What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Col. Richard Black: U.S. Leading World to Nuclear War

para bellum

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2022
Messages
1,136
Reaction score
518
Points
918
Location
PacNW
If you don't care if Ukraine is corrupt. What are you wanting them fighting and killed for.
I want to further this. I am not wanting anyone fighting and killing. I blame Russia for the fighting and killing, because those were Russian tanks driving into Ukraine without provocation.

What I was talking about wrt the corruption- Ukraine is not a western liberal democracy. They are trying to move in that direction. The country is run by oligarchs, the system is a devolution of the former State-owned enterprises which were privatized, and they went to people who were powerful and influential in the previous order.

It has to take time for that system to further devolve. Those big enterprises are not particularly productive or competitive against modern western companies so they need political favors. A lot of the wealth gets siphoned off, same thing the Russian oligarchs do.

If there is political will- and in Ukraine they have shown it, that kind of structure will self-reform. It will take a generation or two, but it has only one direction to go. The companies will modernize, etc. Ukraine was well on that path, Kiev was a popular center for high-tech companies before the war.

That's why I don't just write Ukraine off as hopelessly corrupt, who cares what happen to them. I think they deserve a chance to realize a better future. I never saw Ukraine bullying their neighbors, or threatening anyone.

I know they were used as pawns by Obama and the dems (and the UK was in on it), and that was not right. But that was before Zelensky's time, whatever water went under that bridge is past. If anyone was a western pawn, it was Poroshenko, and Zelensky beat him in an election (that at least the US, did not meddle in).
 

ESay

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
6,358
Reaction score
1,065
Points
140
However most Americans know nothing about the coup by Obama, Biden, and Nuland in 2014 and the murdering of 14,000 ethnic Russians in the Donbass by Ukraine since the coup. So it’s likely the western media would twist any action by Putin as bad
I already showed you that this figure is not correct in the context you present it. But nevertheless you keep repeating Russian propaganda. And you accuse someone in ignorance? Just look at the mirror and realize that you are full of shit.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
50,764
Reaction score
21,391
Points
2,290
I already showed you that this figure is not correct in the context you present it. But nevertheless you keep repeating Russian propaganda. And you accuse someone in ignorance? Just look at the mirror and realize that you are full of shit.
What figure is not correct in the context I’m using?
 

ESay

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
6,358
Reaction score
1,065
Points
140
NATO for Ukraine was off the table in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea. Putin was completely aware of that. The only way NATO would even consider membership for Ukraine would have been if Zelensky had recognized Crimea and the L/DNR's as Russian territory
No, this wouldn't be enough. For most of Europe, taking Ukraine to NATO means crossing a red line in their security paradigm.
 

ESay

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
6,358
Reaction score
1,065
Points
140
What figure is not correct in the context I’m using?
14000 is not 'ethnic Russians'. At least a third of it was Ukrainian servicemen. This figure shows the casualties from both sides and that includes 'ethnic Ukrainians' killed by pro-Russian proxies' shelling. Is this explanation enough for your so clear mind?
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
50,764
Reaction score
21,391
Points
2,290
14000 is not 'ethnic Russians'. At least a third of it was Ukrainian servicemen. This figure shows the casualties from both sides and that includes 'ethnic Ukrainians' killed by pro-Russian proxies' shelling. Is this explanation enough for your so clear mind?
Cool. I’m fine with that, but it changes nothing. Ukraine was clearly prosecuting a war against ethnic Russians. This occurred after O and Joe committed their coup overthrowing the democratically elected government of Ukraine. Then picking the country’s next leader.
 

para bellum

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2022
Messages
1,136
Reaction score
518
Points
918
Location
PacNW
No, this wouldn't be enough. For most of Europe, taking Ukraine to NATO means crossing a red line in their security paradigm.
I agree, it still wouldn't have been enough. But NATO for sure will not take a new member if there is a territorial dispute on their lands. Even if all NATO states agreed on Ukraine, the territorial dispute would still have to be settled first.

Putin invaded Crimea 2 days after Poroshenko won in 2014. That fixed the status of Ukraine wrt NATO. There was no need to further invade Ukraine to block NATO accession.
 

Ringo

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
4,440
Reaction score
1,545
Points
208
Location
Over there
That's exactly what Russia is doing. You are the one that says it's good for Ukraine.
No, that's what the Allies did. The Russians are liberating cities whose populations have been taken hostage by Ukrainian nationalists.
 

Ringo

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
4,440
Reaction score
1,545
Points
208
Location
Over there
 

Ringo

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
4,440
Reaction score
1,545
Points
208
Location
Over there
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
146,037
Reaction score
20,856
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town

I am not sure why you think this is a compelling argument.

Also, the poster got his facts wrong. The Department of War was not renamed the Department of Defense. The Department of War and the Department of the Navy were CONSOLIDATED into the Department of Defense, and the Department of war was divided between the Army and the Air Force...

