Patrick Lawrence: Why Are the Russians Retreating in Ukraine? | Scheerpost

[Scott]

I think you got things mixed up. Baud found no evidence for Polish intelligence saying that Russia was arming eastern Ukraine. Here's the passage that I think you're referring to, bolding the important part:

**
In 2014, I am at NATO, responsible for the fight against the proliferation of small arms, and we are trying to detect Russian arms deliveries to the rebels in order to see if Moscow is involved. The information that we receive then comes practically all from the Polish intelligence services and does not “match” with the information from the OSCE: in spite of rather crude allegations, we do not observe any delivery of arms and materials [from the] Russian military.
**

Source:
Former NATO Military Analyst Blows the Whistle on West’s Ukraine Invasion Narrative | Scheerpost


In an ideal world, the only reason the U.S. got involved in Ukraine was to have friendly relations with it. In the real world, it seems that U.S. powerbrokers' primary goal was to get more resources and weaken Russia. Did you think Russia would just take it lying down?

For all Fidel Castro's flaws, his main concern seems to have been to protect Cuba from U.S. takeover attempts, like the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. For its part, Russia was angry that the U.S. had put nukes in Turkey, Turkey being right next to Russia's border. Fortunately, JFK wisely decided to strike a deal wherein they would remove their nukes from Turkey and Russia in turn would remove its nukes from Cuba.

This time around, Russia has no nukes in Cuba, so it behooves the U.S. to stop arming and training the Ukrainian army.

I find it rather odd that Baud relies solely on anonymous Polish intel sources, to the exclusion of all else. I give it no weight, and his "findings" are irrelevant.

Again, you've gotten things mixed up. After looking into the matter himself with his team, Baud found no weight in the Polish intelligence claiming that Russia was arming eastern Ukrainians.

Castro promised democracy and delivered dictatorship. His motive was to maintain dictatorial power.

I imagine he thought he was doing what was best for his people. In any case, I think we can agree that Cuba didn't invade anyone, while the U.S.'s CIA certainly did attempt to invade Cuba. Fortunately, JFK reigned them in. He may have paid with his life for that.

We've been trying to weaken Russia since the Cold War started, ... as we should.

There was a time, however brief, when U.S. and American interests had some commonalities after perestroika. Unfortunately, the peace dividend was squandered, in favour of ramping up a second cold war that's been warming up for some time now.

It behooves the West to have a Western friendly Ukraine, and to support Ukraine's complete separation from Russian control.

Again, I think your idea that the purpose United States government's involvement in Ukraine is incredibly naive. Have you ever heard of Major General Smedley Butler, a senior United States Marine Corps officer? He made a speech and published a book with it as well called "War is a Racket". Quoting a bit from its introduction:

**
War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

You also still seem to be under the impression that Ukraine is a united country, despite the fact that it had been in a civil war for 8 years prior to Russia's military intervention. There is also plenty of evidence that Russia's intervention was provoked by western Ukraine's renewed military assault on the Donbass area just days before Putin decided to start his military operation. On the day he started his military operation, he aired a speech wherein he made it clear that one of the reasons he decided to intitiate said operation was to aid in the Donbass republics' defense.

 

[Nordberg]

Yes- and that's why I say that Zelensky has to go.

Anybody thinking that this will end WITHOUT Russia getting secure borders is sucking on the NATO hookah.

That is not why. The fact is you have been a pro-Russian Putin backer from the day he started an absolutely needless war. You would love to see Zelinky gone because Ukrainian people have rallied behind him.

 

[Bigdog]

Again, you've gotten things mixed up. After looking into the matter himself with his team, Baud found no weight in the Polish intelligence claiming that Russia was arming eastern Ukrainians.



I imagine he thought he was doing what was best for his people. In any case, I think we can agree that Cuba didn't invade anyone, while the U.S.'s CIA certainly did attempt to invade Cuba. Fortunately, JFK reigned them in. He may have paid with his life for that.



There was a time, however brief, when U.S. and American interests had some commonalities after perestroika. Unfortunately, the peace dividend was squandered, in favour of ramping up a second cold war that's been warming up for some time now.



Again, I think your idea that the purpose United States government's involvement in Ukraine is incredibly naive. Have you ever heard of Major General Smedley Butler, a senior United States Marine Corps officer? He made a speech and published a book with it as well called "War is a Racket". Quoting a bit from its introduction:

**
War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

You also still seem to be under the impression that Ukraine is a united country, despite the fact that it had been in a civil war for 8 years prior to Russia's military intervention. There is also plenty of evidence that Russia's intervention was provoked by western Ukraine's renewed military assault on the Donbass area just days before Putin decided to start his military operation. On the day he started his military operation, he aired a speech wherein he made it clear that one of the reasons he decided to intitiate said operation was to aid in the Donbass republics' defense.

