Former Swiss Intelligence Officer blows the whistle on West's Ukraine War Narrative

[McRocket]

No- you agreed with Annatta that Putin should not have approached Kyiv. I disagreed with you both.

Your idea is fantasy...no offense.
There is next to ZERO chance that had Russia even captured Kiev?
That the war would have ended.

Besides, the tactic was obviously a diversion.
They did not have remotely the troops with them to actually conquer Kiev.

Besides?
Had Ukraine surrendered?
I INCREDIBLY, highly doubt that Biden would have left it at that.
Or NATO for that matter.

The minute Putin's forces crossed outside of Donetsk, Luhansk or Crimea (into Ukraine proper)?
There was little that could have stopped the mess that is today.
Short of Russia's withdraw.

You disagree.
Fine.

 

[moon]

Your idea is fantasy...no offense.

Ukraine is full of dead dumbasses who will never know. And neither do you- no offense

You disagree.
Fine.

Of course. 40 miles of armor is serious intent.

 

[Scott]

i should have been more clear.
recognition" also includes moving overwhelming Russian troops into Donbas.
And then war against Kyiv with the backing of the local population

Kyiv wasn't a feint/ Putin lost his armor there because of JAVELIN -which he should have understood
as TOW missiles were used in Syria against armor as well

Alright, thanks for clarifying. I will say that near the start of the war, Russia was in fact prepared to withdraw its forces from Ukraine back in March, at least if Ukraine had recognized Crimea and the Donbass republics as no longer being part of Ukraine. An excerpt from the Financial Times makes this place:

**
Max Seddon in Riga, Roman Olearchyk in Kyiv, Arash Massoudi in London and Neri Zilber in Tel Aviv MARCH 16 2022

Ukraine and Russia have made significant progress on a tentative peace plan including a ceasefire and Russian withdrawal if Kyiv declares neutrality and accepts limits on its armed forces, according to five people briefed on the talks.

Ukrainian and Russian negotiators discussed the proposed deal in full for the first time on Monday, said two of the people. The 15-point draft considered that day would involve Kyiv renouncing its ambitions to join Nato and promising not to host foreign military bases or weaponry in exchange for protection from allies such as the US, UK and Turkey, the people said.

However, the nature of western guarantees for Ukrainian security — and their acceptability to Moscow — could prove to be a big obstacle to any deal, as could the status of the country’s territories seized by Russia and its proxies in 2014.

**

Full article:
Ukraine and Russia explore neutrality plan in peace talks | Financial Times


The problem is that Ukraine, perhaps encouraged by Britain's then Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the U.S., didn't take the deal. As Russian officials have said since then, that ship has now sailed. I seriously doubt that Russia would let go of any of the territories that have now voted to join the Russian federation. However, if the referendum voting was fair, I believe these regions should be allowed to separate from Ukraine. Don't you?

 

[cancel2 2022]

Mariupol was NOT inside the DPR.

True or false?
The VAST majority of the people inside the LPR, DPR and Crimea do NOT want to be part of Ukraine.
True or False?

I wonder how many men in the Donbas would want to be conscripted and fight for the Russian meat grinder?

 

[Scott]

Your focus is all wrong. Putin decided to recognize the Lugansk and Donetsk republics on February 21, promising to defend them and starting his military operation in Ukraine to do so shortly thereafter, but his own lower house of Parliament was pushing him to recognize the Donbass republics 6 days before he agreed to do so, on February 15th. It's true that not all Russias supported Putin's decision to start his military operation in Ukraine, but its' equally true that there were others who were raring to go to defend the Donbass republics.

For me, the most important thing is what the people in Eastern Ukraine themselves want. The referendums strongly suggest that they wanted to join Russia. I'm fine with Elon Musk's idea of redoing the referendums with more international observers, but people should have a right to decide who they wish to be governed by.

There are always going to be people that support assholes decisions. Look at all the trump supporters on this forum who think the 1/6 attack was fine. Just because a few Russian people support Putin's war crimes certainly does not make it right.

I've never been a fan of Trump and think he made a bunch of terrible decisions, though I admit that he did make a few good decisions as well. As to the January 6th occupation of the Capitol, I think that's a bit more complicated. I can certainly understand the frustration many Americans have with Congress, which I imagine fed into the whole thing.

Getting back to the subject of this thread, you seem to be suggesting that Russian parliament supported Putin's decision to recognize the Donbass republics and come to their defense if requested- in fact, it looks more like Russian parliament had been pushing Putin to do this almost a week prior to Putin actually acquiescing.

