface-level propaganda.

As said many times, I believe Putin is wholly and solely responsible for the criminal invasion of Ukraine, the destruction of billions of dollars worth of property and deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Wholly and solely. — Wayfarer

Then I suggest you start reading from page 1 and report back to me once you've caught up.

"Fresh evidence" - Yea, typical nonsense when unfortunate facts need to be white-washed, which is obviously what the West needed to do with their actions in Istanbul.

I've shared multiple accounts (like 5?) of the Istanbul negotiations, all of which either Ukrainian, Western or neutral, and they all sketch the same ugly picture, so accusing me of cherry-picking doesn't impress.

Coming from the person that repeats one single reason for the war. — ssu

What "single reason for the war" do you believe I am repeating?

Putin annexed Crimea. Annexed territory. — ssu

The idea that Russia's annexation of Crimea was purely territorial/imperial is a completely unconvincing argument to make, and not only do you seem to be doing that, but you're also using that argument to then claim Russia's reason for war in 2022 must be the same.

You can no longer rely on the annexation of the four oblasts, since Russia has already proposed to return them to Ukraine in return for Ukrainian neutrality during the Istanbul negotiations, so now you retreat to an even less convincing argument.

Add there all the rhetoric of how artificial Ukraine as a state is and how it should be part of Russia. And all the focus on Novorossiya. — ssu

Again, that's simply cherry-picking.

You're ignoring a decade of clear signals to the West over a selective interpretation of a single sentence.

Whenever the Russians say things that confirm your preconceived notions of this conflict you attribute great value to them. When they don't, you ignore them.

Cute posturing, but you failed to respond to the point I made.

The major reason for the war and the objectives cannot be put more clearly than Putin did in September 30th 2022. — ssu

You're simply cherry-picking.

The idea that the Russian goals in September 2022 more purely reflect their initial goals than those stated up to and including March/April 2022 has no logical basis whatsoever.

In fact, it's plainly counter-intuitive and pretends that the developments of the war, amongst which a complete rejection of diplomacy by the West, did not significantly impact Russian war goals.

Face the reality what Putin wants. — ssu

The unfortunate thing for you is that the Russians have told us exactly in word and in deed what they want for over a decade - a neutral Ukraine.

That is the reality.

You're pretending that all of these things that happened in reality should be ignored in favor of lowbrow "us vs. them" narratives, and attempts at mindreading the Kremlin's 'true' intentions.

The Russians offered us the terms, the Ukrainians accepted and the West boycotted it and subsequently ruled out negotiations in favor of 'breaking apart Russia', 'inflicting a strategic defeat', 'enacting regime change', etc.

You'd have to be pretty foolish to think that such a move on the part of the West wasn't going to have fundamental consequences for the nature of the war.

To gain Ukraine and it's territory is an objective itself and has been absolutely central here. To argue something else is not only wrong, but dangerous. — ssu

The Istanbul agreements are direct evidence to the contrary. Ignoring the evidence that is out there in favor of warmongering for total war is what is dangerous, and that's what many in the West are engaged in.

The Russians were willing to settle the war in March/April 2022 without any territorial gains for themselves.

That's a fact. It's confirmed by neutral sources, and even by the Ukrainian negotiators themselves.

For Putin this war is existential. — ssu

Not just for Putin, mind you.

It's quite popular among the mainstream media to repeat the idea that this is 'Putin's war', but it's been known since prior to the 2008 Bucharest NATO Summit that NATO expansion into Ukraine is a red line for much if not all of the Russian political establishment.

So yes, the Russians are prepared to go far in order for this war to be settled in their favor. That much should be crystal clear by now.

That moment has passed, it's not turning, things have changed. — ssu

True. Things have gotten gravely worse for Ukraine. There's nothing left of the bargaining position they had in March/April 2022. Frontlines are crumbling, nations are starting to talk about withdrawing support, etc.

That's a direct result of choosing the military path, and continuing on the military path will obviously extend this trend probably all the way to Ukraine's total demise.


In Ukraine's defense, there is another dimension to this.

In March/April 2022, the West told the Ukrainians to cease negotiations - even make them impossible as Zelensky made sure to cement in the Ukrainian constitution - and double down on the military path.

