I can't imagine our military forces invading Russia with our gay helicopter pilots, drag queens, and F-35s suddenly falling out of the sky. And if it wasn't for Soros, Obama, Hilary, Nuland etc and the overthrow of a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED gov't during the Maidan colour revolution, which killed lots of people, there may well be NO war. And a fight for democracy? You mean the Zelensky govt that has no free elections, jails opposition media, bans opposition parties, and more? The only people who believe this are those same types you see wearing their idiot Covid masks while driving alone in their car
You know, if I ran Poland, what I would do is build these giant 20 lane wide highways between Berlin and Moscow. I'd put up all kinds of Burger Kings, McDonalds (you know... to poison the invaders), put up hotels, etc. Then I'd put up giant signs to help the invaders: "Berlin THIS way" and "Moscow THIS way." I would welcome them in, feed them (as a cost, of course) put them up on nice hotels (also at a cost), then just usher them on to get to Moscow (or Berlin) before it gets cold. I'd have giant billboards, "Welcome German invaders! Moscow just 400 miles; please stop at our Krakov weinerscnitzel shop, next exit" or "Dear Russian comrades. Visit our borscht galleria next exit; stay the night at our Ritz Hotel! Special deal for you, just 800 rubles!) Then keep ushering them on...
Well reasoned and sourced. With that said, Russia would like nothing better than to address it's fundamental lack of a land bridge to Kaliningrad. Short of nuclear war, it might come to that, I think this is as fundamental as capturing Crimea.
Russia does not want a land bridge to Kaliningrad.
Russia wants Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia.
Russia wants Poland up to the Vistula River--that was the entire point of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939, to divide Poland along the Vistula (Hitler did his usual game of not keeping to the agreement and extended German occupation of Poland east to the Bug, which should have been a giant red flag to Stalin that Hitler was eventually going to press further east).
Medvedev has already spoken openly about "revisiting" Poland's borders. Which, incidentally, is how Poland disappeared as a nation during the 18th century, caught up in the Great Power Competition between London, Paris, Berlin (which took over Vienna's Great Power spot) and Moscow.
If you view what's happening in Europe now through a Great Power lens, you'll see the same dynamics that unfolded during the 18th and 19th century are unfolding yet again.
Are you assuming military force is how Russia would address what you report are their desired additions to their country? If so, what causes you to think that?
As for NATO invading Russia, I suspect 2 years ago that may have been western leader's expectation, but Ukraine hasn't been successful in defeating Russia as they anticipated. While I hope it doesn't happen, NATO still could enter Ukraine and join that fight. It would be a stupid move but everything the west has done there has been stupid.
To start, when I said everything was stupid, it comes from an American who is of the opinion the US should not have been involved in events in Ukraine. When our pathetic US Senator McCain and his pooch Graham were in Kiev in 2014, I think that was, from an American perspective, stupid. Personally I agree with you, I wish the SMO would end and people quit dying for nothing more than a few US Neocon's fantasies.
I guess you could say Nuland, and add Merkle, Hollande and that crowd out maneuvered Putin with Minsk. I have to admit I wasn't, unfortunately, paying close attention at that time; my bad. I guess I, as is true for many other Americans, was quite tired of our country being involved in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Serbia and Afghanistan, to name a few, for no national security reason(s). Of course the US's use of "Shock & Awe" tactics are unique to the US. Since Putin didn't use similar tactics he/Russia are deemed weak. With all of that, Ukraine was just another chapter in a big book of stupid events.
Until the SMO started, I and a number of people I know were all conditioned to believe everything our corrupt, lying government told us about Putin. Now that we are learning how often we have been lied to on so many issues, we are not so sure how bad Putin is. So your assumption, my word, that Russia would invade other areas could be true, but if China did in Mexico or Canada what the US did in Ukraine, I would expect our government to respond in similar fashion of Russia's response. The rest, at this point seems to be speculation.
Hahaha, yes and no. I do appreciate the dialogue though. Here's a thought, let's put Biden, Zelensky and Putin on a 1sq km island for a week. It would be interesting to see their situation 7 days later.
Well, the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine with the very obvious intent of absorbing Ukraine back into Russia would be a clue.
The rather farcical referenda whereby the occupied Ukrainian oblasts "voted" to secede from Ukraine and join Russia (Kherson and Zaporizhia had not had any separatist activity prior to the invasion) would be another clue.
Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 is yet another clue. It's that whole "prior bad acts" thing you hear mentioned on "Law and Order" every so often.
So when Medvedev openly speaks of "revisiting" Poland's international borders, yeah, I'm thinking he's implying military action. That and Poland is hardly likely to just fork over territory back to Russia given its history of having been carved up by other nations over the past 300 years. It's hard to see the Polish people being down with that.
As for NATO invading Russia...no. That was never on anybody's radar INCLUDING Putin's. Putin's own comments regarding his "special military operation" attest to this.
That does not mean it can't happen. It does mean there was no indication that such an attack on Russia was in even the slightest way imminent. NATO encirclement of Russia has always been a strategic threat to Russia, but that is not at all the same thing as an imminent threat. Based on the reported numbers and where the troops were before Russia invaded Ukraine, there was no imminent NATO threat to Russia.
Strategic threat yes, imminent threat no.
As for everything the west has done in Ukraine being stupid...can't agree with that either. Cynical definitely, immoral probably, but stupid, not really.
Nuland completely outmaneuvered Putin in 2014.
The current NATO strategy of attrition warfare in Ukraine has likely caused a couple hundred thousand Russian casualties. Arguably Russia has incurred more casualties in Ukraine than it had troops in the invasion force. Based on the ongoing stalemate along the front line, Russia has not been able to amass sufficient forces anywhere along the front line to resume offensive operations--and this is after their "partial mobilization" that called up an additional 300,000 personnel.
If Russia does not find a way to break out of the defensive posture it has in eastern Ukraine and take the rest of the country, it will be in a WORSE strategic position than before the war. Not only will they have a LONGER border to defend, over territory that is itself rather difficult to defend (it's flat and mostly open), but they now have fewer troops, fewer tanks, fewer artillery shells, and a Ukrainian neighbor that is none too happy about things.
Which is what a lot of people overlook about how NATO is prosecuting this war in Ukraine--Ukraine does not have to "win" militarily for NATO's strategy to succeed. All Ukraine has to do is make Russia bleed enough so that further military encroachments on NATO territories are not possible for the next 5 years or so. If recent events in Azerbaijan and Armenia are any indication of Russia's residual military strength, NATO's strategy is working.
As does Poland! Nobody wants to disappear, 18th or 21st century.
One thing at a time, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia will be cut off by a land bridge though Poland and Lithuania, and that will be almost as good as NATO sacrificing them in a conflict with Russia.
Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia are all NATO members.
One reason NATO prefers to sacrifice Ukrainians is that they are not NATO members.
NATO's strategy has been evident for quite some time. NATO means to attrit Russian forces to the point where they do not have the manpower or resources to threaten Poland or the Baltic states. They want to see Russia grinding out in Ukraine because very Russian casualty in Ukraine is a Russian soldier not available for deployment anywhere else. Ukraine doesn't even have to "win" the war for NATO's strategy to succeed. All that is required is that Russia's military get depleted.
As always, I appreciate your facts and sources...and while reading this, there were all kinds of red flags popping up in my mind about the strategy of the evil people in charge behind the scenes, just waiting for us to deploy the majority of our resources to fight Russia, so that they can give the green light to China to invade Taiwan and have a few other countries melt down in a world War scenario...although I hope that it doesn't happen...it's ripening...ugh!
I think one of the takeaways here should be the eternal reminder to focus on facts and data--and recognize what can be verified, what is verified, and what is ultimately speculative.
One can of course spin scenarios in all manner of directions. Certainly there is a discernible threat that China will attack Taiwan, and the US will choose to respond. However, as it is with Ukraine and Russia, so it is with Taiwan and China--an invasion and its ultimate success or failure will be determined largely by logistics.
Similarly, an escalation into direct confrontation with Russia by NATO will entail logistical efforts, very little of which can be hidden (you don't just gather 3 million troops somewhere and not get noticed).
At present, NATO has not committed troops to Ukraine. Whether they will or will not in the future is a question yet to be answered. However, NATO would have to begin gathering forces for an assault on Russia long before they launch the actual assault
I can't imagine our military forces invading Russia with our gay helicopter pilots, drag queens, and F-35s suddenly falling out of the sky. And if it wasn't for Soros, Obama, Hilary, Nuland etc and the overthrow of a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED gov't during the Maidan colour revolution, which killed lots of people, there may well be NO war. And a fight for democracy? You mean the Zelensky govt that has no free elections, jails opposition media, bans opposition parties, and more? The only people who believe this are those same types you see wearing their idiot Covid masks while driving alone in their car
Russia also has no free elections, jails opposition media, jails opposition politicians, and more.
