Concur with last grumpygop post

2/25/2022 1:43:08 AM

He essentially posted a brick of nothing. You agree with nothing.

[Edited on February 25, 2022 at 3:12 AM. Reason : Sorry, i was reading a ujustwait84 post]

2/25/2022 3:02:12 AM

I read the PSL statement / socialist analysis, but would like to hear some concrete examples of how NATO can rightly be viewed as an offensive force. Isn't one of the founding goals to prevent war in Europe because they can't all get along? Guess that failed.

2/25/2022 8:13:49 AM

Quote :

"Why are you the only one ever defending him?"

Just because others aren't arguing with you doesn't mean they agree with you

Quote :

"The real reason is I'm the only one that reads what you say, you're welcome"

I think there's some truth to that.

fwiw: https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkpx3y/ukrainian-ultranationalists-asking-for-donations-to-fund-war-effort

[Edited on February 25, 2022 at 11:08 AM. Reason : ]

2/25/2022 10:45:22 AM

I don't know if this is real, but if it is, that's some brave folks.

2/25/2022 11:13:35 AM

I can’t tell if I’m being propagandized or if this is really going as poorly for Putin as Western media is describing it.

-Outside of the disputed regions, Russia is yet to capture/control a population center
-several hundred Russians dead? (I’ve seen pretty wide ranging estimates)
-a dozen or more tanks destroyed, a half dozen helicopters? (possibly not a big deal to Putin)
-reports of Russian desertions (this def seems like propaganda to me)
-Ukrainian air support still operating (I’m pretty impressed by this)
-all indications are that Javelin missiles are the real fucking deal
-some pretty big protests breaking out in Russia, despite government suppression
-ruble in free-fall, the worst is probably still yet to come economically
-Most of Eastern Europe and parts of Scandinavia absolutely scrambling to join NATO or atleast build important alliances with western countries. Basically multiple countries out right rejecting Russian influence.

2/25/2022 3:13:01 PM

My non-expert opinion

-Outside of the disputed regions, Russia is yet to capture/control a population center Seem accurate depending on your definition of control. Russia doesn't have the people in place to occupy in the traditional sense of the word yet
-several hundred Russians dead? (I’ve seen pretty wide ranging estimates) Likely, especially given confirmed aerial kills (helicopters) along with them dropping paratroopers with zero support
-a dozen or more tanks destroyed, a half dozen helicopters? (possibly not a big deal to Putin) Enough footage to support this and we know that we've been giving them Javelins.
-reports of Russian desertions (this def seems like propaganda to me) I could see a few, but yeah, this one definitely feels like propaganda
-Ukrainian air support still operating (I’m pretty impressed by this) A lot of their eastern stuff is still good to go. That 'Ghost of Kyiv' story though is almost certainly bullshit
-all indications are that Javelin missiles are the real fucking deal Accurate as fuck.
-some pretty big protests breaking out in Russia, despite government suppression Accurate
-ruble in free-fall, the worst is probably still yet to come economically Accurate
-Most of Eastern Europe and parts of Scandinavia absolutely scrambling to join NATO or atleast build important alliances with western countries. Basically multiple countries out right rejecting Russian influence.Accurate

2/25/2022 6:11:37 PM

Quote :

"I read the PSL statement / socialist analysis, but would like to hear some concrete examples of how NATO can rightly be viewed as an offensive force. Isn't one of the founding goals to prevent war in Europe because they can't all get along? Guess that failed."

Hey thanks for reading it

More on NATO as an offensive alliance here:

https://theintercept.com/2021/06/15/meet-nato-the-dangerous-defensive-alliance-trying-to-run-the-world/

2/25/2022 7:00:49 PM

I forgot, the resident tankie is probably delighted about this.

2/25/2022 7:05:21 PM

Ukrainian forces apparently just shot down a il-76 which can contain ~200 troops

2/25/2022 7:07:43 PM

^^
heyyy bbeheh deciding things about me without reading my posts. congrats on learning a new word tho.

2/25/2022 7:15:46 PM

Quote :

"Don’t support it, do recognize that it was inevitable due to NATO interference and encroachment."

"Hey, I'm not happy she got raped, but it was inevitable because of the way she was dressed" - Daaaaaave

2/25/2022 7:17:02 PM

What the heck?! How many psychopaths are enlisted in the Red Army?