Ukraine likely did this because of promises that were made by the West.

Now Ukraine is likely and understandably bitter about the prospect of negotiations in the face of wavering Western support. We basically made them fight on for two years, for nothing.

That's probably why Ukraine will need serious 'nudging' (aka, threatening to cut off support) to force them to change their stance.

The Americans have already stabbed the Ukrainians in the back.

The promise upon which the Ukrainians hedged their chances against the Russians was the fact that we would come to their rescue. We did not. We hung them out to dry, drip-feeding them weapons and aid in a way that's ensuring their slow demise.

There is no military path to an independent Ukraine. Ukraine will be completely hollowed out. Whatever is left at the end will not be an independent state in any meaningful sense of the term.

Ukraine's best chance at independence were the Istanbul negotiations.

Our shockingly obscene incompetence has already guaranteed a victory for Putin.

If you're still hoping for a victory you need a dosis of reality.

A sophisticated way of saying "Putin bad." - not very convincing.

If we want to avoid WW3, we should probably look into our own role in perpetuating the conflict - for example at the role of the US and the UK in blocking the Istanbul agreement, and Biden's current escalatory actions to make peace impossible when Trump has stated he intends to pursue a deal.

This is the absurdity when politicians are let to micromanage warfighting. Yet when you ask the President to answer something, he definitely will then answer these kind of question and then you simply are trapped in the situation where politician just decide on everything and they don't look at the war from the warfighting stance, but from their own political view. Then war becomes "sending messages", not fighting to win the war and defeating the enemy. — ssu

I don't know about micromanaging, but for politicians to command the military is only proper.

"War is a continuation of politics by other means," as Clausewitz said.

When fighting and winning the war becomes a goal of its own (as is often the type of tunnel vision military leadership suffers from), it is a recipe for disaster.

You end up with geniuses like MacArthur who wanted to nuke China because he was unable to accept the Korean War was going to end in a stalemate.

We are talking of a 10-50m CEP with ATACMS. — ssu

With just a tiny, old INS over a 300km trajectory?

Yeah, no.

The whole point is for the GPS and INS to function together to reduce their respective errors.

The ATACMS was developed in the 1980's. It has inertial guidance just as nearly all long range missile artillery systems have, even if it can be aided by GPS. — ssu

You won't hit the broad side of a barn with just '80s INS, but the guidance modules have been updated over time to be able to correlate INS with systems other than GPS, since GPS is basically a relic of the past due to how easily it is jammed.

The issue for Ukraine is that GPS is heavily jammed and thus long-range ATACMS missiles have to rely on different guidance systems to achieve a high degree of accuracy - most-likely classified US ground mapping methods. Hence the obvious conclusion that they're being operated by Americans.

That's not "Putin talk" - that's simply in the nitty-gritty of how these sorts of things work.

And all this "Putin talk" is coming from Western analysts.

Also note the gold price responding to recent geopolitical developments.

When Trump got elected, the price of gold started to come down significantly from an all-time high. Apparently the world, unlike this forum's left-leaning denizens, viewed Trump's election as a turn towards stability.

A few days later, this downward trend is reversed as the Biden administration takes clear steps to make said turn towards stability impossible. The gold price skyrockets to a new all-time high and probably will continue going through the roof for the next several days.

This is not 'Putin talk', it's simply a fact that Ukraine is incapable of operating these weapon systems alone. It's inherent to the weapon systems.

It requires US or British assistance for virtually every step of the deployment process. The strikes are probably completely planned by American and British operators.

With that said, if we survive all of this, maybe several countries in Europe will reinvent this Dutch tradition:

It is one thing when, like during the Cuban Missile Crisis, countries are playing nuclear chicken with their own countries at stake.

Right now, the US and the UK are playing with Ukraine and Europe.

No country in the world should accept this.

They were both downright awful. Maybe that had something to do with it.

This sexist country just can't stand the thought of a woman leader. — RogueAI

Except that Hillary Clinton, an unimaginable hag of a woman, won the popular vote by a comfortable margin in 2016. But keep coping, I suppose..

Well, it can't get any worse than the Biden administration, which is now playing a game of nuclear chicken with Europe as their bargaining chip.

Ten weeks until Trump takes office. Lets see if Europe survives.