Do not look for clean hands or guys in white hats here. There are none.
As is true in the US.
If you are not the one in jail, I guess so.
To a point. Russia is demonstrably worse in this regard. Trump isn't in jail (yet, and may not be).
We have people in jail for literally doing nothing more than being near the US Capitol on Jan 6, 2021. Check it out.
*Yawn*
You do realize that the J6 protesters are NOT "opposition politicians"?
If you want to talk about unjust incarceration of ordinary citizens, Putin's got quite the list there as well.
Moving the goalposts isn't an argument. It's not even interesting. It's downright boring.
Here this discussion ends.
You know, if I ran Poland, what I would do is build these giant 20 lane wide highways between Berlin and Moscow. I'd put up all kinds of Burger Kings, McDonalds (you know... to poison the invaders), put up hotels, etc. Then I'd put up giant signs to help the invaders: "Berlin THIS way" and "Moscow THIS way." I would welcome them in, feed them (as a cost, of course) put them up on nice hotels (also at a cost), then just usher them on to get to Moscow (or Berlin) before it gets cold. I'd have giant billboards, "Welcome German invaders! Moscow just 400 miles; please stop at our Krakov weinerscnitzel shop, next exit" or "Dear Russian comrades. Visit our borscht galleria next exit; stay the night at our Ritz Hotel! Special deal for you, just 800 rubles!) Then keep ushering them on...
Being the highway for invaders never ends well.
Well reasoned and sourced. With that said, Russia would like nothing better than to address it's fundamental lack of a land bridge to Kaliningrad. Short of nuclear war, it might come to that, I think this is as fundamental as capturing Crimea.
Russia does not want a land bridge to Kaliningrad.
Russia wants Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia.
Russia wants Poland up to the Vistula River--that was the entire point of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939, to divide Poland along the Vistula (Hitler did his usual game of not keeping to the agreement and extended German occupation of Poland east to the Bug, which should have been a giant red flag to Stalin that Hitler was eventually going to press further east).
Medvedev has already spoken openly about "revisiting" Poland's borders. Which, incidentally, is how Poland disappeared as a nation during the 18th century, caught up in the Great Power Competition between London, Paris, Berlin (which took over Vienna's Great Power spot) and Moscow.
If you view what's happening in Europe now through a Great Power lens, you'll see the same dynamics that unfolded during the 18th and 19th century are unfolding yet again.
Are you assuming military force is how Russia would address what you report are their desired additions to their country? If so, what causes you to think that?
As for NATO invading Russia, I suspect 2 years ago that may have been western leader's expectation, but Ukraine hasn't been successful in defeating Russia as they anticipated. While I hope it doesn't happen, NATO still could enter Ukraine and join that fight. It would be a stupid move but everything the west has done there has been stupid.
To start, when I said everything was stupid, it comes from an American who is of the opinion the US should not have been involved in events in Ukraine. When our pathetic US Senator McCain and his pooch Graham were in Kiev in 2014, I think that was, from an American perspective, stupid. Personally I agree with you, I wish the SMO would end and people quit dying for nothing more than a few US Neocon's fantasies.
I guess you could say Nuland, and add Merkle, Hollande and that crowd out maneuvered Putin with Minsk. I have to admit I wasn't, unfortunately, paying close attention at that time; my bad. I guess I, as is true for many other Americans, was quite tired of our country being involved in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Serbia and Afghanistan, to name a few, for no national security reason(s). Of course the US's use of "Shock & Awe" tactics are unique to the US. Since Putin didn't use similar tactics he/Russia are deemed weak. With all of that, Ukraine was just another chapter in a big book of stupid events.
Until the SMO started, I and a number of people I know were all conditioned to believe everything our corrupt, lying government told us about Putin. Now that we are learning how often we have been lied to on so many issues, we are not so sure how bad Putin is. So your assumption, my word, that Russia would invade other areas could be true, but if China did in Mexico or Canada what the US did in Ukraine, I would expect our government to respond in similar fashion of Russia's response. The rest, at this point seems to be speculation.
We know our guys are lying scum!
In other words, the Great Power Competition goes on.
Whole lot of words just to wind up agreeing with me.
Hahaha, yes and no. I do appreciate the dialogue though. Here's a thought, let's put Biden, Zelensky and Putin on a 1sq km island for a week. It would be interesting to see their situation 7 days later.
