I just read it wrong, I don't have time to read full sentences, jeez.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
You've missed the main point he was making: that the situation in Ukraine was partially precipitated by the U.S. meddling. Victoria Nuland, the Under Secretary of State, was caught on tape 'engineering' the next Ukrainian government, a fact inconveniently leaked out
(https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957). There's probably a lot more where that came from.
From Putin's perspective, he witnessed a democratically elected government being overthrown and a new, unfriendly government installed, pulling the country toward NATO. He clearly communicated that this was unacceptable and that he would act accordingly. The US/UK/EU assumed this risk, but in my opinion, it was a miscalculation. Strictly speaking, there is no benefit for the US in admitting Ukraine to NATO; it's a situation that is more dilutive than accretive. What the West should have done was to take NATO off the table and slow-walk the EU talks. In 20 years, Ukraine could have been a member of both. However, under the current scenario, Ukraine might lose millions of people, become completely obliterated, lose territory, and probably end up as a failed state within the next decade. That's realpolitik for you.
Additionally, Putin didn't attempt a full-blown invasion. You don't invade a country like Ukraine with less than 200,000 soldiers—it's not feasible. In my opinion, he aimed to solidify control of Crimea, secure the two eastern regions, and intimidate Zelenskyy into resigning or accepting quick concessions. However, it didn't work as the Ukrainian Army is incredibly strong, resilient, and well-armed/trained, effectively countering his actions. That was Putin's miscalculation, and that could have been the time for peace talks and ending hostilities. The West pressed on, Putin regrouped, and the Russians, as they typically do, became stronger as the war went on (see WWII, 1941 vs. 1943, etc.). The reality is they are winning the war and no amount of wishful thinking could change that.
I am not pro-Putin; I am pro-U.S., but I realize that we should keep our powder dry for issues that matter and not get tangled into yet another useless conflict.
Wait until you find out what actually triggered the protests you are talking about.
But that's not true, he had his army march on Kyiv, his goal was all of Ukraine, that's why there was plans for Moldova next.
Also, how many times do we have to go over how silly the notion of "peace talks" is?
Firstly and most importantly, it's not the west that is pushing for this, Ukraine and it's people wants nothing to do with Russia, they want them out.
Also, how many times do we have to go over how silly the notion of "peace talks" is?
Firstly and most importantly, it's not the west that is pushing for this, Ukraine and it's people wants nothing to do with Russia, they want them out.
Putin didn't attempt a full blown invasion? Do you mean Kyiv was a "feint"? What were those troops coming in from Belarus supposed to do?
I know about the Nuland story by the way, it's the famous "Maidan coup" argument. I'm not going to pretend that what Nuland said or did was the smart thing to do but it's telling that 10 years after Maidan it's the only story wheeled out about this so called Western coup. The Nuland story in itself isn't necessarily the most convincing evidence of a Western full-blown effort to overthrow Yanukovych. Speaking about Yanukovych, who pressured him to not go along with the EU economic deal?
Forcing a regime change. It's the reason why Russia didn't open up broad frontlines but marched towards a few key cities.
To add to this - the idea that Putin is simply responding to the overthrow of Yanukovich seems to miss the broader point that Yanukovich was Putin's guy in Kiev. Once he realized he couldn't control Ukraine through a proxy, he invaded in 2014, and again in 2022 - this time attempting to overthrow the entire goverment and reinstall his own puppet.
Therefore his objective in Ukraine was never to peacefully live side by side with a sovereign neighboring country - it was always to expand the authoritarian Russian sphere eastward (a new mini Soviet Union if you like), as a means to ensure western democracy never reached Moscow, which would've resulted in his own overthrow and almost certain death.
@Suedesi I try to sympathize with the general gist of your arguments. I really do. The problem in my opinion is the over-exaggerated focus on NATO. Putin didn't want Ukraine to sign an economic deal with the EU before Maidan happened. Putin doesn't want Ukraine in NATO. You tell me, what are the Ukrainians allowed to do without getting invaded?