And here's a repost of my previous video since the original got age-restricted and messed up the embed:

2/25/2022 7:20:32 PM

Why would a communist be delighted about this anyway?

2/25/2022 8:08:53 PM

So they can parrot shitty talking points about 'NATO Aggression' apparently. NATO didn't even really want the former Soviet bloc countries to join.

Here is a fantastic thread about this https://twitter.com/page_eco/status/1497186496574812161?s=20&t=LmUz_xDD2XnbaZu6TlaSsw

NATO didn't make Russia go to war with Georgia, seize Crimea, further invade Ukraine, etc. Russia has ALWAYS wanted to get the the states of the former USSR back, this was policy for them. So it's only natural for those countries to want to join NATO.

2/25/2022 8:24:20 PM

Quote :

" NATO didn't even really want the former Soviet bloc countries to join. "

No, they made a promise to Gorbachev while Germany was being reunified that NATO would not expand eastward.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

[Edited on February 25, 2022 at 9:01 PM. Reason : .]

2/25/2022 9:00:16 PM

Yes, in the context of German reunification.

Since then, Russia has expanded and tried to force Eastern European countries to abide by their rules, see the CIS. Russia has always used "well we can do what we want to protect ethnic Russians" as a means to invade or otherwise interfere with those countries. So those Eastern European countries see Russia expanding and go "Hey, maybe we should beg NATO to let us in". NATO members were initially VERY hesitant to consider it.

2/25/2022 9:15:18 PM

If NATO was as expansionist as you're trying to make it seem, why in the hell didn't they fast track Ukrainian and Georgian membership in 2008?

2/25/2022 9:19:16 PM

Quote :

"Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement."

2/25/2022 9:21:43 PM

Russia claims they support self-determination.

Russia doesn't like NATO.

NATO doesn't attack anyone without provocation.

Russia unilaterally attacks Ukraine to prevent self-determination.

2/25/2022 9:31:19 PM

Then they threaten Finland and Sweden this will happen to them if they join NATO.

"Gee, I wonder why all these countries want to join NATO all the sudden, must be expansionism"

You are literally repeating the same talking points as Tucker Carlson was daaave.

2/25/2022 9:44:38 PM

Quote :

"NATO members were initially VERY hesitant to consider it."

Okay, but we're talking about period of less than a year, when the Soviet Union still existed.

Quote :

"If NATO was as expansionist as you're trying to make it seem, why in the hell didn't they fast track Ukrainian and Georgian membership in 2008?"

I assume they correctly understood that this constituted a red line for Russia, and weren't prepared for the consequences in 2008.

^^^
From the interview this quote is from

https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html

Quote :

"The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed."

[Edited on February 25, 2022 at 10:01 PM. Reason : .]

2/25/2022 9:58:06 PM

So if a democratically elected government decides that Russia is a threat and sees NATO as their only refuge...Russian invasion is NATOs fault?

2/25/2022 10:04:31 PM

Prior to the US-backed right wing coup in 2014, Ukrainians were overwhelmingly against joining NATO. Without western interference, it's likely that all of this could have been avoided.

But yes, it has been clear since the dissolution of the Soviet Union that Ukraine joining NATO would be considered an act of aggression.

[Edited on February 25, 2022 at 10:11 PM. Reason : .]

2/25/2022 10:11:02 PM

So if Finland and Sweden start making more steps to join NATO...it's NATO's fault if Russia invades them?

2/25/2022 10:12:45 PM

NATO's actions have induced this entire chain of events, but I'm not saying they hold all of the blame. Russia is also responsible.

[Edited on February 25, 2022 at 10:16 PM. Reason : .]

2/25/2022 10:16:07 PM

Why do you think these countries want to join NATO...

2/25/2022 10:21:52 PM

The PSL and Intercept pieces are ludicrously out of touch with reality.

NATO is not driven by an expansionist impulse. Expansion eastwards presents a very mixed bag of outcomes from a NATO perspective because it adds members which must be defended but which contribute relatively little to the defending. The main benefit is that members are less likely to fight each other.

We are not driven by a desire to move missiles closer to Russia. It's not that we don't want to be able to hit Russia with missiles; we do want to be able to do that. But this isn't 1954 anymore. Proximity is much, much less important.

The Intercept thing is particularly unhinged. Apparently the existence of Article 5 makes war with China and the nuclear destruction of mankind inevitable, although the author makes no apparent effort to connect the points. Playing the race card doesn't make much sense when talking about a European alliance aimed at preventing wars in Europe.

