Ending the war in Ukraine

[McRocket]

Considering the stakes involved, I think it best to be cautious, but I wasn't actually referring to what Putin would do if NATO officially put boots on the ground in Ukraine. I was referring to the fact that Putin had legitimate concerns about Ukraine acquiring nuclear weapons prior to his decision to start his military operation in Ukraine.



I've seen no polls of what those under 50 in Russia think in regards to the west. I'm just pointing out the evidence that NATO failed to keep its word in regards to expansion and that many in Russia view that as a betrayal and that it strongly suggests that NATO and the U.S. can't be trusted to keep their word and that the only thing they respect is a display of military power. Also, pretty sure that most people in high offices in Russia are over 50.




You seem to be assuming that NATO nations will pour everything they have into this war. I don't hold that assumption. As to facts, it's a fact that even some in the mainstream media believe Ukraine may not win on the battlefield if NATO doesn't send Ukraine even more than they've been sending it so far. An article from the New York Post that came out about a week ago said that if Biden doesn't send Ukraine aircraft, Ukraine won't win:

Ukraine needs planes, Mr. President, or Putin will win | New York Post

It even acknowledges the possibility that this could trigger a nuclear war, but simply considers it to be bluster, even as it literally provides evidence that it's not (click on the link in the excerpt below for details):

**
Putin’s nuclear bluster should not deter our sending (or facilitating the transfer of) fighter planes to Zelensky’s forces.
**

Finally, the European part of NATO is faltering this winter. That in turn may bring more political changes, which could affect NATO's supplying of military aid to Ukraine. An article on that:

A Winter of Discontent: The Coming Cold Season May Trigger a Spring of Political Change in European Elections | europeanconservative.com

An interesting excerpt from the article:

**
Not all European countries have been caught flat-footed. The most prominent example has been the central European nation of Hungary. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has pursued a deviation from the European Union’s collective policy of isolating Russia over its invasion of Ukraine by continuing the importation of Russian energy, earning the ire of Washington and Brussels. Today, Hungary will be dealing with domestic cutbacks and regulations in power consumption, but it now stands better prepared with higher energy reserves while the rest of Europe faces the specter of rationing. Orbán chose national interest and realpolitik over the collective will of Europe concerning Russian sanctions.

The contrast of reactions between Budapest and Brussels to the coming crises of this winter have been noticed by those who pay close attention to international affairs. When the weather turns cold and the snow falls, the reality between a home in Hungary and a home elsewhere in Europe, let’s say Germany, will be evident to all. While the European Union’s leaders put all effort into presenting a united condemnation of Russian aggression to be exercised at any cost, Hungary’s leadership considered the potential danger to Europe’s economy from leveling sanctions in the midst of a recession. The EU’s policy has been one of ideology while Hungary’s has been one based on national interest.

The concept of national self-interest has been demonized by the Brussels elite as an idea responsible for Europe’s history of wars and chaos. Peace and virtue, they seem to suggest, can only be achieved if nation states abandon their national interests. Furthermore, in times of crisis, a collective demonstration of force must be made, even when that demonstration is harmful to a nation’s self-interest. Hungary has decided to ditch Brussels-style virtue-signaling and face the ensuing accusations of being selfish in exchange for being able to provide peace, and relative economic and political stability for its own people. The citizens of the rest of Europe are starting to take notice.
**

With respect, you seem to base an AWFUL lot of your beliefs on this on the MSM and opinions of various 'experts'.

For the record - I PUT NO STOCK WHATSOEVER IN ANYTHING THE MSM SAYS.

They have shown time and again that, if they ever were about reporting news, that premise is LONG gone.
They clearly are now entertainment companies in the form of news sources.
They simply pander to whatever their viewers want to read/here.
ALL of them.
They proved it once and for all during the lockdowns. When they completely abandoned reporting 'both sides' and simply towed the government line.
Plus, their ratings went sky high during the lockdowns...so their reasons for supporting these un-Constitutional 'things' is obvious.
https://www.newsweek.com/ratings-sky...verage-1493836
Though the newspapers are still better than the electronic mass media - but not by much.

I no longer believe a THING, ANY of them say without providing unbiased, factual proof to back it up.

And opinions mean NOTHING almost nothing to me.

I strongly advise you to trust nothing that comes from anyone until they can back it up with facts/data from unbiased sources.


I have made my position clear as to what I think could and should be done to end this quickly and with the least amount of additional destruction and loss of life.
And you seem to have far more faith in Russia's, conventional military capabilities than I (or, I must say, the facts) suggest.
So be it.

