Bombing Serbia for 78 days, destroying bridges, embassies, hospitals, was a cakewalk. Would love to see the unity behind NATO going into Russia.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Bombing Serbia for 78 days, destroying bridges, embassies, hospitals, was a cakewalk. Would love to see the unity behind NATO going into Russia.
It's a very difficult question VorZakone (amusing name, tovarish) because first and foremost it required Ukraine's allies being brutally, brutally honest with Ukraine about the likely course of the war, but they got caught up in the giddiness of all the "looool a russian soldier just blew his own head off by mistaking a grenade for a Cadbury's Cream Egg" tweets and they saw an opportunity to use the war for their own domestic political interests. Poll numbers tanking at home? Shoot across to Ukraine for a selfie with Zelenskiy!
As I've said, the West's entire 'strategy' was based on the assumption that the war would not last very long, and THIS assumption was based on the arrogant certainty that all the countries that "don't matter" would help the West crush Russia's economy. That's why while Russia was switching to a war economy and ramping up arms production, the West was finessing its #slavaukraine campaign and telling "this century's Winston Churchill" to grow a goatee for the cameras. They did not meaningfully do ANYTHING that would prepare Ukraine to win the long war ahead. Instead they engaged in dumb performative outrage like having their diplomats storm out of UN meetings when Lavrov was talking, because that's what wins wars.
Ukraine needed better friends and allies giving it better advice. It needed the West to actually keep the promises it made (Zelenskiy rants at least 3 times a week on Twitter about how the West has not provided it with anything close to what they've promised, let alone what they actually need to win the war). It needed calm, clear-sighted people who understand Russia and its war aims. In other words, not the clown triumvirate of Biden, Blinken and Sullivan.
As for stringing them along or giving them what they need? It depended on what the West's aims were. If it was to, as they said, "weaken Russia" while not spilling a single, solitary drop of NATO blood, then they should have done exactly what they did and strung them along. If their aim was for Ukraine to win, then from 4am on February 24th 2022 they needed to switch to a war footing and give Ukraine every single means they needed to get Russia out of their country. They could have done it. But instead they had Biden saying "This war is an existential struggle for global freedom and democracy...but whatever happens we're not going to ever send a single Western soldier to fight Russia. On the other hand, I WILL send American soldiers to fight China, because freedom shmeedom, that one's about semiconductors!"). When Biden said that (I'm paraphasing for effect obviously, but that's the content of his statements), Putin knew he was going to win. All he had to do was slowly bleed out Ukrainian men.
You asked me what I would have done if I were the West. I'd have told them to give Putin what he wanted. The demands weren't huge and certainly weren't worth the subsequent destruction of Ukraine that has ensued by stringing them along like this. If Ukraine refused, as they would have, I'd have told Zelenskiy there and then that we had no intention of switching to war economies or ever endangering NATO troops, and so what he's facing is a very long war of attrition which he cannot hope to ever win.
Would that have been fair to Ukraine? Obviously no. But it's being honest with them, and honesty is what they needed. Lying to them, as the West did back then and continues to do now (again, see Zelenskiy's tweets), is worse.
I wonder, if Trump was to disengage and leave it to Europe, I wonder whether China might conclude there is no longer sufficient reason to support Russia. The US is no longer distracted and can get back to focusing on China. It stops being a proxy war and China no longer has a dog in that fight. Also makes it easier for Europe. Maybe.
Whilst the bombing of the Chinese Embassy and the University Hospital was wrong and a mistake, this is the price Serbia paid for trying to ethnically cleanse Albanians, Bosniaks and Croats over a decade period.
You can argue against the details of how the bombings were conducted, but not many can argue from a humane standpoint that the Serbs didn't commit some awful atrocities.
It's ironic Russia and China vetoed UN resolutions for military action to stop the Serbs, but agreed with UN missions after the bombing had stopped to protect the citizens of Kosovo from future Serbian attempts of ethnic cleansing.
Hypothetical(but less so by the day), but if some sort of deal is done, Putin gets to keep the territory he already has captured, and the other BS he demands, are we going to see a Korea-situation for the foreseeable future, or are we going to see NATO just abandoning western Ukraine for Russia to conquer later?
