February 2022.

What are you arguing against exactly?

Triggered much

If you are willing to reason with and willing to have a civil conversation, of course i know you will can i answer your question ?

If only the US had some idea that nation building in Afghanistan was a bad idea lol

well, according to the former israeli president bennett there was a deal on the table that would give ukraine security and russia the assurances they wanted...until the west swooped in

unfortunately he backpedaled (due to the RREEEEEEaction?), but it would be interesting to know how much truth there is to this

This was the statement from Putin on why they invaded. It's about 28 mins I believe. If you are genuinely interested in why, watch the whole thing. Then read Putins very long article explaining his thinking towards Ukraine. I can get a link if you want but should come up if you search "putin Ukraine article" there is a version on the kremlin website.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_conducting_a_special_military_operation

This post was edited by DizzyBusiness on Feb 8 2023 01:26pm

just another day then.

I see zelensky thanked Boris (again) for intervening last year and telling Ukraine not to negotiate with Russia.
I also listened to a pod cast where it was intimated that the US, if sending tanks, was sending them with outdated armor so as not to potentially give enemies new tech.
And I listed to another pod cast where the military leadership of the US was being categorical that they did not want to be in Ukraine, and view 2023 ukrainian position as bleak.
And on another vein i listed to a pod cast where the relationship (positive) between russia and china (no common interests) was described as relating to historic border disputes, reduced over the last 2 decades from 8000+ to 7 1/2. pretty sure someone could draw some parrallels there, if they wanted to.

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 8 2023 02:06pm

You say this, and then you turn around and ask what's escalatory about certain elements of the Western response in Ukraine.

For Russia to accept the loss of Crimea, it would have to be militarily and politically broken. In the event that that proves likely, the regime will in all likelihood employ tactical nuclear weapons in response, something which the West is wholly unprepared for. Western leaders are not willing to trade a handful of Ukrainian city centers for Paris, Berlin, and Washington. And because Crimea is firmly considered (even by many Russian liberals) to be Russian territory, it would give the government every excuse to fully mobilize, something elements of the nationalist right are already calling for. That would be a disaster for Ukraine, because the West is wholly unwilling to mobilize in response. Ukraine does not possess the reserves of manpower to fight Russia on equal footing. And without mobilization, the costs and logistics of funding a full-on war in Ukraine would be prohibitively expensive for NATO. The military industrial complex in the United States isn't set-up to support war-time footing.

I watched another podcast that intimated (by an american general) that russia also has enough conventional weapons (order of magnitude) as to not need to use nukes, but have the same effect of flattening an area. i think the conversation re: nukes should be irrelevant for the time being (the next 6 months) noting alot would need to occur (and is unlikely to occur) for that topic to be brought front and center. i.e. the expectation at this point is that Ukraine is on its last legs. to be clear, this is a view held by some, not all, and it remains to be seen as to what will happen in the next 6 months.

however in the round i generally agree with everything that bogie160 is saying/posting. one podcast suggested that the current ukraine had the same population as holland, with 10-12M fled the country, X amount dead Y amount injured. Russia is big and not going away.

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 8 2023 02:12pm