It has been unusually (for around here) pleasant to debate with you.
You seem to keep your cool far better than most.
Refreshing.

Good day.

[McRocket]

There is no question Putin wanted to take Ukraine.

Not only based on the amount of forces he committed to the Kyiv offensive, but based on strategic and historic factors garden variety Americans cannot understand.

There is no point waging Total war on Ukraine if Kyiv is not the objective from Putin's point of view. Kyiv has enormous psychological, historical, and mythological significance in the Russian mind. Kyiv is ground zero for East Slavic civilization, and Putin is nothing if not messianic and historically minded. Kyiv is a corner stone of imperial Russian nationalism, it is the lynchpin of Holy Rus. America is an immigrant nation which cannot be expected to fully comprehend this kind of nationalist conciousness and national mythology.

1) you have NO WAY of knowing what ALL the 'experts' feel in this regard.
So you have NO WAY of knowing if their is 'no question' of this or not.
You believe it - as do many others.
And many others do not.
That is the extent of it.

I am no expert.
But imo?
I haven't a clue what Putin was trying to do.
Whatever it was - it was moronic.


2) Total war?
Russia is holding back many of their top aircraft and tanks (many T-90's and the T-14).
Their Arena active protection system (APS) for their MBT's - has not (to my knowledge) been even seen on one, Russian armored vehicle in Ukraine.
Yet, this was designed to stop weapons like Javelin.
And it appears to work, very well at doing this.
So why not use it in Ukraine and save their tanks if this was TOTAL WAR?

Nor are they sending in their top units (from what I can see).

This is far from 'TOTAL WAR" for Russia.

I would call it similar to America's commitment to Vietnam/Afghanistan.
Throw a TON of stuff at it.
But NOT the absolute, top-of-the-line stuff.
Which you would do in a Total War.

[Cypress]

1) you have NO WAY of knowing what ALL the 'experts' feel in this regard.
So you have NO WAY of knowing if their is 'no question' of this or not.
You believe it - as do many others.
And many others do not.
That is the extent of it.

I am no espect.
But I imo?
I haven't a clue what Putin was trying to do.
Whatever it was - it was moronic.

When it comes to the way this war has unfolded, my judgement and track record has been substantially better than MAGA's...

My judgement :

Ukraine is not Chechnya, Georgia, or Moldava. Ukraine is a large country with a substantial military, capable of inflicting significant damage.

Ukraine has morale and commitment on it's side.

It took Josef Stalin seven years to put down a Ukrainian nationalist insurgency after WW2 ended.

There is a long history of proud nationalism in Ukraine which Putin may have underestimated.

.

Putin's and MAGA's judgement:

Putin Boasts of Being Able to Take Kiev in Two Weeks

https://time.com/3259699/putin-boast...eeks/?amp=true

The Ukraine will be totally over run within days.

Soon the Ukrainian Army will be all but destroyed.

Ukrainian army- leaderless, deserting, unsupported .

"YOU DO NOT POKE THE RUSSIAN BEAR!"

2) Total war?
Russia is holding back many of their top aircraft and tanks (many T-90's and the T-14).
Their Arena active protection system (APS) for their MBT's - has not (to my knowledge) been even seen on one, Russian armored vehicle in Ukraine.
Yet, this was designed to stop weapons like Javelin.
And it appears to work very well at doing this.
So why not use it in Ukraine and save their tanks if this was TOTAL WAR?

Nor are they sending in their top units (from what I can see).

This is far from 'TOTAL WAR" for Russia.

I would call it similar to America's commitment to Vietnam/Afghanistan.
Throw a TON of stuff at it.
But NOT the absolute, top-of-the-line stuff.
Which you would do in a Total War.

Once vibrant Ukrainian cities are reduced to smouldering piles of ruble.

At least 100k to 200k people have died in less than a year.

Russia is systematically destroying Ukrainian civilian infrastructure.

Russia isn't even bothering to avoid collateral damage, and has been systematically targeting civilian populations. The United States at least attempted to avoid collateral damage in Afghanistan, and the United States did not reduce a single Afghan city to a smoking pile of rubble.

Ukraine is mobilized on a total war footing.
The Russian army as a whole is committed to Ukraine and Putin ordered the nation's first military mobilization in 80 years.

