Nobody interested in the Russia-Ukraine conflict?

Post Reply New Topic

That makes sense and those are good points. But why isn't there a bounty out on Putin. Rich people give to the Ukraine, like Elon Musk for example, but would the money be better spent on a bount on Putin?

All the tanks being sent to the Ukraine...there's a big problem with that. It takes a very long time to train troops to use them effectively.

I don't whether it's possible for Ukraine to to win this war now. Let's face it, it's now a proxy war between the U.S./Nato and Russia. It's a dangerous situation that will push the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation.

There's got to be a diplomatic solution to end this madness.

Russia as a nation won't be annihilated. Genocide should never be a goal. Germany and Japan weren't annihilated after WWII, despite being decisively defeated.
What we could hope for would be a couple of decades when Russia is too preocuppied with their internal struggles to be expansionist. That's what the collapse of USSR was all about. Russia still existed but couldn't hold all their "satellites" within their power - and "Central-East Europe" used this time eagerly to build a more desirable geopolitical situation for themselves. My country is one of such ex-satellites and I know how enormous is the difference between life as Russian satellite and life as part of "the West".
Ukrainians and growing number of Belarussians want to follow a similar path because it simply means a better life for the citizens, in really a lot of different aspects.

Of course, the best case scenario would be Russia starting to behave like a regular state and respecting souvereignty of their neighbours - but so far, what they do looks like they're going exactly the opposite direction.

If the Morgenthau Plan was fully implemented by the Ammmmerians, it has been estimated that 10's of millions of Germans would have died through starvation, the preferred method of genocide.
Heil Morgenthau!



BTW, What breathtaking arrogance.
To think some Russians believe "Russia" has a right to resubjugate sovereign nations because that criminal stalin absorbed them into the USSR.

This conflict has already caused a great deal of damage to the US internationally, far beyond whatever dollar amount they have spent. "Can't really afford it" is more true of the US than Russia. Magz's troublemakers are already emboldened and are making moves against the US.

Below is more commentary on the RAND report and the possible shift in US policy.

https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/ukraine-is ... iling-out/

Consider, for a minute, this excerpt from the preamble of the report:

“The costs and risks of a long war in Ukraine are significant and outweigh the possible benefits of such a trajectory for the United States.”

This quote effectively summarizes the entire document. Think about it: For the last 11 months we have been told repeatedly that the US will support Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” The above quote assures us that that’s not going to happen. The United States is not going to undermine its own interests to pursue the unachievable dream of expelling Russia from Ukraine. (Even the hawks no longer believe that is possible.) Rational members of the foreign policy establishment are going to evaluate Ukraine’s prospects for success and weigh them against the growing likelihood that the conflict could unexpectedly spiral out-of-control. That, of course, would serve no one’s interest and could ignite a direct clash between Russia and the United States. Also, US policymakers will decide whether the ballooning collateral damage is worth the expense. In other words, are the ruptured supply lines, the rising inflation, the increasing energy and food shortages, and the declining weapons stockpiles a fair trade-off for “weakening Russia”. Many would say, “No.”

...

While the report does not explicitly state that ‘US interests (are) being harmed’, it certainly infers that that is the case. Not surprisingly, the report doesn’t mention any of the collateral damage from Washington’s war on Russia, but, surely, that must have been foremost on the minds of the authors. After all, it is not the $100 billion or the provision of lethal weapons that is costing the US so dearly. It is the accelerating emergence of international coalitions and alternate institutions that has put the US empire on the fasttrack to ruin. We assume that the analysts at RAND see the same things that every other sentient being sees, that Washington’s misguided conflagration with Moscow is a ‘bridge-too-far’ and that the blowback is going to be immense and excruciating. Hence, the urgency to end the war quickly.

...

