Ukraine War

[Longhorn_Fan68 34106]

4 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

But then he also urges us to like and subscribe and check out the merchandise he’s selling. You can buy the shirt he’s wearing. Maybe he’s keeping some of that money to pay his administrative fees. I don’t know and can’t say but I can’t help but wonder if it’s not an entirely altruistic endeavor. I’m not going to bother looking to see what other merchandise he’s selling.

 

that's really, really, really, really normal for people who make their living talking on youtube. like, literally every one of them does it. I'd find something else to take exception to.

Edited March 17, 2022 by Longhorn_Fan68

[F250 29201]

2 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

And some of the things he said were kind of weird, like when he was talking about MREs and the importance of probiotics and familiar favors like buffalo wings and sriracha that would boost a soldier’s morale.

Living off of MREs for a few weeks will wreck your gut's microbiome. 

[Biff Tannen 46169]

6 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Probiotics are actually bunk, for example.

Well I don't want to get into a whole thing with you here, but what?

[F250 29201]

2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

that's really, really, really, really normal for people who make their living talking on youtube. like, literally every one of them does it. I'd find something else to take exception to.

Yeah. "Like and subscribe" while pushing merch is how YouTubers get paid.

 

[Gatorubet 30723]

1 hour ago, Hookah Horns said:

A pro-biotic narrative. 

The anti-biotic YouTube offerings raise some good questions

[WhatTheBuck 28931]

8 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

that's really, really, really, really normal for people who make their living talking on youtube. like, literally every one of them does it. I'd find something else to take exception to.

I thought he made his living as a fiction author. Look, I’m not subscribing to anybody’s YouTube channel but especially not anyone who’s making their living off of it, and even more especially when they’re telling me things that A) I can find out on my own, and B) some of which are factually incorrect. But if you want to go buy his merch, don’t let me stop you. Hell, buy his book Punk’s War. And the sequels Punk’s Wing and Punk’s Fight.

He didn’t show me video I haven’t seen. He was wrong about the encirclement of Kyiv. That is a critical error. He recited from an article someone else wrote. He’s an aggregator. And probably a victim of some misinformation he sees on the internet. If Ukraine has such a capable pilot as the “Ghost of Kyiv” who shot down six Russian jets in one day, wouldn’t Zelensky cite him as an example for why we should get those MIGs in Poland to them? 

But apparently Ward plays guitar, digs the Beatles (as evidenced by the Abbey Road poster on the wall), and is a dog lover. I’m sure we could hang. I’m just giving my review. Don’t be upset if I don’t say, “Oh my God that’s the most awesome thing I’ve ever seen!” It’s a thing. I’d give it a grade of B. 

[WhatTheBuck 28931]

30 minutes ago, F250 said:

Living off of MREs for a few weeks will wreck your gut's microbiome. 

That’s not what he said.

[WhatTheBuck 28931]

35 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Well I don't want to get into a whole thing with you here, but what?

Gut bacteria is a thing. Probiotic supplements are a marketing gimmick. 

[MissingInAction 25559]

15 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Gut bacteria is a thing. Probiotic supplements are a marketing gimmick. 

Ever heard of flora injections?

[TexArcher 39074]

12 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

Ever heard of flora injections?

Is she that new spinner porn star?

[Biff Tannen 46169]

2 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Gut bacteria is a thing. Probiotic supplements are a marketing gimmick. 

Well they changed my life, but maybe I'm just a sucker.  Anyway, there's a war in Ukraine.

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

yeah…a couple of tasty kombuchas after a weeks course of Augmentin isn’t a bullshit thing. 

[Thatguy 9371]

2 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Gut bacteria is a thing. Probiotic supplements are a marketing gimmick. 

[Dahobbs 18326]

Helping my friend get his posts in the right thread. 

33 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

That is not what Mearsheimer is saying. He has pointed out that this war has been brewing for eight years, we've egged Ukraine on all along with false promises, Ukraine has acted recklessly in aggravating the gorilla next door...His contention is there was a time when Ukraine could have accepted its place in the world as a buffer state and it would not have been that bad. At the heart of all of this thought is Thucydides: Strong nations do what they will, weak nations suffer what they must. Ukraine is a relatively weak nation but one of their bargaining chips is neutrality. Instead of using it they listened to America's crack foreign policy team (almost all of y'all agree about our other recent disasters -- why is this different?) and now we are teetering on the brink of nuclear holocaust over a country of no strategic import to us.

Great job everybody well done.

He also points out that is useful when thinking of global strategy to be able to put yourselves in the shoes of the enemy. When Khruschev tried to put missiles in Cuba, we almost went to nuclear war. Imagine if China or Russia brokered some deal to put their military on the ground in Mexico or Canada. That is what NATO Ukraine is to Russia. To us, Chinese Naval Station Veracruz; joint operating base Monterrey. 

We have a Monroe Doctrine. Russia has something similar and Ukraine is the centerpiece of it. 

Mearsheimer acknowledges that Putin is a thug who in his heart of hearts would love a "Greater Russia" or Soviet Union remix but he believes, as I do, that Putin is smart enough to know that he simply cannot pull that off. Not today, not tomorrow, not in any of our lifetimes. How the fuck is he going to manage Ukraine as a client state with his army in shambles and then launch fresh invasions on three Baltic states who hate him maybe even more than the proudest Ukrainians thereby triggering a NATO heymaker? 

It is just not possible. He doesn't have the juice. 

Seriously terrible take. You would have to be staring way up your own asshole to see Ukraine s aggravator of Russia. I mean, sure, existing is pretty infuriating to Russia, but I sure wouldn't call it aggression. It of course buys part and parcel the Russian story that it really just wants a neutral buffer between it and NATO and doesn't at all want a completely vassal state like in the old Soviet Union. What a crock of shit. 

 

[tx 3 putt 78702]

2 hours ago, MissingInAction said:

Ever heard of flora injections?

 

your sister is out of prison ?

[brakeman 28751]

11 hours ago, TreatyOak said:

Amazing words from Arnold to the Russian people. And as an added bonus, he takes a nice dig at the January 6th cretins. 

 

https://twitter.com/Schwarzenegger/status/1504426844199669762?s=20&t=PN1kkWk6Vrj2BwnXWMQBNw

It was a powerful plea, Schwarzenegger, the most powerful American Republican, giving the Russian people a solid.

Bravo, Sir.

[Welshy 914]

9 minutes ago, brakeman said:

It was a powerful plea, Schwarzenegger, the most powerful American Republican, giving the Russian people a solid.

Bravo, Sir.

Pretty sure he was trying to sell probiotics.

[Biff Tannen 46169]

1 hour ago, Welshy said:

Pretty sure he was trying to sell probiotics.