If you want to say it is not the same scale at World War Two, that is correct. But this is the largest and most intense war in the world in 50 years, and the largest and most violent in Europe in 80 years

[Phoenyx]

Im sure if there were some true negotiations, Russia would take part.
I dont think Zelensky would -he has Biden wrapped around his finger

More than once, Zelensky has considered going the route of peace. The first such time was immediately after his election in 2019. At the time, the U.S. brass supported the warmongers in Ukraine and the opportunity to bring an end to Ukraine's war (back when it was officially just a 'civil' war) was missed. I think you've seen the article that brings this up, but for anyone here who hasn't, it's here:

Siding With Ukraine’s Far-Right, US Sabotaged Zelensky’s Peace Mandate | Scheerpost


About a month into Russia's military operation, it appeared that Zelensky was once again considering a peaceful solution. This time, the UK, via Boris Johnson, chimed in with the U.S. that the best option was war, not peace. I know you've seen the article I'm referring to here. For those in the audience, it's here:

We Urgently Need to Give Ukraine Peace Talks a Chance | Scheerpost


All of this is to say that Zelensky's war cheerleading persona these days is very much the product of American and, to a lesser extent, British foreign policy, not the other way around.

Perhaps the best way to characterize him would be him telling the U.S. and the U.K., "You told me to fight, now give me the weapons to keep on doing that".

[Phoenyx]

With respect, you seem to base an AWFUL lot of your beliefs on this on the MSM and opinions of various 'experts'.

On the contrary, I generally don't even read much from the MSM. However, I think that most people here tend to trust MSM over alternative sources, so if I find MSM articles that back what I believe, I tend to point them out.

For the record - I PUT NO STOCK WHATSOEVER IN ANYTHING THE MSM SAYS.

They have shown time and again that, if they ever were about reporting news, that premise is LONG gone.
They clearly are now entertainment companies in the form of news sources.
They simply pander to whatever their viewers want to read/here.
ALL of them.

I'd say that for the most part, it's actually even worse than that- I believe they pander to the the globalist elites most of all. A lot of them are owned by said elites after all. However, as mentioned previously, there are some exceptions. I've found that the New York Post seems to have some good articles these days, whether it's regarding the Hunter Biden laptop story or tacit acknowledgement that Ukraine may lose the war.

They proved it once and for all during the lockdowns. When they completely abandoned reporting 'both sides' and simply towed the government line.
Plus, their ratings went sky high during the lockdowns...so their reasons for supporting these un-Constitutional 'things' is obvious.
https://www.newsweek.com/ratings-sky...verage-1493836
Though the newspapers are still better than the electronic mass media - but not by much.

As I imagine you saw, I'm completely against the mainstream covid narrative, which I think is made clear in the thread I started here on the subject:
Challenging the official Covid narrative | justplainpolitics.com

I have made my position clear as to what I think could and should be done to end this quickly and with the least amount of additional destruction and loss of life.
And you seem to have far more faith in Russia's, conventional military capabilities than I (or, I must say, the facts) suggest.
So be it.

Well the good news is that I doubt either of us has placed any investment on Ukraine or Russia 'winning' the war. Ultimately, we'll both find out who 'wins' the war (even if technically, both sides lose a lot).

It has been unusually (for around here) pleasant to debate with you.
You seem to keep your cool far better than most.
Refreshing.

Thanks, I try :-)

[Phoenyx]

Russia isn't even bothering to avoid collateral damage, and has been systematically targeting civilian populations.

I imagine your source for that is the mainstream media, which has been parroting that line for some time now. Every once in a while, however, even the mainstream media acknowledges the fact that this is a lie. Newsweek did it back near the end of March:

Putin's Bombers Could Devastate Ukraine But He's Holding Back. Here's Why | Newsweek


Now, I certainly acknowledge that things changed to some extent after Ukraine's attack on the Crimean bridge, with Putin allies urging him to respond in kind:

Putin allies are pushing for swift retaliation after an explosion on a key Crimean bridge delivered another humiliation for the Russian president | businessinsider.mx

Putin decided to do just that:

Vladimir Putin says missile strikes across Ukraine are in retaliation for Crimea bridge 'terrorist' blast | Sky News


Russia sent more missiles towards Kyiv after a drone attack on their black sea fleet at the end of October as well:
Russian President Vladimir Putin says attacks on Ukraine infrastructure 'not all we could have done' | abc.net.au

Note Putin's line that they could have done more damage. Even now, I'd say Russia is still holding back to some extent, but they have certainly tried Russia's patience.

[anonymoose]

Note Putin's line that they could have done more damage. Even now, I'd say Russia is still holding back to some extent, but they have certainly tried Russia's patience.

Do you see any reason why Ukraine would have any patience with Russia?