Was NATO formed to bind the countries together under American leadership? Yes, it was, in large part at the request of the Europeans who wanted an alliance to keep "the Germans down, the Russians out, and the Americans in."

Like...I get it, we're capitalists with an imperialist bent, fine. We've done a lot of bad or stupid shit. But an alliance that successfully broke the cycle of World Wars and bound former enemies into peaceful and mutually consensual integration is not the bad guy here. If we want to trace this conflict to something historical, a far better case is to be made for the Soviet Union's conquest of Eastern Europe following WWII.

2/26/2022 11:46:02 AM

Quote :

"NATO is not driven by an expansionist impulse. Expansion eastwards presents a very mixed bag of outcomes from a NATO perspective because it adds members which must be defended but which contribute relatively little to the defending. The main benefit is that members are less likely to fight each other. We are not driven by a desire to move missiles closer to Russia. It's not that we don't want to be able to hit Russia with missiles; we do want to be able to do that. But this isn't 1954 anymore. Proximity is much, much less important."

I'm not a military weaponry expert, but I'm pretty confident that shorter range missiles are much cheaper and much more effective than longer range missiles. In addition to benefit of having land and sea troop staging areas.

I did find this article that talks about the benefits of intermediate-range missiles and how the US recently withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

https://warontherocks.com/2022/01/why-intermediate-range-missiles-are-a-focal-point-in-the-ukraine-crisis/

Quote :

"mutually consensual integration"

In the case of Ukraine, I'm not sure it's fair to call it consensual if you take into account the 2014 coup, when previously Ukrainians were against joining NATO.

Quote :

"But an alliance that successfully broke the cycle of World Wars and bound former enemies into peaceful and mutually consensual integration is not the bad guy here."

Really don't think you're giving NATO enough credit here for the capitalism and imperialism part. I understand world capitalist hegemony doesn't bother you as much as it does me, but you have to admit their actions have caused widespread destruction in many countries.

[Edited on February 26, 2022 at 1:06 PM. Reason : .]

2/26/2022 1:02:10 PM

Your analysis on weapons systems is off. It's drastically better to have power you can project from afar. Cruise missiles that are launched from the sea or airborne platforms are DRASTICALLY better than static launchers in known locations.

If you'd bother to read the source of your article, you would see that the US withdrew from that Treaty due to repeated Russian violations.

[Edited on February 26, 2022 at 1:09 PM. Reason : A]

2/26/2022 1:08:28 PM

Quote :

"Washington withdrew from the treaty in 2019, citing a series of Russian violations while also emphasizing the benefits that the new missiles could provide the United States in Europe and, perhaps more importantly, Asia."

Quote :

"In 2019, a Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment research team conducted a cost-benefit analysis on deploying these new missiles, arguing that the decision “may contribute to a cost-imposing strategy against China and Russia by pressuring them to invest in expensive defenses and resiliency measures rather than devote those same resources to power-projection capabilities.” The report added that the employment of missiles in Europe and the Pacific could “compensate for the vulnerabilities of U.S. air and naval forces in potential conflicts involving capable oppo­nents such as China and Russia.” European pundits also weighed in on the immediate tactical benefits that conventional missiles could provide to NATO. Christian Mölling and Heinrich Brauß, members of the German Council on Foreign Relations, contended that theater-support missiles “could threaten Moscow’s command facilities and limit Russia’s military ability to act.” Luis Simón, an international security professor at the Vrije Universiteit Brussels, and Alexander Lanoszka, an international relations professor at Waterloo University, made a similar argument, noting that missiles were “likely to become the center of gravity of deterrence and security in Europe in a post-INF and maturing precision-strike context.” I’ve even put forward this argument myself, writing last year that rocket artillery proliferation in Europe can deter Russian aggression in the Baltics."

[Edited on February 26, 2022 at 1:11 PM. Reason : .]

2/26/2022 1:10:28 PM

Lol you act as if the defense industry is concerned with cost savings.

2/26/2022 1:13:49 PM

Also, just out of sheer curiosity, how do you feel about Chinas's expansion? Do you believe they have a right to Taiwan?

2/26/2022 2:30:43 PM

Still early days but Russia is getting seriously cut out of global banking. I can’t see this paying off at this point, unless the news of Ukrainians success in repelling invasion is pure propaganda.