And certainly not a Republican by today's standards.  Or any standards pre-2010.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

According to Bill Browder, this was once Russia’s wealthiest oligarch. Putin had him arrested, seized all his money, imprisoned him for 10 years, and then banished him from Russia.  Fascinating interview.

 

[F250 29201]

2 hours ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

yeah…a couple of tasty kombuchas after a weeks course of Augmentin isn’t a bullshit thing. 

STD related?

 

[Anastasis 23722]

 

4 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Gut bacteria is a thing. Probiotic supplements are a marketing gimmick. 

what a dumb ass with runny shits. 

[WhatTheBuck 28931]

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Well they changed my life, but maybe I'm just a sucker.  Anyway, there's a war in Ukraine.

Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t and you just think they did. However you took them, I’m guessing they didn’t come in a Buffalo wing-flavored MRE. Maybe you got them from the probiotics aisle at Whole Foods.

But that really doesn’t have anything to do with the war in Ukraine. And regarding Ward Carrol’s video, he said the Russians had encircled the Kyiv. Whenever that video was shot, it wasn’t true then and it’s not true now. So rather than focus on the more trivial minutiae, can we all agree that he was just plain wrong on that analysis of the war in Ukraine? That’s a huge blunder. 

[Biff Tannen 46169]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t and you just think they did.

[brakeman 28751]

39 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

And certainly not a Republican by today's standards.  Or any standards pre-2010.

But he was/is a Republican.

[Sawbonz 28228]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Helping my friend get his posts in the right thread. 

Seriously terrible take. You would have to be staring way up your own asshole to see Ukraine s aggravator of Russia. I mean, sure, existing is pretty infuriating to Russia, but I sure wouldn't call it aggression. It of course buys part and parcel the Russian story that it really just wants a neutral buffer between it and NATO and doesn't at all want a completely vassal state like in the old Soviet Union. What a crock of shit. 

 

Why do you make me hit you?!?!?

[Nivek 17415]

Maybe.  He could be just another armchair 4-star general "weighing in" on shit he's cobbled together, too.

Ex tomcat pilot. I have seen him before.

[WhatTheBuck 28931]

Here’s some compelling video I saw on BBC News earlier. I can’t find it on YouTube to embed.

The troops holding the front line in Kharkiv:

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-60786964

[brakeman 28751]

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

58 minutes ago, F250 said:

STD related?

 

i wish…

presurgery regimen…

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20928]

 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20928]

The only way Putin can win in Ukraine is to completely level it.  He's realized it. You can tell from his language and his body language that he's realized he made a catastrophic mistake.  He started this war as one of the three great powers and he's going to end it as something much less.

Did you guys read Petraeus' analysis?  Very compelling stuff:

 

Spoiler

Peter Bergen is CNN's national security analyst, a vice president at New America and a professor of practice at Arizona State University. His forthcoming paperback is The Cost of Chaos: The Trump Administration and the World. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion on CNN.

(CNN)Retired Gen. David Petraeus, who commanded US forces in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, says the Russians are facing a Ukraine military that is exceptionally determined, surprisingly capable and innovative, and one that is fighting on its home territory for its very survival.

 

In contrast, the Russian invaders have displayed a host of weaknesses: flawed planning; overly optimistic intelligence projections about how the conflict would play out; underestimation of the Ukrainian forces and people; inadequate maintenance and logistics; unimpressive equipment; a reliance on conscripts and an inability to mount effective cyberwarfare.

 

In interviews on Sunday and Monday, Petraeus, who formerly headed the CIA, assessed the war in Ukraine as it has played out in its first three weeks. He is skeptical that the Russians have enough forces to take, much less to control, the Ukrainian capital Kyiv and some of the other major cities, saying that continued urban warfare generally will favor the Ukrainians.

 

Nonetheless, he also notes that the Russians have enormous capacity for -- and history of -- destroying cities, civilian facilities and critical infrastructure, and they will "rubble" urban areas in an effort to take control.

 

Petraeus praised the actions of the Biden administration and its allies in recent weeks and noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin, instead of making Russia great again, has made NATO great again. He predicts the most likely near-term outcome of the war in Ukraine will be the continuation of a bloody quagmire for Russia that is largely indecisive, even as it inflicts greater and greater loss of life, infrastructure and basic services on the Ukrainian people. There is, however, also the possibility of a negotiated resolution, as both Moscow and Kyiv recognize the damage and destruction being done to their countries.

 

Our conversation was edited for clarity.

 

PETER BERGEN: Is the Russian military's performance in Ukraine surprising to you?

 

DAVID PETRAEUS: Somewhat surprising, but not entirely. And there are many reasons for the Russians' abysmal performance. First of all, they're fighting against a very determined, quite capable Ukrainian force that is composed of special ops, conventional forces, territorial forces and even private citizens, all of whom are determined not to allow Russia to achieve its objectives. They are fighting for their national survival, their homeland and their way of life, and they have the home-field advantage, knowing the terrain and communities.

 

But beyond that, the Russians are just surprisingly unprofessional. They clearly have very poor standards when it comes to performing basic tactical tasks such as achieving combined arms operations, involving armor, infantry, engineers, artillery and mortars. They are very poor at maintaining their vehicles and weapon systems and have abandoned many of them. They are also poor at resupply and logistical tasks.

 

 

We have known for decades that the Soviet system, now the Russian system, has always lacked one of the key strengths of US and Western militaries, which is a strong, professional noncommissioned officer corps.

 

And part of the problem is that the Russian military has a fairly substantial percentage of conscripts. It's very hard to determine how many of them are in Ukraine. We know in the Russian military overall, probably in the range of 20 to 25% are conscripts. And there are particularly large numbers of conscripts in a critical area, which is logistics -- including drivers of trucks and fuel tankers and soldiers in maintenance units.

 

The Russians also have found it difficult to go off-road. Their wheeled vehicles get mired in mud very quickly. The ground is not frozen the way they had hoped it would be. Even tracked vehicles seem to be getting mired in mud. And the Russians are just not performing sufficient preventive maintenance on their equipment.

 

I've served in mechanized units, with a mix of tanks and armored personnel carriers. And every single time you stop, the driver and the crew members are outside checking road wheels and final drives, pumping grease, topping off fluid levels. If you don't do preventive maintenance, then you will end up with such vehicles breaking down.

 

Beyond that, the Russians just have relatively unimpressive equipment, given the investment supposedly made over the past decade or so. They certainly don't have equipment comparable to what the United States has.

 

Their precision munitions aren't very precise: This was underlined by the fact that they didn't crater the runways in Ukraine in the first hour of combat the way we did in Iraq in 2003 to completely deny the Iraqi Air Force any opportunities to take off. In fact, the Ukrainian Air Force is still flying. As modest as it is and as many losses as it has sustained, it's still up in flight.