The thing is, Russia does have some valid issues in it's dispute with Ukraine. Invading Ukraine in a halfass way was not the way to go about it.
 

ESay

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
6,358
Reaction score
1,065
Points
140
Cool. I’m fine with that, but it changes nothing. Ukraine was clearly prosecuting a war against ethnic Russians. This occurred after O and Joe committed their coup overthrowing the democratically elected government of Ukraine. Then picking the country’s next leader.
There isn't war against ethnic Russians. It is another narrative of Russian propaganda.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
50,764
Reaction score
21,391
Points
2,290
There isn't war against ethnic Russians. It is another narrative of Russian propaganda.
So who were the Ukrainians shelling in the Donbas?
 

ESay

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
6,358
Reaction score
1,065
Points
140
I agree, it still wouldn't have been enough. But NATO for sure will not take a new member if there is a territorial dispute on their lands. Even if all NATO states agreed on Ukraine, the territorial dispute would still have to be settled first.

Putin invaded Crimea 2 days after Poroshenko won in 2014. That fixed the status of Ukraine wrt NATO. There was no need to further invade Ukraine to block NATO accession.
Not exactly correct. Russian military operation in Crimea began in February. Poroshenko was elected in May.

If NATO had guaranteed membership to Ukraine after resolving territorial disputes, it would have been possible to 'sell' to Ukrainian society the idea of giving up Crimea and Donbas in exchange for that. But that hadn't happened, because too many countries were afraid of Russia and tried not to provoke it.
 

para bellum

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2022
Messages
1,136
Reaction score
518
Points
918
Location
PacNW
Not exactly correct. Russian military operation in Crimea began in February. Poroshenko was elected in May.
You're right. It wasn't right after after the election it was right after Yanukovych fled the country and the Ukrainian Parliament voted to remove him from office.

"On 22–23 February 2014, Russian president Vladimir Putin convened an all-night meeting with security service chiefs to discuss assisting the deposed Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych with leaving the country. At the end of the meeting, Putin remarked that "we must start working on returning Crimea to Russia".[4] On 23 February, pro-Russian demonstrations were held in the Crimean city of Sevastopol. On 27 February, masked Russian troops without insignia[41] took over the Supreme Council (parliament) of Crimea[42][43] and captured strategic sites across Crimea."

 

para bellum

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2022
Messages
1,136
Reaction score
518
Points
918
Location
PacNW
If NATO had guaranteed membership to Ukraine after resolving territorial disputes, it would have been possible to 'sell' to Ukrainian society the idea of giving up Crimea and Donbas in exchange for that. But that hadn't happened, because too many countries were afraid of Russia and tried not to provoke it.
That wasn't on the table, and I wouldn't advocate for Ukraine to surrender any territory in any case. Crimea is rightfully part of Ukraine, so is the Donbas.

The only reason I mentioned the disputed territory is because it illustrates that Putin's NATO boogeyman is a fiction. Ukraine was not being considered for NATO membership in February 2022 and no one was making threats to Putin about anything.

The framing of this war as a conflict between NATO and Russia is to deflect from the Russian Army's abysmal performance. There must be a reason, and that reason must be NATO because Ukraine just couldn't possibly defeat Russia on their own. Beyond a handful of Stingers and Javelins, Ukraine had virtually no NATO weapons until April, and that was just a trickle.

Even now, the list of "to be delivered" is a lot longer than "delivered". IOW, such successes as Ukraine has had, are due to Ukrainians fighting with what they already had, not the NATO weapons in the pipeline today.
 

ESay

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
6,358
Reaction score
1,065
Points
140
That wasn't on the table, and I wouldn't advocate for Ukraine to surrender any territory in any case. Crimea is rightfully part of Ukraine, so is the Donbas.

The only reason I mentioned the disputed territory is because it illustrates that Putin's NATO boogeyman is a fiction. Ukraine was not being considered for NATO membership in February 2022 and no one was making threats to Putin about anything.

The framing of this war as a conflict between NATO and Russia is to deflect from the Russian Army's abysmal performance. There must be a reason, and that reason must be NATO because Ukraine just couldn't possibly defeat Russia on their own. Beyond a handful of Stingers and Javelins, Ukraine had virtually no NATO weapons until April, and that was just a trickle.

Even now, the list of "to be delivered" is a lot longer than "delivered". IOW, such successes as Ukraine has had, are due to Ukrainians fighting with what they already had, not the NATO weapons in the pipeline today.
Of course all Russian premise was a lie. About the lost territories, I don't think they will be returned anytime soon. Only political changes in Russia can bring this question on the table again.

Now, the main question is where Russia will be stopped. Their main goal now is a whole of Donbas, and I think they will reach it. There are some rumours that Ukrainian forces will have to abandon Zaporizhia at some point. And so on.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
50,764
Reaction score
21,391
Points
2,290
It is the same people who are now under Russian shelling.
No. Russia has already taken most of the Donbas. Do you not know this?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$145.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top