Sorry if I misread the OSCE quote. I still find it irrelevant. It does not matter if the Russians armed them or not in 2014.

I think we can agree that Castro stole private assets from Americans, and lied to the Cuban people about establishing democracy. In effect, Castro stole the whole country and the freedom of its people.

Perestroika? ... we had the Apollo-Soyuz joint mission way before Gorbachev. The point is, the Cold war continues.

I am quite familiar with Smedley, winner of two medals of honor. His viewpoint, while narrow, does hold validity. I'm not sure why you think something so obvious and endemic to conflict is relevant, ... and only done by the U.S. and no other nation in history.

I said early on in our discussion that a Ukrainian civil war had been ongoing since the Soviet union collapsed, and that the NEW country was unstable. Are you talking about the Donbass fighting that started when Russia annexed the Crimea? ... what's your point about that?

 

[Scott]

Again, you've gotten things mixed up. After looking into the matter himself with his team, Baud found no weight in the Polish intelligence claiming that Russia was arming eastern Ukrainians.

I imagine he thought he was doing what was best for his people. In any case, I think we can agree that Cuba didn't invade anyone, while the U.S.'s CIA certainly did attempt to invade Cuba. Fortunately, JFK reigned them in. He may have paid with his life for that.

There was a time, however brief, when U.S. and American interests had some commonalities after perestroika. Unfortunately, the peace dividend was squandered, in favour of ramping up a second cold war that's been warming up for some time now.

Again, I think your idea that the purpose United States government's involvement in Ukraine is incredibly naive. Have you ever heard of Major General Smedley Butler, a senior United States Marine Corps officer? He made a speech and published a book with it as well called "War is a Racket". Quoting a bit from its introduction:

**
War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

You also still seem to be under the impression that Ukraine is a united country, despite the fact that it had been in a civil war for 8 years prior to Russia's military intervention. There is also plenty of evidence that Russia's intervention was provoked by western Ukraine's renewed military assault on the Donbass area just days before Putin decided to start his military operation. On the day he started his military operation, he aired a speech wherein he made it clear that one of the reasons he decided to intitiate said operation was to aid in the Donbass republics' defense.

Sorry if I misread the OSCE quote. I still find it irrelevant. It does not matter if the Russians armed them or not in 2014.

I strongly disagree. The mainstream media has harped endlessly about how Russia wasn't provoked into a war with Ukraine. Caitlin Johnstone just wrote an article about it today, in fact, quoting Noam Chomsky and John Measheimer who make it abundantly clear that Russia was very much provoked:

Caitlin Johnstone: Unprovoked! | Scheerpost

This narrative goes down better with the notion that Russia was arming the Donbass republics just as the U.S. and NATO was arming western Ukraine. Failing that, it becomes abundantly clear that there was a single aggressor over the past 8 years- NATO, with the U.S. leading the charge.

I think we can agree that Castro stole private assets from Americans, and lied to the Cuban people about establishing democracy. In effect, Castro stole the whole country and the freedom of its people.

Tell me, do you think that most of those Americans acquired those assets justifiably? Just in case you do, here's a bit of history, courtesy of Wikipedia, regarding Batista, who was Cuba's leader before Castro:

**
Facing certain electoral defeat, he led a military coup against President Carlos Prío Socarrás that pre-empted the election.[6]

Back in power and receiving financial, military and logistical support from the United States government,[7][8] Batista suspended the 1940 Constitution and revoked most political liberties, including the right to strike. He then aligned with the wealthiest landowners who owned the largest sugar plantations, and presided over a stagnating economy that widened the gap between rich and poor Cubans.[9] Eventually it reached the point where most of the sugar industry was in U.S. hands, and foreigners owned 70% of the arable land.[10] As such, Batista's repressive government then began to systematically profit from the exploitation of Cuba's commercial interests, by negotiating lucrative relationships both with the American Mafia, who controlled the drug, gambling, and prostitution businesses in Havana, and with large U.S.-based multinational companies who were awarded lucrative contracts.[9][11] To quell the growing discontent amongst the populace—which was subsequently displayed through frequent student riots and demonstrations—Batista established tighter censorship of the media, while also utilizing his Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities secret police to carry out wide-scale violence, torture and public executions. These murders mounted in 1957, as socialist ideas became more influential. Many people were killed, with estimates ranging from hundreds to about 20,000 people killed.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista

Perestroika? ... we had the Apollo-Soyuz joint mission way before Gorbachev. The point is, the Cold war continues.