The former situation already sucks, but the world can always suck even more in the future, is what i have increasingly found out.
The former situation already sucks, but the world can always suck even more in the future, is what i have increasingly found out.
I hear you. From a realist perspective, this war should never have happened. NATO could have been taken off the table anytime between 2008 and 2021. Within months of the conflict starting, we were reportedly close to a peace deal—yet somehow, that fell apart too. The same casus belli that existed back then remain in play today, only now with even more bad blood.
Honestly, I don’t fully understand the U.S. grand strategy for Ukraine (and let’s be real, it’s not about “democracy”). If someone can explain it in clear terms, I’d love to hear it.
That said, Trump being advised by people like this doesn’t feel like a good sign:
PS: As I mentioned earlier, Trump seems to be assembling the ultimate clown show—the largest collection of foreign policy imbeciles imaginable.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10229626
Does this not count as that?
I feel like I'm talking to air. The main point that "forced" Russia's hand in 2014 was never about NATO, it was always about the EU.
This argument rests almost entirely on anecdotal evidence without offering any substantive details about the decisions or outcomes that demonstrate "competence." Working with someone and thinking they "understood the briefings" or "asked good questions" is subjective and doesn’t inherently prove their superior capability. It’s more about your perception than measurable results.
And what’s with the false dichotomy at the end? Either Rubio is a superhuman intellect or he’s blessed with the world’s best aides? Politicians often operate as part of a team, and many are heavily reliant on their aides—that doesn’t set Rubio apart. Without concrete examples of his ideas or policies leading to demonstrable success this argument lacks substance.
"Use Ukraine as our own private military company in order to achieve the twin goals of 1) weakening Russia and 2) vassalising the EU for as long as Ukraine can stand it. Then cut them loose and give Putin what he was asking for back in February 2022, while dressing it up as a loss for Putin because his true aim was to conquer Europe and establish a colony of unicorns in the Maldives"
It isn't more complex than that. Ukraine is not a vital strategic interest of the US and Ukrainian blood is worth less than spit to these people. As I've said many times before, it's shocking to many Westerners that this has happened to Ukrainians, because they're white, and the "rules-based international order" dictates that this stuff should only ever happen to brown people, but it's not shocking to me. It was obvious from the beginning.
Last edited:
I can't give you concrete details because it's classified but what I will say is that out of the 100+ European and American Politicians that SHAPE and SACEUR had to work with, I can count on one hand the number of them that I actually thought, "Wow, this person isn't a complete idiot when it comes to MI." The biggest thing that sets Rubio apart is that he actually understood technical details or his team did. He is able to pick out from a report/document the relevant bits of information and press for more when needed and also was able to challenge us on our conclusions. Something which almost every other politician I've worked with did not do.
I'm not saying other guys don't have good teams/aides, it's just from my experience most of them came across as idiots. Rubio/his team did not. It was a breathe of fresh air. The reason why I mentioned Parly is because she basically took the approach of, "Well, I don't really understand what I'm looking at here but I trust you so here's everything we have and I'm sure you'll figure it out." Which again, most politicians aren't willing to do.
As an aside, one of my former colleagues is still at SHAPE and has to work with Josh Hawley, and apparently he's an absolute idiot.
I'm mad at the US, but even more mad at Europe, nobody really gives a shit but sort of bleeding Russia dry, but at least Europe has a direct stake in it, direct security risk having them right at their borders.
What happens to the estimated 20,000 abducted Ukrainian children in any peace settlement?
Didn't the Russians concede Ukrainian membership of/within the EU two years ago? Whatever it was before that, and we know there were two options, it is no longer an obstacle. The EU, however, would have many reservations about accepting Ukraine given the time limit they've imposed upon Turkey which is a NATO member (and a far more substantial economy).
But surely the point is that after 2014 the agreements about the EU or NATO (or whatever) were, if you were in the Kremlin rather in NATO, not worth the paper they were written on? Just a thought.
I do expect this though. That was part of my own calculus regarding a Trump peacedeal. I expect a strongman stance of some sort. It wouldn't be Trump without it. Brinkmanship.
Schrödinger's Russia is losing the war badly, while being a threat to the EU and NATO countries beyond Ukraine.