 

So Russian precision munitions are lacking. We can also see this with the sheer frequency of the Russians hitting civilian infrastructure, like the hospital in Mariupol, other medical facilities and the government center in Kharkiv -- unless they truly meant to hit those targets, which obviously would be nothing short of horrific.

 

They also have problems in very basic tasks such as staying dispersed. A column never closes up on a major highway where it can be spotted by a drone and hit by artillery, as was seen recently. The 40-mile traffic jam we saw outside of Kyiv -- this is just incompetent movement control for which normally there is doctrine and organizational structures and procedures. And then it took them days just to disperse that 40-mile column into the tree cover as opposed to being out in the open.

They've also been incapable of combining what should have been a huge advantage for them, which is integrating air and ground operations together. They're not really doing true close air support, just ahead of their ground formations. Rather, they're just doing air attacks.

 

Russian cyberwarfare has also been unimpressive, perhaps because they overused it in the past and the Ukrainians, possibly with some help, learned how to deal with it. The Russians have been unable to take down the Ukrainian command and control system and unable to take down President Volodymyr Zelensky's access to social media and the internet. So, their cyberwarfare capabilities that seemed impressive in earlier campaigns, when the Russians took Crimea in 2014 for instance, are a whole lot less impressive this time.

 

And then on top of all of that, you just have an unimpressive campaign design by the Russians that clearly was based on very flawed assumptions about how quickly they could take Kyiv and particularly how quickly they could topple the government and replace it with a pro-Russian government.

 

So, in every single area of evaluation, the Russians, starting with their intelligence assessments and understanding of the battlefield and their adversary, and then every aspect of the campaign, all the way down to small unit operations, have proved woefully inadequate. And they're facing an enemy that is absolutely determined, surprisingly capable, very innovative and resourceful, and fighting on their home field.

 

Much of the population also hate the Russians, and that hatred is being deepened with every strike on civilian infrastructure. Not only are the Russians not winning hearts and minds, they are alienating hearts and minds.

 

BERGEN: Is time and mass on the side of the Russians?

 

PETRAEUS: I don't think so, but quantity does have a quality of its own over time and the sheer destructive capability of Russian bombs, missiles, rockets, artillery and mortars obviously has to be a huge concern.

 

Clearly, they do not have enough forces to take, much less to control, Kyiv and some of the other major cities, but they do have missiles, rockets, artillery, and bombs and an apparent willingness to use them in a very indiscriminate fashion.

 

And so, they continue the approach they used in Chechnya, particularly with Grozny, and in Syria, particularly with Aleppo, where they depopulated the cities by indiscriminate use of bombs. And it is going to be an endurance contest between the Russians' willingness to destroy cities and the Ukrainians' ability to survive such destruction.

 

BERGEN: Will urban warfare favor the Ukrainians?

 

PETRAEUS: Very much so. Usually, the rule of thumb for urban warfare is that it requires at least five attackers to every defender. In this case, I'd argue it may be more than that because the Ukrainians are so resourceful. They will work together to prevent the Russians from taking urban areas the way that infantry and combined arms normally would do, such as the way the United States military cleared and then held cities during the Iraq War in, e.g., Ramadi and Fallujah as well as parts of Baghdad and other cities.

 

 

Such big-city battles require you to take every building and clear every room, and then you have to leave forces behind in each building or else the enemy will come back behind you and reoccupy them. So, it's incredibly soldier-intensive. The Russians have nowhere near enough soldiers to do that even for Kyiv, much less all of the other cities.

 

To be sure, the Russians will have some success in some cities, and certainly, the battle for Mariupol is a race between the starvation of the Ukrainians who remain there, which include forces that are still fighting very hard, and the Russians' willingness to continue to heap destruction and innocent civilian casualties on a city that's resisting but is surrounded.

 

BERGEN: If Putin decides to try and take all of Ukraine, what size army would he need?

 

PETRAEUS: I'm not sure. I don't think even his entire military could do this, and keep in mind, there's a huge limiting factor, and that is the apparent inability of Putin to replace the forces that are presently fighting. How and when does he replace his forces? It's not apparent to me.

 

In fact, the Russian conscripts are only on 1-year rotations, so it's no wonder that they demonstrate very poor standards of everything, given that they barely made it through basic and advanced training and then unit integration and now they are in combat (and their tours were supposed to have ended in April, until Putin extended them).

 

BERGEN: US officials say that Russia is asking China for military and other forms of aid. What do you make of this?

 

PETRAEUS: The report by US officials is interesting in several respects. First, if accurate, it indicates that Russia is running out of certain weapons systems and munitions -- another reflection of how Russia seriously miscalculated so many aspects of the war they launched.

 

Second, this presents a very difficult issue for China. It was one thing for China to abstain from the UN General Assembly vote in which 141 countries condemned Russia for its unprovoked aggression. It would be a very different matter if China was to accede to Russia's request and thus actively side with a country that is truly becoming the evil empire, the target of unprecedented sanctions and experiencing a decoupling from the global economy. It also might result in some sanctions on China.

 

Third, beyond those issues, President Xi Jinping clearly has to be irritated with Russia's invasion, as Ukraine's largest trading partner was China.

 

Finally, Xi, having gotten through the Olympics had likely hoped for no drama in the months leading up to the Communist Party gathering in the fall during which he undoubtedly will be reelected for an unprecedented third term as President, while retaining his leadership of the Party and the Military Council. Putin could thus put Xi in a very awkward position.

 

So, it has not been a complete surprise that both Russia and China have stated that no such Russian request for aid was issued.

 

BERGEN: What do you think the Ukrainians need most?

 

PETRAEUS: Clearly, the US anti-tank Javelin system. And it's not just the Javelin. It's also other countries' anti-tank systems -- and man-portable air defense systems, as well. The UK AT system is very good. 17,000 of these anti-tank weapons have flowed into Ukraine in just one week. That's a huge number of man-portable anti-tank systems.

 

BERGEN: Should the US have begun arming Ukraine after Putin seized Crimea in 2014?

 

PETRAEUS: Congress authorized the transfer of Javelin weapons to the Ukrainians, and then it was delayed in the Obama administration. In the early period of the Trump administration, the Javelins were finally delivered, but then you had the whole issue with Ukraine subsequent to that when President Donald Trump reportedly withheld equipment for a period.

 

The effort by the Biden administration to arm the Ukrainians and the actions of our Western partners has been really quite dramatic, especially in the immediate run-up to the invasion and then following it. You see that Germany, which would only send helmets prior to the invasion, agreed to give lethal weapons. Even the EU agreed to send 500 million euros worth of military and other aid to Ukraine. So, there were revolutionary policy changes just days after the invasion began.