I think it could have ended had the U.S. not broken its promise to not expand NATO eastward:
NEW DOCUMENTS: US PROMISED NOT TO EXPAND NATO EASTWARD | mltoday.com

I am quite familiar with Smedley, winner of two medals of honor. His viewpoint, while narrow, does hold validity. I'm not sure why you think something so obvious and endemic to conflict is relevant, ... and only done by the U.S. and no other nation in history.

I think it isn't obvious to a lot of people, glad that it's obvious to you. I never said it was only done by the U.S. I do believe that the U.S. war machine's appetite is a large part of why Ukraine is at war today.

I said early on in our discussion that a Ukrainian civil war had been ongoing since the Soviet union collapsed, and that the NEW country was unstable. Are you talking about the Donbass fighting that started when Russia annexed the Crimea? ... what's your point about that?

My point is that had western Ukraine worked on a negotiated settlement with its eastern regions instead of sending tanks, I doubt Russia would have intervened. Instead, it launched several assaults, with the most recent one being just days before Putin started his military operation.

 

[Scott]

Yes- and that's why I say that Zelensky has to go.

Anybody thinking that this will end WITHOUT Russia getting secure borders is sucking on the NATO hookah.

That is not why. The fact is you have been a pro-Russian Putin backer from the day he started an absolutely needless war. You would love to see Zelinky gone because Ukrainian people have rallied behind him.

"Absolutely needless war" sounds rather similar to the mainstream media's message that Russia's intervention in Ukraine was "unprovoked". Caitlin Johnson wrote a good article today on the absurdity of this notion here:

Caitlin Johnstone: Unprovoked! | Scheerpost

As to your notion that the "Ukrainian people" have rallied behind Zelensky, if that was really true, how do you explain the following article, published a little less than a month after Russia's military intervention:

Zelensky nationalizes TV news and restricts opposition parties | yahoo.com

Quoting from the article:

**
In an address to the nation delivered Sunday, he announced a temporary ban on "any activity" by 11 political parties.

The ban includes the Opposition Platform – For Life party, which holds 43 seats in Ukraine's national parliament and is the largest opposition party.
**

 

[moon]

That is not why. The fact is you have been a pro-Russian Putin backer from the day he started an absolutely needless war. You would love to see Zelinky gone because Ukrainian people have rallied behind him.

No- I would like to see Russia with secure borders. Zelensky is just a novelty NATO puppet . Without secure borders for Russia WW3 looms closer.

Take your pick- listen to the Russians or get fried. It's their backyard. Yanqui- go home.

 

[Lightbringer]

That is not why. The fact is you have been a pro-Russian Putin backer from the day he started an absolutely needless war. You would love to see Zelinky gone because Ukrainian people have rallied behind him.

You're stupid.

 

[Scott]

That is not why. The fact is you have been a pro-Russian Putin backer from the day he started an absolutely needless war. You would love to see Zelinky gone because Ukrainian people have rallied behind him.

You're stupid.

Come now Guille, ad hominem attacks seldom if ever help in discussions. As to why Nordberg believes what he believes, I strongly suspect that he's an avid fan of the mainstream media reports that keep on telling everyone that Russia's military operation in Ukraine was "unprovoked". As I told him, Caitlin Johnstone wrote an article about this narrative yesterday:

Caitlin Johnstone: Unprovoked! | Scheerpost

 

[Nordberg]

No- I would like to see Russia with secure borders. Zelensky is just a novelty NATO puppet . Without secure borders for Russia WW3 looms closer.

Take your pick- listen to the Russians or get fried. It's their backyard. Yanqui- go home.

Russians are not allowed free speech, especially in Putin's war. There is a man in the street interview site. They talk to Russians on the street and many make it clear they are against the war, but know if they say so flatly, they could be in trouble.

 

[Nordberg]

You're stupid.

Well, you really fleshed that out in your own tiny drive by way.