Seems like the only way for Ukraine to have avoided war is remaining a backwater corrupt country under Putin's thumb. A developing and independently moving Ukraine is something that Putin would have always considered a threat, whether it's on economic policy or military affairs. That's how I interpret it anyway. Never mind all the crazy rhetoric on Ukraine's identity as a people espoused on Russian state television and by Putin himself.
Seems like the only way for Ukraine to have avoided war is remaining a backwater corrupt country under Putin's thumb. A developing and independently moving Ukraine is something that Putin would have always considered a threat, whether it's on economic policy or military affairs. That's how I interpret it anyway. Never mind all the crazy rhetoric on Ukraine's identity as a people espoused on Russian state television and by Putin himself.
Last edited:
Where Putin is concerned, we should be beyond guesses, or assurances, we should want guarantees.
The only way to guarantee he won't in the future, is to deny him the capability today. NATO has the resources and capability for that.
Right. They came in from the north, east and south while bombing the country. Sounds like a full blown invasion to me.
Peter Zeihan semes to think that Putin would move on the likes of Poland and Romania to block the potential invasion routes from outside into their heartlands if they win the war in the Ukraine. When that happens, NATO will have to involve (obviously) and the Russians will use nuclear weapons pretty quickly because their forces can't match the NATO's. So the goal for "The West' is to keep the Russians inside the Ukraine.
I would think that that is pretty much how most people think anyway at least at this point.
I would think that that is pretty much how most people think anyway at least at this point.
If that would be the plan, russia could just throw the nukes now
Russia is an unhinged country, who would no doubt continue grabbing territory, if they ever get their hands on Ukraine, but Poland? That ain't it, it has a strong army at this point, and they will only continue to get stronger in the coming years.
Russia might try one of the baltic states, and obviously Moldova, i doubt they will take Poland on, anytime soon though, they would get their asses kicked.
His viewpoint probably aligns with those who think that the West just gives enough aid to the UKR to keep the Russians busy there as long as possible so that Putin won't be able to touch any NATO countries for awhile.
But obviously, if Putin is able to overcome the UKR obstacle in this situation, it could give him some illusion that his military is good enough to do more.
I am going to point out again that Russia poisoned Yushchenko in 2004.
To be clear if you try to justify Russia's action because of Maidan in 2014 " oh what were the west doing interfering in the democratic process in Ukraine"
You have a hell of a hill to climb given Russian action predates it, and includes the attempted assassination of a candidate opposed to having Russian puppets as Ukrainian presidents.
It doesn't wash at all.
South Korea has provided more 155mm artillery ammunition than the whole EU for last year. I'm glad that South Korea are offering counterbalance to North Korea's efforts in supplying Russia, but this is just embarrassing for Europe.
And I haven't read a single update on what is going on with those shells or production expansion. Very frustrating.
Exodus and Suetdesi won't believe you as it doesn't fit with their general pre-existing faith that NATO and/or the US is worse than Putin.
They want to occupy Ukraine not turn it into a wasteland.
Plus the US told Putin if he uses nukes the next ones would be hitting his location.
I thought biden said they would respond with non specific overwhelming force but with conventional weapons not nukes.
It's not down to NATO or Russia or the EU or anybody else to say Ukraine should be this or that as long as they're not violating international laws and rights. Listening to them and talking to them about what they want is what any sane, functional government should do. It's not to say the US, NATO, EU, whoever couldn't have played it better, of course they could but hindsight is 20/20 and frankly there is no excuse for genocide, war crimes, illegal invasions, any of that bullshit. And of course that goes for the scumbag Israelis too, and frankly anybody who is focused more on US / EU / NATO mistakes in Russia at even close to the same level or more as to what they're currently fecking up / have been fecking up in the last 6 months in Gaza is a fecking lunatic or a scumbag themselves. And I appreciate I'm generalising and all that and yes it's a dick move but no I can't be rational about people murdering or apologising for murdering children, they can swivel on it.