Well, the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine with the very obvious intent of absorbing Ukraine back into Russia would be a clue.
The rather farcical referenda whereby the occupied Ukrainian oblasts "voted" to secede from Ukraine and join Russia (Kherson and Zaporizhia had not had any separatist activity prior to the invasion) would be another clue.
Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 is yet another clue. It's that whole "prior bad acts" thing you hear mentioned on "Law and Order" every so often.
So when Medvedev openly speaks of "revisiting" Poland's international borders, yeah, I'm thinking he's implying military action. That and Poland is hardly likely to just fork over territory back to Russia given its history of having been carved up by other nations over the past 300 years. It's hard to see the Polish people being down with that.
As for NATO invading Russia...no. That was never on anybody's radar INCLUDING Putin's. Putin's own comments regarding his "special military operation" attest to this.
That does not mean it can't happen. It does mean there was no indication that such an attack on Russia was in even the slightest way imminent. NATO encirclement of Russia has always been a strategic threat to Russia, but that is not at all the same thing as an imminent threat. Based on the reported numbers and where the troops were before Russia invaded Ukraine, there was no imminent NATO threat to Russia.
Strategic threat yes, imminent threat no.
As for everything the west has done in Ukraine being stupid...can't agree with that either. Cynical definitely, immoral probably, but stupid, not really.
Nuland completely outmaneuvered Putin in 2014.
The current NATO strategy of attrition warfare in Ukraine has likely caused a couple hundred thousand Russian casualties. Arguably Russia has incurred more casualties in Ukraine than it had troops in the invasion force. Based on the ongoing stalemate along the front line, Russia has not been able to amass sufficient forces anywhere along the front line to resume offensive operations--and this is after their "partial mobilization" that called up an additional 300,000 personnel.
If Russia does not find a way to break out of the defensive posture it has in eastern Ukraine and take the rest of the country, it will be in a WORSE strategic position than before the war. Not only will they have a LONGER border to defend, over territory that is itself rather difficult to defend (it's flat and mostly open), but they now have fewer troops, fewer tanks, fewer artillery shells, and a Ukrainian neighbor that is none too happy about things.
Which is what a lot of people overlook about how NATO is prosecuting this war in Ukraine--Ukraine does not have to "win" militarily for NATO's strategy to succeed. All Ukraine has to do is make Russia bleed enough so that further military encroachments on NATO territories are not possible for the next 5 years or so. If recent events in Azerbaijan and Armenia are any indication of Russia's residual military strength, NATO's strategy is working.
As does Poland! Nobody wants to disappear, 18th or 21st century.
One thing at a time, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia will be cut off by a land bridge though Poland and Lithuania, and that will be almost as good as NATO sacrificing them in a conflict with Russia.
Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia are all NATO members.
One reason NATO prefers to sacrifice Ukrainians is that they are not NATO members.
NATO's strategy has been evident for quite some time. NATO means to attrit Russian forces to the point where they do not have the manpower or resources to threaten Poland or the Baltic states. They want to see Russia grinding out in Ukraine because very Russian casualty in Ukraine is a Russian soldier not available for deployment anywhere else. Ukraine doesn't even have to "win" the war for NATO's strategy to succeed. All that is required is that Russia's military get depleted.
As always, I appreciate your facts and sources...and while reading this, there were all kinds of red flags popping up in my mind about the strategy of the evil people in charge behind the scenes, just waiting for us to deploy the majority of our resources to fight Russia, so that they can give the green light to China to invade Taiwan and have a few other countries melt down in a world War scenario...although I hope that it doesn't happen...it's ripening...ugh!
I think one of the takeaways here should be the eternal reminder to focus on facts and data--and recognize what can be verified, what is verified, and what is ultimately speculative.
One can of course spin scenarios in all manner of directions. Certainly there is a discernible threat that China will attack Taiwan, and the US will choose to respond. However, as it is with Ukraine and Russia, so it is with Taiwan and China--an invasion and its ultimate success or failure will be determined largely by logistics.
Similarly, an escalation into direct confrontation with Russia by NATO will entail logistical efforts, very little of which can be hidden (you don't just gather 3 million troops somewhere and not get noticed).
At present, NATO has not committed troops to Ukraine. Whether they will or will not in the future is a question yet to be answered. However, NATO would have to begin gathering forces for an assault on Russia long before they launch the actual assault