For me, the elephant in the room is the plight of those in the Donbass republics, thousands of which have been killed over the past 8 years. Ukraine's renewed military assaults starting on February 16th certainly put Putin in a very difficult position, which Jacques Baud elaborates on in the article that I quoted and linked to in the opening post.

 

[Scott]

I wonder how many men in the Donbas would want to be conscripted and fight for the Russian meat grinder?

Many of them have been fighting off the Ukrainian army for the past 8 years. How much do you know of the Ukrainian civil war that started back in 2014?

 

[Scott]

The minute Putin's forces crossed outside of Donetsk, Luhansk or Crimea (into Ukraine proper)?

You might want to ask yourself, what makes Ukraine proper in the way you seem to be defining it? Ultimately, it's just a matter of tactical decisions, successes and failures on the part of the western Ukraine military and the Donbass republics. The only difference now is that Russia has joined the fray. I believe the most important thing should always be, what do the citizens of a given area want? If Russia's referendum election results were genuine, and I believe they were, it means that the citizens in the areas that Russia now controls and has annexed wanted to be annexed. Shouldn't want the citizens of an area want be taken into account?

 

[LurchAddams]

I've never been a fan of Trump and think he made a bunch of terrible decisions, though I admit that he did make a few good decisions as well. As to the January 6th occupation of the Capitol, I think that's a bit more complicated. I can certainly understand the frustration many Americans have with Congress, which I imagine fed into the whole thing.

Getting back to the subject of this thread, you seem to be suggesting that Russian parliament supported Putin's decision to recognize the Donbass republics and come to their defense if requested- in fact, it looks more like Russian parliament had been pushing Putin to do this almost a week prior to Putin actually acquiescing.

For me, the elephant in the room is the plight of those in the Donbass republics, thousands of which have been killed over the past 8 years. Ukraine's renewed military assaults starting on February 16th certainly put Putin in a very difficult position, which Jacques Baud elaborates on in the article that I quoted and linked to in the opening post.

Then the Russian parliament is not in line with the wishes of the Russian people who are leaving Russia in droves to avoid being a part of Putin's Quixotic endeavor.

 

[Scott]

Getting back to the subject of this thread, you seem to be suggesting that Russian parliament supported Putin's decision to recognize the Donbass republics and come to their defense if requested- in fact, it looks more like Russian parliament had been pushing Putin to do this almost a week prior to Putin actually acquiescing.

For me, the elephant in the room is the plight of those in the Donbass republics, thousands of which have been killed over the past 8 years. Ukraine's renewed military assaults starting on February 16th certainly put Putin in a very difficult position, which Jacques Baud elaborates on in the article that I quoted and linked to in the opening post.

Then the Russian parliament is not in line with the wishes of the Russian people who are leaving Russia in droves to avoid being a part of Putin's Quixotic endeavor.

My understanding is that Russians only started leaving Russia in droves when Putin instituted his "partial mobilization" as he put it. Putin was also encouraged to make that decision, but not by Parliament, but some of his military staff. I never agreed with that decision, as I don't believe conscription is something that should ever be done and is tantamount to enslaving people. Thankfully, this mobilization has now ended:
Putin announces end of mobilization in Russia | Yahoo News



The U.S. did the same in Vietnam, something I also strongly disagreed with. I think it should be pointed out that Zelensky forbid all men age 18 to 60 from leaving Ukraine shortly after Russia started its military operation in Ukraine, and he has as yet to rescind that order:
Russia-Ukraine: Zelenskyy bans men aged 18 to 60 from leaving country | Daily Post

 

[moon]

Over three million Ukrainians have moved INTO Russia since Russia became involved militarily .
Pro-Russian Ukrainians have every right to their own country. They are Ukrainians. That's why I term the anti-Russian Ukrainians as ' Zelenskies ', not Ukrainians.
The US is arming the Zelenskies, not the Ukrainians.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Over three million Ukrainians have moved INTO Russia since Russia became involved militarily .
Pro-Russian Ukrainians have every right to their own country. They are Ukrainians. That's why I term the anti-Russian Ukrainians as ' Zelenskies ', not Ukrainians.
The US is arming the Zelenskies, not the Ukrainians.

What about the Ukrainians who want Ukraine for Ukrainians, Ms. Moon? What about all the civilians, many of them children, being murdered by Russians? Are you really such a two-faced hypocrite you can't recognize the problem?

 

[Scott]

Over three million Ukrainians have moved INTO Russia since Russia became involved militarily .
Pro-Russian Ukrainians have every right to their own country. They are Ukrainians. That's why I term the anti-Russian Ukrainians as ' Zelenskies ', not Ukrainians.
The US is arming the Zelenskies, not the Ukrainians.