 

BERGEN: Are you surprised by that?

 

PETRAEUS: I think you must give credit to the US and to NATO and to the EU. I think that the Biden administration has performed impressively, and I say this as someone who publicly criticized the administration for the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan and the conduct of the withdrawal in August 2021.

 

BERGEN: Getting inside Putin's mind, of course, is not easy, but to what extent do you think that US withdrawal from Afghanistan may have figured in his calculations?

 

 

PETRAEUS: It is impossible to say, obviously, but what one can say with confidence is that some potential American adversaries seized on that withdrawal to say: "See? We told you the US is not a dependable partner and ally, and we told you that the US is a great power in decline."

 

Hearteningly, I think that US actions and those of our allies around the world on Ukraine have shown that the US is a dependable partner and is not a great power in decline. If anything, instead of Making Russia Great Again, what Putin has done is to Make NATO Great Again.

 

BERGEN: There have been warnings by the Biden White House about the possible use of chemical weapons by Putin. Is that plausible? Because it seems like kind of a Rubicon to cross.

 

PETRAEUS: It would be a Rubicon to cross, although the Russians have crossed that Rubicon before. They used the nerve agent Novichok against opponents of the regime such as Sergei Skripal and Alexei Navalny. They clearly have nerve agents. It's unknown whether they have them in large amounts and whether they're deliverable, but that clearly has to be a serious concern.

 

Certainly, the Biden administration has sought to dissuade Putin from using chemical weapons by exposing that possibility. In fact, another way in which this administration has been very impressive is taking what clearly are finished intelligence products and turning them into publicly releasable announcements without exposing sources and methods, which is really quite unique.

 

In fact, I think it has been quite effective because it has established the Biden administration's credibility on Ukraine. You can't dismiss what the administration is saying is possible, given that so much of what they said about Putin's plans for and goals in Ukraine, which was either initially dismissed or seen as unlikely, has now come to pass.

 

BERGEN: The Russians, clearly, they're taking significant losses, according to US officials.

 

PETRAEUS: Yes. It appears that they have taken more fatalities in the first two weeks of the war than the US took in 20 years in Iraq; somewhere around 5,000 or so by most accounts, which is just stunning.

 

BERGEN: Is it politically sustainable for Putin, or is it not clear?

 

 

PETRAEUS: Only time will tell. He seems to still have a very strong grip on power. But when do the mothers of the fallen soldiers start to really make their voices heard? What happens when the economic collapse really comes home to roost? When does the collapse of the ruble, the collapse of the economy, the inability to reopen the Russian stock market, the departure from Russia of major corporations who spent decades building up there such as McDonald's or Starbucks begin to hit home?

 

In fact, 380 companies, according to the count of a professor at Yale, have ceased operations in Russia. No one can predict what the results of the sanctions, frozen assets, corporate decoupling and other actions will be on Russia and the Russian people.

 

 

BERGEN: What do you make of the Russian attack on the Ukrainian base near the Polish border: What does this portend for a possibly widening conflict?

 

PETRAEUS: The Russian attack on the sprawling Ukrainian training base near Lviv, which I visited while in uniform, was undoubtedly launched to try to interdict the flow of weapons and supplies into Ukraine from Poland, some 12 miles to the west, and also, perhaps, to disrupt the location at which the foreign volunteers may be receiving orientation training before joining Ukrainian forces.

 

Given the proximity to the border, it clearly raises concerns about strikes falling in a NATO country -- which would require a NATO response given NATO's Article 5 commitment. Given the understandable efforts by NATO leaders to avoid a widening of the war, the attack on the training base outside Lviv obviously raises red flags, and I am confident that NATO leaders have consulted on possible responses should the conflict widen further.

 

 

BERGEN: After the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003 you asked a reporter, "tell me how this ends?" How does the Ukraine War end?

 

PETRAEUS: Well, I think there are several possibilities, and I'm not sure which is the most likely. Right now, though, it appears that it doesn't end, and that you have a bloody quagmire for Russia that is worse than the Soviet war in Afghanistan during the 1980s.

 

This quagmire would cause a terrible loss of life, destruction, displacement, depopulation of urban areas, a massive humanitarian catastrophe, as well as terrible losses for Russia, without a conclusive outcome for Russia. We're talking about this in the somewhat near term; in other words, in the next year or so.

 

There could also be a negotiated settlement as both Putin and Zelensky realize that neither of them can fully achieve what it is that they want, and that both sides are suffering enormous destruction. This could be advanced by, say, the president of Finland or the prime minister of Israel or the president of France or former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, or the president of China, to name a few possible interlocutors.

 

There's another possibility, of course, which is that Putin could depart power in some fashion. A new leader could recognize the folly of what Putin has done and pull out of Ukraine, perhaps try to get some agreement that saves a bit of face, but nonetheless allows Russia to extricate itself from what is going to be just an endless, costly, and indecisive involvement.

 

To be sure, the leader who follows Putin could also be just as ruthless, unfeeling and kleptocratic as Putin has been, so we should always temper our optimism when it comes to Russia.

 

There's a fourth possibility that can't be ruled out, and that is that Ukraine, in a sense, wins. It actually defeats the Russians on the battlefield, and gradually, that battlefield reality sets in, in Moscow. And maybe Ukraine even retakes the Donbas -- or, in a sense, dictates terms to Russia.

 

There are at least those four possibilities. Unfortunately, the one most likely in the near term appears to be the continuation of a bloody quagmire for Russia that is largely indecisive, with some Russian successes and some costly failures -- and greater and greater economic privation, inflation, unemployment and deprivation on the Russian people

 

[F250 29201]

6 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

 

This is the final outcome of "why am I getting backlash for being an asshole?"

 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20928]

I thought this was brilliant: 

 

"In the race between Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro to be the first to opine that we shouldn’t “cancel” someone just because they’re a genocidal war criminal with the blood of thousands of innocents on their hands, I’m honestly not sure who to predict will go first. Don Jr., maybe?"

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20928]

If this is true, and it appears to be, Putin is losing control. Once you start arresting senior military commanders and talking about purifying your country of traitors, you've lost. 

 

The losses appear to be leading to a purge of Putin's top military and intelligence commanders, including General Roman Gavrilov, the deputy head of Russia's National Guard, on Thursday.

Increasingly isolated and angry, the Russian president this week used a TV appearance to lash out at "traitors".

"Russian people are able to distinguish between true patriots and scum and traitors, and simply spit them out like a fly that flew into their mouths," Putin told an online meeting of the Russian cabinet. 

"I am convinced that a natural and necessary self-purification of society will strengthen our country."

James Heappey, the UK Armed Forces minister, said the language was "fanatical" and "hugely dangerous".