I also wonder how much desperation might push putin to escalate to some major atrocity…

When the US invasion of irAq didn’t initially go as planned we kept pouring money it until we had some semblance of regime change. But I don’t know if Russia has the resources to do this in Ukraine?

2/26/2022 6:06:35 PM

They don't.

At this point, I really don't understand Putin's end goal here, the only thing I could see is the attempt to negotiate a fall back into DPR/LPR.

Russia is quickly losing support from their traditional 'partners' like Hungary/China. The only real friends they have right now are Syria and Belarus.

Finland and Sweden will likely go ahead and join NATO.

Ukraine and it's DEMOCRATICALLY elected government want into NATO and the very least the EU which I think they'll get.

Major banks are losing access to SWIFT

Zelensky is quickly approaching almost mythical status right now, even if he dies, he'll be a martyr.

The sanctions are only going to get worse.

At this point, I see Russia has having four options

1. Continue the course and hope for a change
2. Escalate which is going to risk MAJOR civilian casualties
3. Retreat to the east
4. Just say fuck it, and declare WW3.

2/26/2022 6:29:20 PM

I have similar questions.

My assumption has been that Putin wants Kyiv as a bargaining chip to give back in return for installing a puppet government. However, Ukraine's government and military both seem to be holding together and aren't inclined to give Russia an easy win. So, yeah, will Putin escalate if Kyiv proves more difficult to take than he's expecting?

I also wonder how the calculus for direct involvement changes the longer and more brutal this becomes. The current consensus seems to be everyone will stay on the sidelines while Russia and Ukraine fight it out, but that's based on the idea of a relatively easy Russian win.

^ Of your options, I think 1 and 2 are most likely. Option 3 involves admitting defeat and option 4 is suicidal. Putin might not care about WWIII, but what about the rest of Russia?

----

AP has a nice breakdown of who's saying what and what's been confirmed:

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-kyiv-business-europe-media-cb62e0369dfc7cd5259e0a45afbace27

[Edited on February 26, 2022 at 6:58 PM. Reason : link]

2/26/2022 6:55:54 PM

Yeah, I ordered those from most likely to least. With 4, I have zero idea what it looks like to fire nukes from Russia, no idea if they have a two-man rule or something similar which would prevent Putin from just going crazy.

Right now, I would say the odds of a full-on nuclear war/ww3 is just around 1-2%, which I'd pretty significant.

I'm curious what the red line is for a lot of countries if they start seeing massive human rights abuses and civilian casualties in Kyiv?

2/26/2022 7:03:34 PM

Option 4 is this:

Plan A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jy3JU-ORpo

2/26/2022 8:05:42 PM

Excellent coverage

Invasion of Ukraine: A VICE News Tonight Special Report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUaqB8_Soko

2/26/2022 8:52:56 PM

Quote :

"I'm not a military weaponry expert, but I'm pretty confident that shorter range missiles are much cheaper and much more effective than longer range missiles. In addition to benefit of having land and sea troop staging areas. I did find this article that talks about the benefits of intermediate-range missiles and how the US recently withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty."

There are advantages to having missiles closer, but those are not so great that they are a driving force of overall policy.

The same article you link to there goes on to provide a much more compelling case for why this issue isn't really driving Russian action, either. Yeah, they put restrictions on missiles in Europe in their bundle of demands. But they put it in there with a bunch of shit that they knew was never going to go anywhere. They weren't serious about it; if they were, they could have unbundled the missile question and some other matters from "NATO has to roll back to 1989 membership" or whatever.

Quote :

"In the case of Ukraine, I'm not sure it's fair to call it consensual if you take into account the 2014 coup, when previously Ukrainians were against joining NATO."

In the case of Ukraine, they haven't fucking joined NATO, so my statement doesn't apply to them.

Quote :

"you have to admit their actions have caused widespread destruction in many countries."

Do I? What springs to mind is former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya. The first one was kind of a mess. The second one I have no real objection to in terms of the initial military operation. The third one I'm not sure qualifies as "widespread destruction" on NATO's part. The Libyans sure did a bang-up job, though.