 

[Nordberg]

Come now Guille, ad hominem attacks seldom if ever help in discussions. As to why Nordberg believes what he believes, I strongly suspect that he's an avid fan of the mainstream media reports that keep on telling everyone that Russia's military operation in Ukraine was "unprovoked". As I told him, Caitlin Johnstone wrote an article about this narrative yesterday:

Caitlin Johnstone: Unprovoked! | Scheerpost

It was. Putin attacked Ukraine. Are you disputing that? Ukraine was talking about joining NATO as any sovereign nation has a right to do. Putin's attack shows they were too slow to join. Putin's act of war has solidified NATO and made more Russian neighbors want to join.

 

[moon]

Russians are not allowed free speech, especially in Putin's war. There is a man in the street interview site. They talk to Russians on the street and many make it clear they are against the war, but know if they say so flatly, they could be in trouble.

Only nuts are actually FOR war. For Russians- and pro-Russian Ukrainians- this is a war of self-defense. For the pro-NATO Zelenskies its a war against their geographical position on the planet. I can't see them winning it.

 

[moon]

It was. Putin attacked Ukraine. Are you disputing that? Ukraine was talking about joining NATO as any sovereign nation has a right to do. Putin's attack shows they were too slow to join. Putin's act of war has solidified NATO and made more Russian neighbors want to join.

After the US-led coup of 2014- when the pro-Russian elected president was ousted - Ukraine's Azov Neo-Nazis shelled the breakaway pro-Russian regions for eight years. You still want to claim that Russia started it ?

 

[Nordberg]

Only nuts are actually FOR war. For Russians- and pro-Russian Ukrainians- this is a war of self-defense. For the pro-NATO Zelenskies its a war against their geographical position on the planet. I can't see them winning it.

1420 https://www.google.com/search?q=man...#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:509e6bc2,vid:XGUDYXXiGaM Putin has a dictatorship and the people are afraid to criticize them. This is Putin's war., Ukraine did not attack Russia, yet they are the aggressors? Russian troops poured over the borders destroying cities and killing Ukrainians and they are being defensive? Putin, it seems, is trying to rebuild the soviet union including the buffer states.

 

[Scott]

Come now Guille, ad hominem attacks seldom if ever help in discussions. As to why Nordberg believes what he believes, I strongly suspect that he's an avid fan of the mainstream media reports that keep on telling everyone that Russia's military operation in Ukraine was "unprovoked". As I told him, Caitlin Johnstone wrote an article about this narrative yesterday:

Caitlin Johnstone: Unprovoked! | Scheerpost

It was.

I'm not sure what you mean by "It was", but I imagine you didn't so much as click on the linked article above. I've decided to quote a bit of it as I think Caitlin does a good job of making it clear that Russia was "massively provoked", as Noam Chomsky put it...

**
January 9, 2023

In the mass media you’re not allowed to talk about the U.S.-NATO actions that diplomats, politicians, academics — even the head of the C.I.A. — have long warned would lead to war in Ukraine.

In an interview with the Useful Idiots podcast not too long ago, Noam Chomsky repeated his argument that the only reason we hear the word “unprovoked” every time anyone mentions Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in the mainstream news media is because it absolutely was provoked, and they know it.

“Right now, if you’re a respectable writer and you want to write in the main journals, you talk about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, you have to call it ‘the unprovoked’ Russian invasion of Ukraine,” Chomsky said.

“It’s a very interesting phrase; it was never used before. You look back, you look at Iraq, which was totally unprovoked, nobody ever called it ‘the unprovoked invasion of Iraq.’ In fact, I don’t know if the term was ever used — if it was it was very marginal. Now you look it up on Google, and hundreds of thousands of hits. Every article that comes out has to talk about the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.”

“Why? Because they know perfectly well it was provoked,” Chomsky said. “That doesn’t justify it, but it was massively provoked. Top U.S. diplomats have been talking about this for 30 years, even the head of the C.I.A.”
**

Full article:
Caitlin Johnstone: Unprovoked! | Scheerpost

Putin attacked Ukraine. Are you disputing that?

Somewhat, yes, primarily because Ukraine hasn't been a united country since 2014 when it descended into a civil war between Western and Eastern Ukraine. Putin himself says that he started a military operation in Ukraine. Most people can agree that he did that, at least. The main issue with using labels such as "attacked" is that it suggests that Putin had no reason to get militarily involved in Ukraine. It also completely negates one of the 2 main reasons he started his operation to begin with- that is, that he was -requested- to help defend the Donbass Republics which had come under a military assault by Ukrainian forces only days before, beginning on February 16th. It's even possible that Putin had hoped that simply recognizing these republics on February 21st might have gotten the Ukrainian army to back down. Unfortunately, that didn't happen and so around February 24th, he started his military operation.