"There's a desperation that might make him consider a course of action we would view as very dangerous indeed," Mr Heappey told The Telegraph. "I'm deeply concerned about where his state of mind is at and how desperate he may become."

 

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Horn Under a Bad Sign

[Hagbard Celine 11259]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

According to Bill Browder, this was once Russia’s wealthiest oligarch. Putin had him arrested, seized all his money, imprisoned him for 10 years, and then banished him from Russia.  Fascinating interview.

 

another must-watch for those who wish to be informed

[Hagbard Celine 11259]

2 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t and you just think they did. However you took them, I’m guessing they didn’t come in a Buffalo wing-flavored MRE. Maybe you got them from the probiotics aisle at Whole Foods.

But that really doesn’t have anything to do with the war in Ukraine. And regarding Ward Carrol’s video, he said the Russians had encircled the Kyiv. Whenever that video was shot, it wasn’t true then and it’s not true now. So rather than focus on the more trivial minutiae, can we all agree that he was just plain wrong on that analysis of the war in Ukraine? That’s a huge blunder. 

dude.  you're bitching about a guy who said eating 20-year-old MREs might fuck up your metabolism.

ya think?

[Hagbard Celine 11259]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

Ex tomcat pilot. I have seen him before.

everyone questioning his veracity, motive, authenticity, whatthefuckever floats your boat

he used the term "Order of Battle" and then provided said data

if you don't understand sources, methods, tradecraft and/or military doctrine, can't help you

anyone that does, appreciates his narrative

and he didn't say the ghost of kiev was a real thing, he talked about in terms of infowar

surrounded kiev, didn't surround, whatever

if the MSM functioned at his level orangutang would have been primaried

[Hagbard Celine 11259]

1 hour ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

The only way Putin can win in Ukraine is to completely level it.  He's realized it. You can tell from his language and his body language that he's realized he made a catastrophic mistake.  He started this war as one of the three great powers and he's going to end it as something much less.

Did you guys read Petraeus' analysis?  Very compelling stuff:

 

  Hide contents

Peter Bergen is CNN's national security analyst, a vice president at New America and a professor of practice at Arizona State University. His forthcoming paperback is The Cost of Chaos: The Trump Administration and the World. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion on CNN.

(CNN)Retired Gen. David Petraeus, who commanded US forces in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, says the Russians are facing a Ukraine military that is exceptionally determined, surprisingly capable and innovative, and one that is fighting on its home territory for its very survival.

 

In contrast, the Russian invaders have displayed a host of weaknesses: flawed planning; overly optimistic intelligence projections about how the conflict would play out; underestimation of the Ukrainian forces and people; inadequate maintenance and logistics; unimpressive equipment; a reliance on conscripts and an inability to mount effective cyberwarfare.

 

In interviews on Sunday and Monday, Petraeus, who formerly headed the CIA, assessed the war in Ukraine as it has played out in its first three weeks. He is skeptical that the Russians have enough forces to take, much less to control, the Ukrainian capital Kyiv and some of the other major cities, saying that continued urban warfare generally will favor the Ukrainians.

 

Nonetheless, he also notes that the Russians have enormous capacity for -- and history of -- destroying cities, civilian facilities and critical infrastructure, and they will "rubble" urban areas in an effort to take control.

 

Petraeus praised the actions of the Biden administration and its allies in recent weeks and noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin, instead of making Russia great again, has made NATO great again. He predicts the most likely near-term outcome of the war in Ukraine will be the continuation of a bloody quagmire for Russia that is largely indecisive, even as it inflicts greater and greater loss of life, infrastructure and basic services on the Ukrainian people. There is, however, also the possibility of a negotiated resolution, as both Moscow and Kyiv recognize the damage and destruction being done to their countries.

 

Our conversation was edited for clarity.

 

PETER BERGEN: Is the Russian military's performance in Ukraine surprising to you?

 

DAVID PETRAEUS: Somewhat surprising, but not entirely. And there are many reasons for the Russians' abysmal performance. First of all, they're fighting against a very determined, quite capable Ukrainian force that is composed of special ops, conventional forces, territorial forces and even private citizens, all of whom are determined not to allow Russia to achieve its objectives. They are fighting for their national survival, their homeland and their way of life, and they have the home-field advantage, knowing the terrain and communities.

 

But beyond that, the Russians are just surprisingly unprofessional. They clearly have very poor standards when it comes to performing basic tactical tasks such as achieving combined arms operations, involving armor, infantry, engineers, artillery and mortars. They are very poor at maintaining their vehicles and weapon systems and have abandoned many of them. They are also poor at resupply and logistical tasks.

 

 

We have known for decades that the Soviet system, now the Russian system, has always lacked one of the key strengths of US and Western militaries, which is a strong, professional noncommissioned officer corps.

 

And part of the problem is that the Russian military has a fairly substantial percentage of conscripts. It's very hard to determine how many of them are in Ukraine. We know in the Russian military overall, probably in the range of 20 to 25% are conscripts. And there are particularly large numbers of conscripts in a critical area, which is logistics -- including drivers of trucks and fuel tankers and soldiers in maintenance units.

 

The Russians also have found it difficult to go off-road. Their wheeled vehicles get mired in mud very quickly. The ground is not frozen the way they had hoped it would be. Even tracked vehicles seem to be getting mired in mud. And the Russians are just not performing sufficient preventive maintenance on their equipment.

 

I've served in mechanized units, with a mix of tanks and armored personnel carriers. And every single time you stop, the driver and the crew members are outside checking road wheels and final drives, pumping grease, topping off fluid levels. If you don't do preventive maintenance, then you will end up with such vehicles breaking down.

 

Beyond that, the Russians just have relatively unimpressive equipment, given the investment supposedly made over the past decade or so. They certainly don't have equipment comparable to what the United States has.

 

Their precision munitions aren't very precise: This was underlined by the fact that they didn't crater the runways in Ukraine in the first hour of combat the way we did in Iraq in 2003 to completely deny the Iraqi Air Force any opportunities to take off. In fact, the Ukrainian Air Force is still flying. As modest as it is and as many losses as it has sustained, it's still up in flight.

 

So Russian precision munitions are lacking. We can also see this with the sheer frequency of the Russians hitting civilian infrastructure, like the hospital in Mariupol, other medical facilities and the government center in Kharkiv -- unless they truly meant to hit those targets, which obviously would be nothing short of horrific.

 

They also have problems in very basic tasks such as staying dispersed. A column never closes up on a major highway where it can be spotted by a drone and hit by artillery, as was seen recently. The 40-mile traffic jam we saw outside of Kyiv -- this is just incompetent movement control for which normally there is doctrine and organizational structures and procedures. And then it took them days just to disperse that 40-mile column into the tree cover as opposed to being out in the open.