---

Responding quickly to bbehe's points:

Quote :

"At this point, I really don't understand Putin's end goal here, the only thing I could see is the attempt to negotiate a fall back into DPR/LPR. I think he could still pull off the destruction of most of Ukraine's military equipment, and the installation of a more pliant regime isn't out of the question. The latter would be difficult but Putin may still view it as plausible and worth the effort. Russia is quickly losing support from their traditional 'partners' like Hungary/China. The only real friends they have right now are Syria and Belarus. Finland and Sweden will likely go ahead and join NATO.I dunno about this. It would be a huge policy shift for either country, and so far all we've seen is them telling Russia, "We decide for ourselves." They aren't going to join out of spite, and both are already in the EU, which has a mutual defense clause which overlaps with many NATO countries and which would inevitably bring in the U.S. and UK as well. Ukraine and it's DEMOCRATICALLY elected government want into NATO and the very least the EU which I think they'll get.NATO maybe. EU, probably harder. Right now it's all solidarity but it'll take five minutes of earnest efforts to enter the EU before people in member countries start raising the specters of corruption, large-scale immigration, etc. Major banks are losing access to SWIFT True Zelensky is quickly approaching almost mythical status right now, even if he dies, he'll be a martyr. True The sanctions are only going to get worse. True At this point, I see Russia has having four options 1. Continue the course and hope for a change Decent chance 2. Escalate which is going to risk MAJOR civilian casualties Decent chance 3. Retreat to the east Less likely but plausible 4. Just say fuck it, and declare WW3. Don't see this happening without an accidental escalation of some kind"

2/27/2022 12:12:39 AM

One other option for Putin:

After taking enough territory in the eastern part of the country, where Russia has considerably more support, he can announce a "legitimate" Ukrainian government there, declare victory, and pull back from the western part. Declare the continuing conflict a Europe-backed insurgency or separatist movement, essentially flipping the script. Then just pour weapons and clandestine support into the puppet government in hopes of finishing the job. It's lower cost and lower risk than fighting the direct conflict to the end. It could ultimately produce similar results, but even if it effectively splits Ukraine in two there's several smaller victories for Putin in such a strategy:

-A client buffer state with an effective natural boundary along the Dnieper
-The ability to fall short of the larger goal without losing as much face
-Full land connection to Crimea and greater Black Sea access
-Eastern Ukrainian resources
-Turns down the temperature of the conflict enough that sanctions are relieved

Looking at the somewhat lackluster performance of the Russian military so far, that seems like a reasonable backup plan. It's very hard to envision Putin ending the conflict in a way that would be perceived as a more thorough defeat, because his regime wouldn't survive it and he won't survive out of power.

2/27/2022 12:25:07 AM

Quote :

"-Turns down the temperature of the conflict enough that sanctions are relieved"

Why would or should this happen?

[Edited on February 27, 2022 at 8:31 AM. Reason : Sanctions removal in such a scenario, that is. . .]

2/27/2022 8:30:58 AM

Germany to increase military budget significantly.

Even if the sanctions were to be removed, Europe appears to be fully unified and resolved to be better prepared for Russian aggression. Whatever goals Putin had for this shit show, it's hard to imagine a worse outcome.

2/27/2022 8:51:31 AM

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-kyiv-business-europe-moscow-2e4e1cf784f22b6afbe5a2f936725550

Time to bump up the odds of WWIII and nuclear exchange.

2/27/2022 11:42:52 AM

US is saying putin has used 2/3rd of the troops he built up so far

Putin telling his nuke people to get the nukes warmed up

2/27/2022 1:03:41 PM

Seems like meaningless posturing.

Honestly, is this really all because Putin is so short?

2/27/2022 1:22:14 PM

EU to provide fighter jets to Ukraine.

Even if Russia does destroy as much Ukrainian military hardware before they retreat, it seems like it will just be quickly restocked.

2/27/2022 3:55:03 PM

Negotiations happening now between Ukraine and Russia

Putin has reportedly fired russias top general for the disastrous invasion plan

Uk and Denmark are allowing people to fight In Ukraine as foreign legion

https://twitter.com/nikamelkozerova/status/1498045471977267208?s=21

https://twitter.com/avindman/status/1498007956998262791?s=21

[Edited on February 27, 2022 at 4:54 PM. Reason : ]

2/27/2022 4:54:24 PM

I look forward to Zelenskyy negotiating the terms of Russia's surrender.

2/27/2022 6:39:11 PM

AFP and other places reporting EU is “sending jets” to Ukraine

Unclear if this means piloted by Eu pilots or sent to Ukraine for them to use. Either way could go a long way to pushing Russia back

2/27/2022 6:44:01 PM