Interestingly, while the report details the main escalation risks, (The main risks include a broader war with NATO, a spillover of the conflict into other EU countries, and a nuclear war.) it fails to explain why exactly a ‘long war’ would be so damaging to the United States. We believe that this omission is intentional and that the authors do not want to concede that the backfiring of sanctions and the forming of anti-American foreign coalitions is clearly undermining US plans to maintain its grip on global power. Among elites, such talk is verboten. Here’s how Chris Hedges summed it up in an article at Consortium News:

"The plan to reshape Europe and the global balance of power by degrading Russia is turning out to resemble the failed plan to reshape the Middle East. It is fueling a global food crisis and devastating Europe with near double-digit inflation. It is exposing the impotency, once again, of the United States, and the bankruptcy of its ruling oligarchs. As a counterweight to the United States, nations such as China, Russia, India, Brazil and Iran are severing themselves from the tyranny of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, a move that will trigger economic and social catastrophe in the United States. Washington is giving Ukraine ever more sophisticated weapons systems and billions upon billions in aid in a futile bid to save Ukraine but, more importantly, to save itself."
(“Ukraine — The War That Went Wrong”, Chris Hedges, Consortium News)



Hedges sums it up perfectly. Washington’s foolish intervention is clearing the way for the greatest strategic catastrophe in US history. And yet, even now, the vast majority of corporate and banking elites resolutely back the existing policy while shrugging off the obvious signs of failure.

Yes, it's true that prolonged war is not in the interest of USA - but ceasfire now without building a whole new regional security system would mean a prolonged war later, with more likelihood of dragging NATO into it. We don't want the Munich Agreement scenario - and Russia is rapidly militarizing and no signs of giving up their imperial ambitions at all.

Budapest memorandum didn't work. Minsk agreements didn't work. To end this war possibly quickly without dragging NATO into a full-scale confrontation and without just pushing it in time into something even worse later, a whole new concept of East European security system needs to be invented.
Something that would realistically protect small and medium-sized countries in the region from possible future agression - because it will always remain possible.

We'll see what Biden proposes on his planned visit in Europe.

Agreements are only as good as the willingness of the sides to abide by them.
Neither side honored them because neither trusted the other to honor it.

Wasn’t that what Russia wanted in the first place back in January 2022?

When various foreign leaders flew to Moscow telling them not to invade Ukraine.

When Russia brought up a regional security system including Russia and the west told them to get lost “NATO rules ok”

What was the point of all those people dying and Ukraine being destroyed to go full circle back to Jan 22.

Russia's propaganda related to "Nazis in Ukraine" and their "security situation" was just that......propaganda. Bogus propaganda.

Putin also explicitly stated, many times, that no "invasion" was planned. In light of this, the 2/24 Invasion was called, by him, a "special operation," with a potential 5-year prison sentence for anyone calling his "special operation" a "war" or "invasion."

While propaganda is true. Surprise is a big part of any military operation.

Even the two Iraq wars had an element of doubt about the day they started

It seems now we are back to square 1 or minus 1 because I doubt Russia will give back what they have taken

What a waste of lives

Rather the opposite of it - Putin demanded NATO/USA to leave East European states practically defenseless against Russian expansionism. Any agreement of this kind won't end in lasting peace but with even worse war later.

New regional security system needs to include Russia - as a very real threat of another big scale invasion in near future.
Not happy about it but that's the reality in which I happen to be living. We can be next and let's better be really prepared.

It already exists it’s called NATO

I believe the Russians were referring to an inclusive agreement I.e no one threatens anyone or puts US bases near them

Not sure how realistic that is

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hard-drinkin ... 30228.html

Justifying Russia's invasion of Ukraine by pointing out that the US invaded Iraq under comparable circumstances won't impress me. I deplore those invasions of Iraq and condemn Russia's invasion precisely because to me it seems so similar to what the US did in Iraq, with more or less the same outcome.

All preemptive wars ate wrong, in my mind, regardless of who starts them.

That's the point - NATO expanded not because USA pushed for it but because East Europeans feared a possibility of Russian invasion - and Putin proved these fears very well justified.

Yes, one of the options for lasting peace would be Ukraine (and Moldova and Georgia) joining NATO.

Exactly the opposite to what Putin demanded.