They've also been incapable of combining what should have been a huge advantage for them, which is integrating air and ground operations together. They're not really doing true close air support, just ahead of their ground formations. Rather, they're just doing air attacks.

 

Russian cyberwarfare has also been unimpressive, perhaps because they overused it in the past and the Ukrainians, possibly with some help, learned how to deal with it. The Russians have been unable to take down the Ukrainian command and control system and unable to take down President Volodymyr Zelensky's access to social media and the internet. So, their cyberwarfare capabilities that seemed impressive in earlier campaigns, when the Russians took Crimea in 2014 for instance, are a whole lot less impressive this time.

 

And then on top of all of that, you just have an unimpressive campaign design by the Russians that clearly was based on very flawed assumptions about how quickly they could take Kyiv and particularly how quickly they could topple the government and replace it with a pro-Russian government.

 

So, in every single area of evaluation, the Russians, starting with their intelligence assessments and understanding of the battlefield and their adversary, and then every aspect of the campaign, all the way down to small unit operations, have proved woefully inadequate. And they're facing an enemy that is absolutely determined, surprisingly capable, very innovative and resourceful, and fighting on their home field.

 

Much of the population also hate the Russians, and that hatred is being deepened with every strike on civilian infrastructure. Not only are the Russians not winning hearts and minds, they are alienating hearts and minds.

 

BERGEN: Is time and mass on the side of the Russians?

 

PETRAEUS: I don't think so, but quantity does have a quality of its own over time and the sheer destructive capability of Russian bombs, missiles, rockets, artillery and mortars obviously has to be a huge concern.

 

Clearly, they do not have enough forces to take, much less to control, Kyiv and some of the other major cities, but they do have missiles, rockets, artillery, and bombs and an apparent willingness to use them in a very indiscriminate fashion.

 

And so, they continue the approach they used in Chechnya, particularly with Grozny, and in Syria, particularly with Aleppo, where they depopulated the cities by indiscriminate use of bombs. And it is going to be an endurance contest between the Russians' willingness to destroy cities and the Ukrainians' ability to survive such destruction.

 

BERGEN: Will urban warfare favor the Ukrainians?

 

PETRAEUS: Very much so. Usually, the rule of thumb for urban warfare is that it requires at least five attackers to every defender. In this case, I'd argue it may be more than that because the Ukrainians are so resourceful. They will work together to prevent the Russians from taking urban areas the way that infantry and combined arms normally would do, such as the way the United States military cleared and then held cities during the Iraq War in, e.g., Ramadi and Fallujah as well as parts of Baghdad and other cities.

 

 

Such big-city battles require you to take every building and clear every room, and then you have to leave forces behind in each building or else the enemy will come back behind you and reoccupy them. So, it's incredibly soldier-intensive. The Russians have nowhere near enough soldiers to do that even for Kyiv, much less all of the other cities.

 

To be sure, the Russians will have some success in some cities, and certainly, the battle for Mariupol is a race between the starvation of the Ukrainians who remain there, which include forces that are still fighting very hard, and the Russians' willingness to continue to heap destruction and innocent civilian casualties on a city that's resisting but is surrounded.

 

BERGEN: If Putin decides to try and take all of Ukraine, what size army would he need?

 

PETRAEUS: I'm not sure. I don't think even his entire military could do this, and keep in mind, there's a huge limiting factor, and that is the apparent inability of Putin to replace the forces that are presently fighting. How and when does he replace his forces? It's not apparent to me.

 

In fact, the Russian conscripts are only on 1-year rotations, so it's no wonder that they demonstrate very poor standards of everything, given that they barely made it through basic and advanced training and then unit integration and now they are in combat (and their tours were supposed to have ended in April, until Putin extended them).

 

BERGEN: US officials say that Russia is asking China for military and other forms of aid. What do you make of this?

 

PETRAEUS: The report by US officials is interesting in several respects. First, if accurate, it indicates that Russia is running out of certain weapons systems and munitions -- another reflection of how Russia seriously miscalculated so many aspects of the war they launched.

 

Second, this presents a very difficult issue for China. It was one thing for China to abstain from the UN General Assembly vote in which 141 countries condemned Russia for its unprovoked aggression. It would be a very different matter if China was to accede to Russia's request and thus actively side with a country that is truly becoming the evil empire, the target of unprecedented sanctions and experiencing a decoupling from the global economy. It also might result in some sanctions on China.

 

Third, beyond those issues, President Xi Jinping clearly has to be irritated with Russia's invasion, as Ukraine's largest trading partner was China.

 

Finally, Xi, having gotten through the Olympics had likely hoped for no drama in the months leading up to the Communist Party gathering in the fall during which he undoubtedly will be reelected for an unprecedented third term as President, while retaining his leadership of the Party and the Military Council. Putin could thus put Xi in a very awkward position.

 

So, it has not been a complete surprise that both Russia and China have stated that no such Russian request for aid was issued.

 

BERGEN: What do you think the Ukrainians need most?

 

PETRAEUS: Clearly, the US anti-tank Javelin system. And it's not just the Javelin. It's also other countries' anti-tank systems -- and man-portable air defense systems, as well. The UK AT system is very good. 17,000 of these anti-tank weapons have flowed into Ukraine in just one week. That's a huge number of man-portable anti-tank systems.

 

BERGEN: Should the US have begun arming Ukraine after Putin seized Crimea in 2014?

 

PETRAEUS: Congress authorized the transfer of Javelin weapons to the Ukrainians, and then it was delayed in the Obama administration. In the early period of the Trump administration, the Javelins were finally delivered, but then you had the whole issue with Ukraine subsequent to that when President Donald Trump reportedly withheld equipment for a period.

 

The effort by the Biden administration to arm the Ukrainians and the actions of our Western partners has been really quite dramatic, especially in the immediate run-up to the invasion and then following it. You see that Germany, which would only send helmets prior to the invasion, agreed to give lethal weapons. Even the EU agreed to send 500 million euros worth of military and other aid to Ukraine. So, there were revolutionary policy changes just days after the invasion began.

 

BERGEN: Are you surprised by that?

 

PETRAEUS: I think you must give credit to the US and to NATO and to the EU. I think that the Biden administration has performed impressively, and I say this as someone who publicly criticized the administration for the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan and the conduct of the withdrawal in August 2021.

 

BERGEN: Getting inside Putin's mind, of course, is not easy, but to what extent do you think that US withdrawal from Afghanistan may have figured in his calculations?

 

 

PETRAEUS: It is impossible to say, obviously, but what one can say with confidence is that some potential American adversaries seized on that withdrawal to say: "See? We told you the US is not a dependable partner and ally, and we told you that the US is a great power in decline."