The point here is that Ukraine lacks the ISR and fire control capabilities to strike targets deep inside Russia, which means that at this point US and British weapons are being used, using US and British targeting data, operated by US and British operators, to attack Russia directly. (Maybe a Ukrainian presses the final button for appearance's sake)

In other words, NATO, via the US and the UK, is now directly at war with Russia, or so the Russians argue.

When Russia is directly at war with another nuclear-armed power, that puts into effect aspects of their nuclear doctrine, one of which being (I assume) that nuclear weapons are to be permanently aimed at you and me.


It's honestly quite remarkable to me that you're still showing no signs of alarm. At what point will you say enough is enough? When the air sirens go off?


Do you understand the implications of the argument I have put forward previously, that:

1. Europe and Russia are parts of the world the US will no longer be able to control going into the future.

2. Europe and Russia will play a critical role in keeping China's economy afloat in case of a US-China war.

3. Europe and Russia being in pole position to benefit greatly from a US-China war, and probably becoming the laughing thirds of such a conflict.

I wager that the Americans view 'limited nuclear war' as an excellent means of taking out two potential geopolitical rivals who stand to benefit from a US-China war: Russia and Europe.

____________________________________________________________________________

People in the UK are Europeans, actually. :wink: — ssu

For the sake of geopolitics, they are not. The UK belongs to the periphery, and as such benefits from keeping Eurasia divided and fighting amongst themselves. The US operates on exactly the same principles.

Deterrence stops Putin. — ssu

This isn't deterrence. This is provocation and escalation, and it achieves nothing besides those two things. Besides, the Russians have made clear they believe they are protecting vital strategic interests - in other words, they won't be bluffed out of this.

The US and the UK are playing with fire, and it will be us, the Europeans, that are going to get burned.

Sweden and Finland both have this thing called "total defense". — ssu

What you'll have is a total curling up in the foetal position while our countries are incinerated.

You're sitting on the front row, I on the second.

We have nothing to gain here.

All we can hope for is for the Russians to understand that it is the US and the UK who are pursuing this strategy over our backs, and that the Russians seek to impose costs on them instead.

That's the only way for the US and the UK to start behaving - if they are the ones to pay the price of war.

Two nations are flaunting the fact that "their missiles" are hitting targets in Russia: the US and the UK.

What did they achieve?

Nothing, except for the fact that Putin has stated in September they would consider themselves to be at war with NATO if this were to transpire, with which he refered to their nuclear doctrine which undoubtedly prescribes that in the event of a war with another nuclear-armed power, Russian nukes should be ready 24/7 to deliver a 'second strike'.

How do Europeans sleep, knowing they're the playing chips with which the US and the UK are pursuing these types of escalations?

I do believe you should focus more on the situation at hand, [...] — Benkei

In what way do you suppose I am not?

The reality is Trump is not exactly a stable factor where it concerns foreign policy. Since the EU is not sufficiently integrated militarily to deter Russian aggression, Trump is not making our world safer. Zelensky realises this and immediately signalled a willingness to negotiate.

Of course, it could lead to long term stability at least on the European continent, where it concerns Russia, if we ensure the EU has a strong role in establishing the peace deal and it becomes more a tri-partite treaty than bilateral. — Benkei

The problem lies in US and UK integration into the European security structure.

If the Americans want to leave voluntarily and clean up the mess they created while they're at it (ergo. peace in Ukraine) then that's manna from heaven.

A diplomatic settlement in Ukraine would lead to a period of peace during which Europe can get its act together. Given our population and GDP, there's no reason whatsoever Russia should ever be a threat to us.

Under the current state of geopolitical affairs, there's no conceivable reason why Europe and Russia should be thinking about war, so what on earth are our politicians doing?

Yes, there's just one hot war in Europe, if you mean that by "no concrete threat". Because the Russian hybrid attacks (last few days ago) and the bellicose rhetoric of Russia sure feels like some kind of a threat. — ssu

What I meant is that Russia is currently occupied in Ukraine and won't conceivably threaten to invade NATO for the foreseeable future.

In 20 years that situation might be different, and at that point the US pivot to Asia will have proceeded even further.