Ukraine was talking about joining NATO as any sovereign nation has a right to do.

Surely you are aware that NATO countries frequently host nuclear weapons. Tell me, what was the U.S.'s reaction to Russia putting nukes in Cuba?

Putin's attack shows they were too slow to join.

No, Putin's military operation shows that Putin decided he could no longer wait for diplomatic initiatives to achieve stability in Ukraine.

Putin's act of war has solidified NATO and made more Russian neighbors want to join.

It does appear that Russia's military operation spooked Sweden and Finland into joining NATO. I think it's sad, but also understandable. I myself knew little about the rising antogonism between Russia and the Ukrainian government based in Kyiv until Russia's military operation began. I was fortunate in that I had the time and the inclination to study the situation at length at that point. These studies, in turn, got me to realize that Russia had been warning the world for quite some time that allowing Ukraine into NATO wasn't something they weren't going take lying down. It stands to reason, considering the fact that Ukraine has been involved in killing thousands of Donbass citizens since 2014. As Putin mentioned recently, it doesn't have an issue with Sweden or Finland joining NATO because they are -not- engaged in such killings.

 

[moon]

1420 https://www.google.com/search?q=man...#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:509e6bc2,vid:XGUDYXXiGaM Putin has a dictatorship and the people are afraid to criticize them. This is Putin's war., Ukraine did not attack Russia, yet they are the aggressors? Russian troops poured over the borders destroying cities and killing Ukrainians and they are being defensive? Putin, it seems, is trying to rebuild the soviet union including the buffer states.

That's the NATO narrative- and it's unacceptable.
No Ukraine didn't attack Russia directly- but its Nazis did attack Ukraine's pro-Russian regions.
NATO is the aggressor. It promised not to advance eastward towards Russia when Gorbachev shut down the Iron Curtain. It lied.
The Russians requested secure borders and no NATO advancement into Ukraine. It was ignored. The US has been orchestrating a Ukrainian arms-build up to confront Russia since 2014. Next step- an attack on Russia. That, according to Russian defense logic, was unavoidable. So they've secured pro-Russian territory in Ukraine - but NATO wants to make a war of it.
That's where we are. I'm not ' pro ' anybody- just pro-peace and pro-truth. NATO horseshit is inedible. It destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines to ensure that Russia remained in conflict with Europe. NATO is a protection racket.

Ask yourself- would you trust a country that supports invasion and ethnic cleansing to be NATO's leader ? US support for Israel disqualifies it from moral crusades.

 

[Bigdog]

I strongly disagree. The mainstream media has harped endlessly about how Russia wasn't provoked into a war with Ukraine. Caitlin Johnstone just wrote an article about it today, in fact, quoting Noam Chomsky and John Measheimer who make it abundantly clear that Russia was very much provoked:

Caitlin Johnstone: Unprovoked! | Scheerpost

This narrative goes down better with the notion that Russia was arming the Donbass republics just as the U.S. and NATO was arming western Ukraine. Failing that, it becomes abundantly clear that there was a single aggressor over the past 8 years- NATO, with the U.S. leading the charge.




Tell me, do you think that most of those Americans acquired those assets justifiably? Just in case you do, here's a bit of history, courtesy of Wikipedia, regarding Batista, who was Cuba's leader before Castro:

**
Facing certain electoral defeat, he led a military coup against President Carlos Prío Socarrás that pre-empted the election.[6]

Back in power and receiving financial, military and logistical support from the United States government,[7][8] Batista suspended the 1940 Constitution and revoked most political liberties, including the right to strike. He then aligned with the wealthiest landowners who owned the largest sugar plantations, and presided over a stagnating economy that widened the gap between rich and poor Cubans.[9] Eventually it reached the point where most of the sugar industry was in U.S. hands, and foreigners owned 70% of the arable land.[10] As such, Batista's repressive government then began to systematically profit from the exploitation of Cuba's commercial interests, by negotiating lucrative relationships both with the American Mafia, who controlled the drug, gambling, and prostitution businesses in Havana, and with large U.S.-based multinational companies who were awarded lucrative contracts.[9][11] To quell the growing discontent amongst the populace—which was subsequently displayed through frequent student riots and demonstrations—Batista established tighter censorship of the media, while also utilizing his Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities secret police to carry out wide-scale violence, torture and public executions. These murders mounted in 1957, as socialist ideas became more influential. Many people were killed, with estimates ranging from hundreds to about 20,000 people killed.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista



I think it could have ended had the U.S. not broken its promise to not expand NATO eastward:
NEW DOCUMENTS: US PROMISED NOT TO EXPAND NATO EASTWARD | mltoday.com



I think it isn't obvious to a lot of people, glad that it's obvious to you. I never said it was only done by the U.S. I do believe that the U.S. war machine's appetite is a large part of why Ukraine is at war today.