What do you think about Putin giving speech to the nation that Ukraine isnt even a real country was about?
It's not really about Ukraine. If the goal is to first take Ukraine, then Poland and Romania, and to use nukes if NATO becomes involved (because Poland and Romania are member countries), then they might as well send the nukes right now unless they're not sure if NATO are willing to defend Poland and Romania. What's the point in waiting?
To be clear, South Korea has been selling ammunition to countries that have donated or sold ammunition to Ukraine and thus depleted their own stock.
Putin wants the land and economic capacity of Ukraine for himself - for obvious reasons. Beyond his megalomaniacal, neo-imperialist, pan-Slavic delusions of grandeur; taking all of Ukraine would offer a bigger buffer between democracy and Moscow, a greater ability to use energy exports to intimidate European buyers during winters without needing to resort to undersea pipelines, complete control over Ukraine’s abundant agricultural exports, a greater ability to agitate and weaken Eastern European states from within - the list goes on…..
The fact that he has been humiliated internationally by failing to take any meaningful land in Ukraine is itself a testament to the success of the Ukrainians and those who have supported them.
Because they’re playing the long game trying to dismantle NATO from within via election interference and creating all sorts of unrests in social space to the point were NATO becomes disfunctional (imagine more governments with positions like Hungary).That way you can get NATO which is too divided and weak to commit to using nukes (especially if US leaves the block), it’s all part of their calculations. The regime in Kremlin thought that point has already arrived and to an extent Putin was right, NATO countries only really started to supply weapons once Ukraine won the battle of Kyiv until then Biden was scared to shit to do anything and was suggesting Zelensky to flee. Russia is also afraid of using nukes now because their calculus has changed too now since then, and if they’re not 100% sure that retaliation won’t follow they won’t use it either.
Last edited:
Scott Ritter. 
Mobilization a hot topic within Ukraine. Several scenarios are described of which the most liked scenario is the one in which army salaries are increased to attract volunteers. But obviously Western financial support is needed.
I believe Putin hoped for a similar status for Ukraine as for Belarus - including them as third member of their "Union State" and trying to make progress in that.
He already annexed Crimea and has despite it not being internationally recognized annexed the eastern occupied regions of Ukraine.
True, but I think that's only his plan B. I am sure he wanted to integrate the whole Ukraine, and I believe what I said to be a reasonable elegant way to do it. Don't forget I am not talking about Ukraine only, that approach would have given him a position of strength to really take over Belarus as well. Now Belarus still isn't much better integrated and Luka still is trolling Putin whenever he can.
Nah the moment he told the nation that Ukraine isnt a real country is a move to say its really russian.
To be clear, I absolutely agree with you. I just question what was the actual intention how to do it. And I don't think that this kind of full scale war/invasion/occupation was the way Putin wanted to go, but had to do as plan B.
It’s a huge issue and again Biden and co. deserve to be blamed for this mess by not supplying Ukraine with all the weapons when it had the most motivated and professional army which had only few mobilized soldiers in its ranks. Absolutely worthless and shortsighted administration.
He's not a serious candidate and will be out of politics once the primaries get started since he won't be picking up much support because Trump will get a vast majority with Haley getting the rest.
Yes, he’s not going places but such narratives are being normalized little by little and not being shot down immediately.
“As long as it takes”.
Now, i'm not sure democrats, or NATO as a whole for that matter, truly cares about Ukraine, but lets just presume that they do.
Was it not, in hindsight, profoundly reckless of them to back Gaetz personal vendetta? McCarthy you might have gotten something from, Mike Johnson is a hardcore ideologue, who will never give you anything, as has already been proven.
I think dems made a mistake here, and it will cost Ukraine a lot.
Was it not, in hindsight, profoundly reckless of them to back Gaetz personal vendetta? McCarthy you might have gotten something from, Mike Johnson is a hardcore ideologue, who will never give you anything, as has already been proven.
I think dems made a mistake here, and it will cost Ukraine a lot.