Many Americans are what I class as the "Pivot people". America has to Pivot! Well, perhaps not from defending Judeo-Christian heritage in the Middle East, but still, Europe! Bye bye Europe.

But let's just think of how "clear" these goals and challenges are:

- First, there's nothing like the NATO in the Far East. SEATO failed, the countries didn't see eye to eye and the US simply gave up. These countries do train to operate jointly at the level as NATO countries do. They usually hold exercises occasionaly with the US, but not with each other. What is the American solution? AUKUS. Which actually isn't anything new at all as the countries have already defense pacts with each other. How well South-Korea and Japan are doing together? Not so good as Germany and France.

- Which of these Far Eastern allies have the capabilities of the UK or France? None, even if Japan has a big navy. It's one thing to prepare for domestic security and defending in one's own territory, another thing to train for out of the area operations. NATO can do that, Far Asian allies of the US aren't capable of that.

- Which of these Far Eastern countries are rearming to meet the Chinese threat? Nothing like the rearmament in Europe is happening in the Far East, except China.

Hence the real question is, how many would be willing to fight alongside the US if Taiwan would be invaded? Totally different from the question of how many NATO countries would fight if Poland was attacked. Especially when the US policy is "Strategic Ambiguity".

Hence if the US intervenes in a Chinese retaking of Taiwan, likely the American President will scream for the NATO losers to join in. — ssu

The principal difference is that China is a peer competitor and Russia is not.

War in the Pacific is very easily imaginable, whereas war between Europe and Russia is not logical at all.

If a peace is reached in Ukraine, relations will probably gravitate back to the pre-2008 status quo.

East-Asia however is critically imbalanced, with the US sphere of influence smushed up against China in an attempt to contain it, and to dangle a sword of Damocles over its maritime trade and with it its entire economy.

That's simply a situation the Chinese will not accept going into the future.

The only question is how long before the Chinese start throwing their weight around, and indications are that it may still take some time before the Chinese start taking military action. The political and economic war is already well underway, though.

:lol:

Trump is insane, but cunning. And he will destroy America if he is allowed to, and possibly the world. — unenlightened

The US and Biden's push into Ukraine is the single greatest threat to the world since the Cuban Missile Crisis - not Trump.

Trump has been elected on a strong platform to end this war.

As Trump moves into office, we see the Biden administration deliberately taking steps to deteriorate the situation in the hopes of making peace impossible.

Is partisanship the sole reason you're avoiding this pink elephant, or do you really not see it?

Don't think that Europeans aren't taking Trump seriously. They genuinely believe that Trump and his gang could take the US out of NATO. It's a genuine possibility that could happen: Americans could be perfectly capable of shooting themselves in the foot and breaking their strongest alliances, then wake up and notice that they aren't anymore the Superpower they used to be. If the US goes into isolationism, it simply will be a richer and larger version of Canada. People don't have anything against Canada, they might even know the name of the Canadian prime minister, but that's it. Who cares about the policies that Canada is pushing in it's foreign policy. It something quite irrelevant for Europeans. — ssu

Yes, I think we Europeans might be genuinely worried about Trump leaving NATO - much like how a fat private fears PT. Yet, PT is the only way to whip said private back into shape.

Now would be the best time, since there is no concrete threat to Europe yet.

The problem I have described in the past though, is that I fear that the US will use European militarization as a means to create more tension between Europe and Russia.

That is the exact opposite of what Europe should want.

This is why I welcome the departure of the Americans if it were to happen.


About NATO being the US' strongest alliance I am not so sure, though. It certainly is big and has potential, but Europe is currently without teeth. It is also situated on the other side of the globe from where the next real 'Cold War' is going to take place (the Pacific).

Controlling Europe costs resources, and perhaps Europe is proving too big to control in a time when the US cannot afford to waste resources.

Personally, I think Europe has dropped down on Uncle Sam's priority list, in favor of the Five-Eyes Alliance, Japan and South-Korea. These countries have a far clearer overlap with US strategic goals and challenges.

Isn't Poland acting accordingly? They are on the track to have the strongest military in Europe. Finland is arming itself and the military is excercising it's forces on a level not seen since the Cold War. — ssu

Indeed. This is both logical and desirable. However, my principal worry is the way the US may use European militarization as a method to create more tension between Europe and Russia.