 

Hearteningly, I think that US actions and those of our allies around the world on Ukraine have shown that the US is a dependable partner and is not a great power in decline. If anything, instead of Making Russia Great Again, what Putin has done is to Make NATO Great Again.

 

BERGEN: There have been warnings by the Biden White House about the possible use of chemical weapons by Putin. Is that plausible? Because it seems like kind of a Rubicon to cross.

 

PETRAEUS: It would be a Rubicon to cross, although the Russians have crossed that Rubicon before. They used the nerve agent Novichok against opponents of the regime such as Sergei Skripal and Alexei Navalny. They clearly have nerve agents. It's unknown whether they have them in large amounts and whether they're deliverable, but that clearly has to be a serious concern.

 

Certainly, the Biden administration has sought to dissuade Putin from using chemical weapons by exposing that possibility. In fact, another way in which this administration has been very impressive is taking what clearly are finished intelligence products and turning them into publicly releasable announcements without exposing sources and methods, which is really quite unique.

 

In fact, I think it has been quite effective because it has established the Biden administration's credibility on Ukraine. You can't dismiss what the administration is saying is possible, given that so much of what they said about Putin's plans for and goals in Ukraine, which was either initially dismissed or seen as unlikely, has now come to pass.

 

BERGEN: The Russians, clearly, they're taking significant losses, according to US officials.

 

PETRAEUS: Yes. It appears that they have taken more fatalities in the first two weeks of the war than the US took in 20 years in Iraq; somewhere around 5,000 or so by most accounts, which is just stunning.

 

BERGEN: Is it politically sustainable for Putin, or is it not clear?

 

 

PETRAEUS: Only time will tell. He seems to still have a very strong grip on power. But when do the mothers of the fallen soldiers start to really make their voices heard? What happens when the economic collapse really comes home to roost? When does the collapse of the ruble, the collapse of the economy, the inability to reopen the Russian stock market, the departure from Russia of major corporations who spent decades building up there such as McDonald's or Starbucks begin to hit home?

 

In fact, 380 companies, according to the count of a professor at Yale, have ceased operations in Russia. No one can predict what the results of the sanctions, frozen assets, corporate decoupling and other actions will be on Russia and the Russian people.

 

 

BERGEN: What do you make of the Russian attack on the Ukrainian base near the Polish border: What does this portend for a possibly widening conflict?

 

PETRAEUS: The Russian attack on the sprawling Ukrainian training base near Lviv, which I visited while in uniform, was undoubtedly launched to try to interdict the flow of weapons and supplies into Ukraine from Poland, some 12 miles to the west, and also, perhaps, to disrupt the location at which the foreign volunteers may be receiving orientation training before joining Ukrainian forces.

 

Given the proximity to the border, it clearly raises concerns about strikes falling in a NATO country -- which would require a NATO response given NATO's Article 5 commitment. Given the understandable efforts by NATO leaders to avoid a widening of the war, the attack on the training base outside Lviv obviously raises red flags, and I am confident that NATO leaders have consulted on possible responses should the conflict widen further.

 

 

BERGEN: After the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003 you asked a reporter, "tell me how this ends?" How does the Ukraine War end?

 

PETRAEUS: Well, I think there are several possibilities, and I'm not sure which is the most likely. Right now, though, it appears that it doesn't end, and that you have a bloody quagmire for Russia that is worse than the Soviet war in Afghanistan during the 1980s.

 

This quagmire would cause a terrible loss of life, destruction, displacement, depopulation of urban areas, a massive humanitarian catastrophe, as well as terrible losses for Russia, without a conclusive outcome for Russia. We're talking about this in the somewhat near term; in other words, in the next year or so.

 

There could also be a negotiated settlement as both Putin and Zelensky realize that neither of them can fully achieve what it is that they want, and that both sides are suffering enormous destruction. This could be advanced by, say, the president of Finland or the prime minister of Israel or the president of France or former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, or the president of China, to name a few possible interlocutors.

 

There's another possibility, of course, which is that Putin could depart power in some fashion. A new leader could recognize the folly of what Putin has done and pull out of Ukraine, perhaps try to get some agreement that saves a bit of face, but nonetheless allows Russia to extricate itself from what is going to be just an endless, costly, and indecisive involvement.

 

To be sure, the leader who follows Putin could also be just as ruthless, unfeeling and kleptocratic as Putin has been, so we should always temper our optimism when it comes to Russia.

 

There's a fourth possibility that can't be ruled out, and that is that Ukraine, in a sense, wins. It actually defeats the Russians on the battlefield, and gradually, that battlefield reality sets in, in Moscow. And maybe Ukraine even retakes the Donbas -- or, in a sense, dictates terms to Russia.

 

There are at least those four possibilities. Unfortunately, the one most likely in the near term appears to be the continuation of a bloody quagmire for Russia that is largely indecisive, with some Russian successes and some costly failures -- and greater and greater economic privation, inflation, unemployment and deprivation on the Russian people

 

another excellent must read, and may god save my soul for saying this, some of the best narrative so far supporting a 60-90 day stay-the-course no-fly-zone position to see what plays out at the cost of tens of thousands of Ukrainian lives sacrificed for the good of human civilization on this planet

[Hagbard Celine 11259]

40 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

If this is true, and it appears to be, Putin is losing control. Once you start arresting senior military commanders and talking about purifying your country of traitors, you've lost.

watch the sky interview

hitler invented the term "national traitors"

we don't have to push him now, but it is now crystal clear.....

the hammer & sickle have been replaced by the swastika

if you could inspect his scalp, you might find the number of the beast

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20928]

1 hour ago, Hagbard Celine said:

another must-watch for those who wish to be informed

In 2003, Khodorkovsky was believed to be the wealthiest man in Russia, with a fortune estimated to be worth $15 billion, and was ranked 16th on Forbes list of billionaires

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

5 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Helping my friend get his posts in the right thread. 

Seriously terrible take. You would have to be staring way up your own asshole to see Ukraine s aggravator of Russia. I mean, sure, existing is pretty infuriating to Russia, but I sure wouldn't call it aggression. It of course buys part and parcel the Russian story that it really just wants a neutral buffer between it and NATO and doesn't at all want a completely vassal state like in the old Soviet Union. What a crock of shit. 

 

If it's a seriously terrible take, it's one I share with John Mearsheimer.

Here are his credentials.  

He predicted this exact scenario eight years ago.

I encourage anyone to read more than just "Why Ukraine Is the West's Fault" and dig deeper into his analysis. He is NOT a Putin apologist. He is a believer in realpolitik and he thinks our foreign policy experts are fucking up, yet again. In his view, Ukraine is of zero strategic value to the United States, and all of Europe is of declining value. He believes Putin would stop at Ukraine, not because he wants to in his thuggish heart of hearts, but that he simply can't do any more than that, as we are seeing on the ground. He believes we should stop focusing so much on Europe and get our shit together in Asia, where the true threat lies.