My point is that had western Ukraine worked on a negotiated settlement with its eastern regions instead of sending tanks, I doubt Russia would have intervened. Instead, it launched several assaults, with the most recent one being just days before Putin started his military operation.

You dismiss Putin's election in 2000 and his goal to restore the Russian empire. And the fight over Ukraine's desire to legally raise the rent on Sevastopol. You dismiss the dioxin poisoning of Yushchenko and the threats of secession way back in 2004, and the downing of MH17 in 2014 by a Russian missile in Donbas, as determined by a Dutch court.

I dismiss anything Chomsky says. And Ukraine is legally permitted to choose its own path, even if Putin disagrees with it. It's called the right to self determination.

Did the ethnic Russians' have the legal right to secede under the Ukrainian constitution, ... I don't think so. Ukraine had the right to suppress secession. There was no doubt of this right, unlike when Lincoln opposed secession and grabbed control of the Newspapers and telegraphs.

Yes, of course the Americans had the right to invest in Cuba under Batista. and make the country prosperous. And the Cuban mass emigration of millions did not start until Castro came to power, which shows just how awful that socialist authoritarian was.

The U.S. is not in charge of NATO. And Russia has supported our enemies like Iran and Syria. And Russia does not like fair elections. So, I disagree with you on an end to the cold war if the Western nations and Nato refused to protect Ukraine as they promised in the Budapest agreement.

Ukraine is at war today because of Obama's hot mic moment to help Vlad and gifting Vlad the Crimea. And the fact that Biden is weak and compromised. Ukraine is still not a Nato country.

Ukraine had every right to suppress secession within it's international borders. Hypocritically, Putin defended Iraq's international borders rights in 2003, the ignored Ukraine's.

 

[martin]

That's the NATO narrative- and it's unacceptable.
No Ukraine didn't attack Russia directly- but its Nazis did attack Ukraine's pro-Russian regions.
NATO is the aggressor. It promised not to advance eastward towards Russia when Gorbachev shut down the Iron Curtain. It lied.
The Russians requested secure borders and no NATO advancement into Ukraine. It was ignored. The US has been orchestrating a Ukrainian arms-build up to confront Russia since 2014. Next step- an attack on Russia. That, according to Russian defense logic, was unavoidable. So they've secured pro-Russian territory in Ukraine - but NATO wants to make a war of it.
That's where we are. I'm not ' pro ' anybody- just pro-peace and pro-truth. NATO horseshit is inedible. It destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines to ensure that Russia remained in conflict with Europe. NATO is a protection racket.

Ask yourself- would you trust a country that supports invasion and ethnic cleansing to be NATO's leader ? US support for Israel disqualifies it from moral crusades.

This argument runs out at, "Next step - an attack on Russia." An attack on Russia would mean ICBM's on the US. That is not the next step.

 

[anonymoose]

This argument runs out at, "Next step - an attack on Russia." An attack on Russia would mean ICBM's on the US. That is not the next step.

I saw that too. moon is hopeless.

 

[anonymoose]

You dismiss Putin's election in 2000 and his goal to restore the Russian empire.

Bingo!
You can go all the way back here:

In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, the United States, Russia, and Britain committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country.*Those assurances played a key role in persuading the Ukrainian government in Kyiv to give up what amounted to the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal, consisting of some 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads.
Ukraine wanted guarantees or assurances of its security once it got rid of the nuclear arms.*The Budapest Memorandum provided security assurances.
Unfortunately, Russia has broken virtually all the commitments it undertook in that document.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/orde...re-about-ukraine-and-the-budapest-memorandum/

Reason NATO expansion (may have been ) necessary is that former Soviet Republics were now free to pursue democracy while a sizeable number of Russians were still living in those countries. Leaning west for those former republics without NATO membership risked invasion by Russia. Putin has never made a secret of reviving the old Soviet Union.

We'll never know what Putin would have done had those former republics not joined NATO, but we know one thing for sure - they requested membership, they were not coerced. I've read that a leader or two of those former soviet states have basically said, "I told you so. We knew what Putin wanted back in '91."
You know they did the right thing for themselves by joining NATO.
Another thing I read about Putin is that nothing provokes him more than weakness.