[McRocket]

More than once, Zelensky has considered going the route of peace. The first such time was immediately after his election in 2019. At the time, the U.S. brass supported the warmongers in Ukraine and the opportunity to bring an end to Ukraine's war (back when it was officially just a 'civil' war) was missed. I think you've seen the article that brings this up, but for anyone here who hasn't, it's here:

Siding With Ukraine’s Far-Right, US Sabotaged Zelensky’s Peace Mandate | Scheerpost


About a month into Russia's military operation, it appeared that Zelensky was once again considering a peaceful solution. This time, the UK, via Boris Johnson, chimed in with the U.S. that the best option was war, not peace. I know you've seen the article I'm referring to here. For those in the audience, it's here:

We Urgently Need to Give Ukraine Peace Talks a Chance | Scheerpost


All of this is to say that Zelensky's war cheerleading persona these days is very much the product of American and, to a lesser extent, British foreign policy, not the other way around.

Perhaps the best way to characterize him would be him telling the U.S. and the U.K., "You told me to fight, now give me the weapons to keep on doing that".

Well said, imo....all of it.
But especially the highlighted part.

[Phoenyx]

Note Putin's line that they could have done more damage. Even now, I'd say Russia is still holding back to some extent, but they have certainly tried Russia's patience.

Do you see any reason why Ukraine would have any patience with Russia?

The way I see things, Ukraine is the one who truly started this war. There were 2 steps to getting to where we are now. The first would be Euromaidan, wherein Ukraine's elected President, who was much more amenable to Russia and eastern Ukraine's predominantly ethnic Russian and Russian speaking population, was ousted via what amounted to a violent coup, with the help of a false flag operation. More on that here:

The Mess that Nuland Made | Consortium News

The Hidden Truth About Ukraine, Kiev Euromaidan Snipers Kill Demonstrators. Italian Documentary Bombshell Evidence | Global Research


The second would be the renewed assault on the Donbass region days before Putin decided to begin his military operation in Ukraine. Former Swiss Intelligence officer Jacques Baud gets into the details of this. I made a thread on this here:

Former Swiss Intelligence Officer blows the whistle on West's Ukraine War Narrative | justplainpolitics.com

[Cypress]

Strawman.

And either you knew that or you are less intelligent than I am giving you credit for.






'total war

Warfare where all of a country's available resources, military as well as civilian, are employed.'

https://www.wordnik.com/words/total%20war

By definition - the Ukrainian Invasion is not (yet) remotely a 'total war' for Russia.



We are done here.

Good day.

You questioned my judgement, and then get upset when I show you proof my judgement about the course of the Russo-Ukrainian war has been reasonably good?


Yep Ukraine is mobilized for total war, and Russia is nearly so. The last time Russia ordered a military mobilization was 80 years ago. I know men who have fled Russia to avoid conscription.

We don't have to say it has to be exactly like World War Two to be a form of total war.

[Cypress]

I imagine your source for that is the mainstream media, which has been parroting that line for some time now. Every once in a while, however, even the mainstream media acknowledges the fact that this is a lie. Newsweek did it back near the end of March:

Putin's Bombers Could Devastate Ukraine But He's Holding Back. Here's Why | Newsweek


Now, I certainly acknowledge that things changed to some extent after Ukraine's attack on the Crimean bridge, with Putin allies urging him to respond in kind:

Putin allies are pushing for swift retaliation after an explosion on a key Crimean bridge delivered another humiliation for the Russian president | businessinsider.mx

Putin decided to do just that:

Vladimir Putin says missile strikes across Ukraine are in retaliation for Crimea bridge 'terrorist' blast | Sky News


Russia sent more missiles towards Kyiv after a drone attack on their black sea fleet at the end of October as well:
Russian President Vladimir Putin says attacks on Ukraine infrastructure 'not all we could have done' | abc.net.au

Note Putin's line that they could have done more damage. Even now, I'd say Russia is still holding back to some extent, but they have certainly tried Russia's patience.

I have seen the video from Marupiel, Kharkiv, and dozens of smaller Ukrainian cities.

Nobody has seen destruction of cities in Europe like that since World War Two.

The notion that Putin is being restrained and holding back because he is a humanitarian does not pass the laugh test.

[anonymoose]

The way I see things, Ukraine is the one who truly started this war. There were 2 steps to getting to where we are now. The first would be Euromaidan, wherein Ukraine's elected President, who was much more amenable to Russia and eastern Ukraine's predominantly ethnic Russian and Russian speaking population, was ousted via what amounted to a violent coup, with the help of a false flag operation. More on that here:

The Mess that Nuland Made | Consortium News

The Hidden Truth About Ukraine, Kiev Euromaidan Snipers Kill Demonstrators. Italian Documentary Bombshell Evidence | Global Research


The second would be the renewed assault on the Donbass region days before Putin decided to begin his military operation in Ukraine. Former Swiss Intelligence officer Jacques Baud gets into the details of this. I made a thread on this here:

Former Swiss Intelligence Officer blows the whistle on West's Ukraine War Narrative | justplainpolitics.com

I realize serious mistakes were made before February 24.
I’m talking about the present and Russia’s conduct in the war.