 

[Nivek 17415]

everyone questioning his veracity, motive, authenticity, whatthefuckever floats your boat
he used the term "Order of Battle" and then provided said data
if you don't understand sources, methods, tradecraft and/or military doctrine, can't help you
anyone that does, appreciates his narrative
and he didn't say the ghost of kiev was a real thing, he talked about in terms of infowar
surrounded kiev, didn't surround, whatever
if the MSM functioned at his level orangutang would have been primaried

In the video I saw of him before it was about women being fast tracked in what he thought was political move not a merit based system and the result of which was one of the women dying in a pilot error mistake. He wasn’t suggesting women were incapable of the job, but that the woman who piloted the aircraft should have not been in that position and was done a disservice by the program. He referenced other women pilots who went through more traditional training and were ready and capable.

He seems rather competent to me.

[Nivek 17415]

watch the sky interview
hitler invented the term "national traitors"
we don't have to push him now, but it is now crystal clear.....
the hammer & sickle have been replaced by the swastika
if you could inspect his scalp, you might find the number of the beast

We could stop with the Hitler shit. Putin is a psychopathic despot. He doesn’t give one shit about life of subordinates. But he isn’t putting people in ovens and letting docs torture people.

[Nivek 17415]

If it's a seriously terrible take, it's one I share with John Mearsheimer.
Here are his credentials.  
He predicted this exact scenario eight years ago.
I encourage anyone to read more than just "Why Ukraine Is the West's Fault" and dig deeper into his analysis. He is NOT a Putin apologist. He is a believer in realpolitik and he thinks our foreign policy experts are fucking up, yet again. In his view, Ukraine is of zero strategic value to the United States, and all of Europe is of declining value. He believes Putin would stop at Ukraine, not because he wants to in his thuggish heart of hearts, but that he simply can't do any more than that, as we are seeing on the ground. He believes we should stop focusing so much on Europe and get our shit together in Asia, where the true threat lies.
 

And the map with Moldova?

[Bama Chick 28596]

We could stop with the Hitler shit. Putin is a psychopathic despot. He doesn’t give one shit about life of subordinates. But he isn’t putting people in ovens and letting docs torture people.

Not yet he isn’t.

And I’m sure the rash of “Russians falling out of windows” and accidentally getting poisoned with polonium is just a tragic coincidence.

[Thatguy 9371]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

We could stop with the Hitler shit. Putin is a psychopathic despot. He doesn’t give one shit about life of subordinates. But he isn’t putting people in ovens and letting docs torture people.

  Hitler wasn't doing that at the onset either my friend.

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

And the map with Moldova?


 

Not sure what you are referring to but I don't think whether Moldova falls under the Russian sphere of influence or that of the west is worth a single American life. Call me a pussy, or call me Machiavellian, or some combo, but all of this goes back to Thucydides: Strong nations do what they will, weak nations endure what they must. It would be nice if our rulers operated by any other rule than that, but they don't. Our gov't doesn't give a shit about the Ukrainian people save for those of Ukrainian descent or have a Ukrainian / anti-Russian voting bloc. (Chicago, etc.) 

If we really gave a fuck about oppressed minorities, there would be a Kurdish state, a Tibetan state, a Uighurstan, a Palestinian state. 

We did a good job of bringing a good deal of the former Warsaw Bloc into NATO: the Baltics, Hungary, Czechia/Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Poland. We pushed the Iron Curtain back hundreds of miles and brough democracy and self-determination to millions of people, but we cannot take it to them all. 

Edited March 18, 2022 by MaybeACoordinator

[Thatguy 9371]

5 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t and you just think they did. However you took them, I’m guessing they didn’t come in a Buffalo wing-flavored MRE. Maybe you got them from the probiotics aisle at Whole Foods.

But that really doesn’t have anything to do with the war in Ukraine. And regarding Ward Carrol’s video, he said the Russians had encircled the Kyiv. Whenever that video was shot, it wasn’t true then and it’s not true now. So rather than focus on the more trivial minutiae, can we all agree that he was just plain wrong on that analysis of the war in Ukraine? That’s a huge blunder. 

 No. You don't get to say something ridiculous, double down on it, and then wave it off like it never happened. My wife is lactose, before probiotics we had serious bowel problems. After them she is as regular as I am. If she doesn't take them the bowel problems return.

[Thatguy 9371]

Y'all remember that one time when Putin helped get that guy in office? I wonder why he did that? Then him and that guy spent the next 4 years chest bumping one another? Then that guy withheld assistance to the Ukraine, while simultaneously preparing to pull us out of NATO? Y'all remember when that dude spent 4 years praising Putin? Ahhh....the good ole days.

[956 Worldwide 35594]

8 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Helping my friend get his posts in the right thread. 

Seriously terrible take. You would have to be staring way up your own asshole to see Ukraine s aggravator of Russia. I mean, sure, existing is pretty infuriating to Russia, but I sure wouldn't call it aggression. It of course buys part and parcel the Russian story that it really just wants a neutral buffer between it and NATO and doesn't at all want a completely vassal state like in the old Soviet Union. What a crock of shit. 

 

Cuba is where this argument falls apart.  After Bay of Pigs we accepted Cuba as a state that was aligned explicitly with Moscow militarily and economically for fucking decades.  Thousands of Soviet troops and trainers and weapons and everything!  Hell, we accepted it even after the USSR went away, and we even had our little Sevastopol analogy in Guantanamo. Our red line was nuclear weapons in Cuba— something the Soviets actually tried and something we never even discussed in Ukraine.

All of the mouth breathers who repeat “what if Russia tried this in the Western Hemisphere” ignore the fact that they have a gotdamned case study staring them in the face a mere 90 miles from Florida. “Invade and level city blocks” was not part of that study.  The argument hinges on a belief that one particular stated Russian rationale for invading (among the many they have offered) is the actual rationale- because it’s the one that fits in with the mental framework that realist scholars have constructed. They’ve gone to IKEA and bought cabinets, they’ve built a semi-functional cabinet with some of the parts, and have ignored the pieces they’ve left behind as well as the drawing of the finished product.  Success! 

 The Russians aren’t high on their own propaganda supply, they know damn well that as long as Crimea and Donbas were not settled Ukraine would never join NATO and they damn sure never believed in “American nuclear missiles in Ukraine.” 

Ukraine’s halting and tentative western drift has good explanatory power for the long-standing tensions with Russia. It has very poor explanatory power for the precise Russian actions we are seeing now and intelligent observers should look elsewhere. Like maybe how Putin said “Ukraine isn’t a real country, I want it, and I’m going to go take it.”