Under the current circumstances, one could easily envision this spiraling into a direct conflict.

The Poles seemed to have wisened up to this, and have started to push back on attempts to drag them deeper into the conflict.

That awareness needs to be present in all of Europe.

Yet notice one thing that has been true throughout the entire span of history: transport in trade by water is far more efficient and less costly than transport by land. One cargo ship can carry several cargo trains of produce. Ancient civilizations emerged on large rivers and the Mediterranean was such a lucrative sea for trade. It's just simply physics. Silk road and China's new land routes simply cannot compete with international shipping. — ssu

Roughly speaking that's true, but we are talking about a scenario in which Chinese sea trade were to be completely cut off.

At that point, land-based trade would be all that is left.

In a US-China confrontation scenario, the Chinese economy would simply implode if it couldn't find alternative markets over land, and this hangs like a sword of Damocles above them.

I think this recent move by the US to allow Ukraine to use US arms to strike targets deep inside Russia blatantly shows their escalatory intentions.

At this point in time, Ukraine is lost and will soon be pressured to the negotiating table by Trump. Even though I understand that it will be a painful process for Ukraine, I consider it to be in Ukraine's best interest. The alternative is an even longer war with an even bleaker outlook, from which Ukraine stands to gain absolutely nothing.

The Biden administration is plainly trying to make such a process impossible by attempting to deteriorate and escalate the situation to a point where negotiations are no longer an option.

Washington desires war, and this is what they had envisioned since the start of the conflict in 2008, when they deliberately set out to violate Russian red lines - this is what I have argued for months, if not years by now.

Everyone can see that any further expansion of military aid to Ukraine at this point is too little too late, and won't change the situation on the battlefield.

Meanwhile, the Russians have been warning NATO about the seriousness with which they regard this particular escalation, saying that they would consider this move to put Russia directly at war with NATO - aka World War 3. This blatantly puts all of Europe into the crosshairs of Russian retaliation, and for what?

Ukraine is really the odd one out, since the Russians have been proclaiming red lines vis-á-vis Ukraine since 2008. Therefore the route the Ukrainians have chosen was indeed much riskier than is the case for the Baltic States, Finland and Sweden.

However, my point remains that NATO leans completely on the American security apparatus, and at this point in time it is clear that the Americans will not commit to the defense of any nation in Europe, since it must focus on the Pacific and China.

Europe is in fact defenseless. And instead of acting accordingly, we do everything possible to follow Washington's line towards further confrontation with Russia.

Apparently people in Europe are under some sort of illusion that we can bluff the Russians into backing off, but that's obviously not working.

The Russians perceive our behavior as a clear sign that we are no longer interested in peace, and if we start treating them as 'the enemy', they will start treating us as 'the enemy', which is a position Europe can only lose from.


On the first page of the thread I wrote this post, arguing why America doesn't necessarily lose wars, but instead tends to fight wars in which a decisive military victory is not the goal.

We see another clear example of that in Ukraine, where even as Ukraine is starting to warm up to the idea of negotiations, the US continues to escalate the conflict in an attempt to drag things out.

It's quite understandable that countries that border Russia seek some form of protection against it.

Trying to join NATO was arguably the crudest and most risky way of doing so, and hedging the survival of the country on a distant maritime power was rather naive given the track record of said power, and that is a criticism that applies to virtually all NATO members.

We should know better than to trust Washington.

Tzeentch, you are clueless. — Fooloso4

How come? :chin:

What trick? Are Trump's choices to head government agencies with incompetent sycophants a politician's trick? Are his threats to gut and eliminate government agencies a politician's trick? Are his threats against the media that does not show proper deference to him a politician's trick? Are his threats of retribution against his political enemies a politician's trick? Are his environmental policies a politician's trick?

If there is a politician's trick that Trump is using it is to say outrageous things that get attention and steer attention away from the real threads. — Fooloso4

The politician's trick is to get people emotionally invested and riled up, so they turn off their brains.

In case you didn't catch it, I'm responding to what posted about adults malding on social media about the election.

I think it's a sign of the unhealthy amounts of rage that were fostered by the Democratic Party, but obviously the Republicans have their own versions of it.