[anonymoose]

The way I see things, Ukraine is the one who truly started this war. There were 2 steps to getting to where we are now. The first would be Euromaidan, wherein Ukraine's elected President, who was much more amenable to Russia and eastern Ukraine's predominantly ethnic Russian and Russian speaking population, was ousted via what amounted to a violent coup, with the help of a false flag operation. More on that here:

The Mess that Nuland Made | Consortium News

The Hidden Truth About Ukraine, Kiev Euromaidan Snipers Kill Demonstrators. Italian Documentary Bombshell Evidence | Global Research


The second would be the renewed assault on the Donbass region days before Putin decided to begin his military operation in Ukraine. Former Swiss Intelligence officer Jacques Baud gets into the details of this. I made a thread on this here:

Former Swiss Intelligence Officer blows the whistle on West's Ukraine War Narrative | justplainpolitics.com

As far as who started the war, the above is a serious oversimplification. Ukraine's political history is far more complex than that, but basically Russia and the West got themselves involved in a Ukraine civil war.

[Phoenyx]

I have seen the video from Marupiel, Kharkiv, and dozens of smaller Ukrainian cities.

I'm guessing you meant to say Mariupol, not Marupiel. I know what that the mainstream western media's version of what happened during the battle for Mariupol paints Russia's military in a bad light and Ukraine's military in a good one. I've taken a look at Russia's version, as well as most reporters I've heard covering things from areas that Russia controls, and they paint a fairly different picture. RT did a documentary on Mariupol that I think it well worth watching:

Mariupol: A Homecoming | RT

Nobody has seen destruction of cities in Europe like that since World War Two.

I suspect the baltic war in former Yugoslavia might be comparable. Incidentally, NATO has shown its clear hypocracy in supporting the breakup of Yugoslavia, and yet being adamant that Ukraine should remain a single country. Serbia's certainly pointed this out:
Serbia Calls Out NATO’s Double Standard | voxday.net

Also NATO's general warmongering ways:
Decades of NATO Hypocrisy Exposed By Serbian Soccer Fans’ Giant Banners: ‘Give Peace a Chance?’ | newspunch.com

[Phoenyx]

The way I see things, Ukraine is the one who truly started this war. There were 2 steps to getting to where we are now. The first would be Euromaidan, wherein Ukraine's elected President, who was much more amenable to Russia and eastern Ukraine's predominantly ethnic Russian and Russian speaking population, was ousted via what amounted to a violent coup, with the help of a false flag operation. More on that here:

The Mess that Nuland Made | Consortium News

The Hidden Truth About Ukraine, Kiev Euromaidan Snipers Kill Demonstrators. Italian Documentary Bombshell Evidence | Global Research


The second would be the renewed assault on the Donbass region days before Putin decided to begin his military operation in Ukraine. Former Swiss Intelligence officer Jacques Baud gets into the details of this. I made a thread on this here:

Former Swiss Intelligence Officer blows the whistle on West's Ukraine War Narrative | justplainpolitics.com

I realize serious mistakes were made before February 24.
I’m talking about the present and Russia’s conduct in the war.

While I can certainly agree that U.S. power brokers in Ukraine and NATO made many mistakes prior to February 24, simply calling them mistakes would be misleading and let these groups off far too easily.

As to Russia's conduct in the war, even some mainstream media outlets have occassionally admitted that Russia was going pretty easy on Ukraine during the first stages of the war. I think this Newsweek article from late March is a good example:
Putin's Bombers Could Devastate Ukraine But He's Holding Back. Here's Why | Newsweek

Things definitely changed after Kyiv carried out an attack on the Crimean bridge. I think it's important to note that Putin was encouraged by close allies to retaliate, with the idea that if he didn't, Ukraine would go even further. An article on this:
Putin allies are pushing for swift retaliation after an explosion on a key Crimean bridge delivered another humiliation for the Russian president | businessinsider.mx


Furthermore, there's a huge difference between what mainstream media reports on Russian and Ukraine military actions and what is actually happening on the ground. I believe that Eva Bartlett, a Canadian American journalist, has done some great work in this regard. Here's an article she did on the battle in Mariupol:

Eva Bartlett Reports from Mariupol: “Ukraine Forces Used Scorched Earth Tactics” | Internationalist 360