I agree with you in part. I definitely believe that pro Russian Ukrainians have every right to their country and that they are Ukrainians. However, I think saying that the U.S. is arming the Zelenskies is somewhat misleading. For starters, I believe it would be more accurate to say that the U.S. has been supporting and arming the nationalists in Ukraine. While I certainly believe that at this point in time, Zelensky has indeed become pretty nationalistic, this wasn't always the case. I think that journalist Aaron Mate did a great article on how Zelensky turned to the dark side, with the encouragement of the Empire, if you will. It's here:

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

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I agree with you in part. I definitely believe that pro Russian Ukrainians have every right to their country and that they are Ukrainians. However, I think saying that the U.S. is arming the Zelenskies is somewhat misleading. For starters, I believe it would be more accurate to say that the U.S. has been supporting and arming the nationalists in Ukraine. While I certainly believe that at this point in time, Zelensky has indeed become pretty nationalistic, this wasn't always the case. I think that journalist Aaron Mate did a great article on how Zelensky turned to the dark side, with the encouragement of the Empire, if you will. It's here:

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

If a Russian patriot blew Putin's head off, do you think that would be a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[Scott]

What about the Ukrainians who want Ukraine for Ukrainians, Ms. Moon?

You seem to have this notion that Ukraine was a united country when Russia started its military operation. In point of fact, a civil war had been raging in Ukraine for the past 8 years, killing around 14,000 Ukrainians, of which around 10,000 of which were eastern Ukrainians. Wikipedia has a page with the relevant numbers here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

What about all the civilians, many of them children, being murdered by Russians?

Murder usually implies intent. There's been plenty of evidence that Russia actually put a considerable amount of effort in trying to minimize civilians casualties and infrastructure prior to the Ukrainian military's bombing of the Crimean bridge. William Arkin, writing for Newsweek said as much back in March:
Putin's Bombers Could Devastate Ukraine But He's Holding Back. Here's Why | Newsweek

After Ukraine seriously damaged the Crimean bridge, my understanding is that Russia continues to avoid killing civilians, but Putin decided to seriously damage their energy infrastructure. Putin also stopped the assault on Ukraine's infrastucture after inflicting a serious amount of damage to it.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You seem to have this notion that Ukraine was a united country when Russia started its military operation.....

No, Ms. Phoenyx. You're wrong again. I understand the issue of the Separatist regions.

Your defense of Putin and the atrocities of the Russian army is noted. What about Putin's betrayal of his own army? The conscription of 300,000 Russians being sent to Ukraine as cannon fodder? Any comments there, ma'am?

Personally, I'm betting both you and I outlive Putin. His craziness is taking down all of Russia. Both the Oligarchs and the military leadership knows Putin is a threat to Mother Russia and needs to be stopped. Your loyalty to a vicious, murderous dictator won't save him, dear.

 

[Scott]

If a Russian patriot blew Putin's head off, do you think that would be a good thing or a bad thing?

Putin has been villified quite a bit for quite some time. But I've listened to his speeches and seen him in various interviews. The guy is generally calm and even has a good sense of humour. He's also been very good at laying out the reasoning of Russia's military operation. I've taken a brief look at potential candidates that might become President if he were to leave office, and I've come to believe that none would be as good. The article I looked at to see potential candidates is here:
If Putin is Overthrown, These Five People Could Replace Him | Newsweek


I imagine your main wish to see him gone is that you believe that the war would end if he were to leave. I've seen no hard evidence that this would be the case, however.

 

[Scott]

No, Ms. Phoenyx.

And you're back to disrespecting me. Was nice to have a post or 2 where you didn't.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Putin has been villified quite a bit for quite some time. But I've listened to his speeches and seen him in various interviews....

I have no doubt you are a lackey loyalist of Putin. Still, due to the crushing losses of Putin's mistake, it's only a matter of time before he's removed by Russian patriots. There's no doubt in my mind that it would never be you who helps save Russia from Putin.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

And you're back to disrespecting me. Was nice to have a post or 2 where you didn't.

How am I disrespecting you, Ms. Phoenyx?

 

[Scott]

I have no doubt you are a lackey loyalist of Putin.

I respect qualities of Putin that I think make him a good leader. That doesn't mean I'm not aware of some of his flaws. I've already mentioned that I don't think that he should have forced Russians to be part of the Ukraine war. I'm glad that he at least ended conscription at the end of October.