Wars aren't pretty. When you lose, you get ethnically cleansed or leave due to fear. At the end we took an L and there are barely any Serbs now in Kosovo and Croatia. Serbian politicians failed to read the room and thought that wars can be fought like it is 15th century. Mano a mano. Sadly, some of my people still think war will win Kosovo back. It will not. I don't want to go too much off topic, but Kosovo situation did pave the way for what is happening in Ukraine and what is yet to come. Ok, NATO got Serbian forces out of Kosovo, NATO got Milosevic's government to collapse, "peacemakers" forces got installed in Kosovo, but then to allow Kosovo to declare independence and to install Camp Bondsteel? To think such action will not have consequences elsewhere is simply idiotic.
Unipolarity of USA is slowly fading, and rest of this century will be turbulent.
Can you explain this?
I don't understand how Kosovo independence followed by the establishment of a NATO presence there can lead to Ukraine.
Unless you're arguing that somehow Kosovo is of such critical geopolitical importance to Russia that it feels like what NATO did there is a blueprint for Ukraine? I'm failing to understand.
Kosovo wanted independence. Kosovo wanted to have a permanent foreign troop presence to protect itself from Serbia. Complete opposite of Ukraine.
Russia doesn't care about Kosovo nor Serbia. Russia cares about its own strategic interests and interests of Russians living outside of Russian borders. Russians' strategic interests got threatened in 2014 and here we are. Many Russians considered Putin weak for not doing something sooner about the civil war happening in the east of Ukraine. Kosovo declaration of independence without Serbian recognition and without the deal that would work for Serbia too showed the World that borders aren't that sacred, and that international law is a bit of a joke.
I think this video explains the situation in an unbiased way and explains the connection in a much better way than I ever could:
Do you not think that when it comes to the Ukranian conflict that our media do it a disservice by speaking about Ukranians as a whole without referencing the vast differences in opinion across the different regions?
Here is an article from an independant body of the US government dated June 2014:
The Ukranians have never been a majority in Crimea and haven't outpopulated the Russians since 1850.[2]
Even during the annexation of Crimea there was little resistance and many defections within the military especially in senior positions:
If you look at every election over the last number of decades you'll see a trend in the regional voting patterns with West Ukraine being more pro west and east more pro Russia.
[4]
I feel people often gloss over the revolution of dignity and decommunization when discussing some of the prologue to the conflict too.
I also think the assumption that all the regions universally want to stay under Ukraine is incorrect. So surely whatever the solution should be, it should ensure that those who inhabit the land have the right to self declare their future?
None of this excuses Russias own crimes, political interference or invasion of Ukraine. But to pretend all Ukranians think the same and this is all down to "Russian aggression" is incorrect.
While I can't argue for all the regions. There is a strong possibility that the people of Crimea just do not want to be part of Ukraine and that's not due to Putins aggression but instead mostly related to internal politics. In some instances its not about conceding to Putin but instead the will of the people as alien as that may seem to some.
I'd like to reiterate this does not mean I'm excusing Russia war crimes. This is just based of my own research from reputable sources listed below.
Sources
[1] - https://www.usagm.gov/2014/06/03/uk...crimeans-turning-to-russian-sources-for-news/
[2] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea
[3] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26713727
[4] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_election
Here is an article from an independant body of the US government dated June 2014:
[1]
The Ukranians have never been a majority in Crimea and haven't outpopulated the Russians since 1850.[2]
Even during the annexation of Crimea there was little resistance and many defections within the military especially in senior positions:
[3]
If you look at every election over the last number of decades you'll see a trend in the regional voting patterns with West Ukraine being more pro west and east more pro Russia.
I feel people often gloss over the revolution of dignity and decommunization when discussing some of the prologue to the conflict too.
I also think the assumption that all the regions universally want to stay under Ukraine is incorrect. So surely whatever the solution should be, it should ensure that those who inhabit the land have the right to self declare their future?
None of this excuses Russias own crimes, political interference or invasion of Ukraine. But to pretend all Ukranians think the same and this is all down to "Russian aggression" is incorrect.
While I can't argue for all the regions. There is a strong possibility that the people of Crimea just do not want to be part of Ukraine and that's not due to Putins aggression but instead mostly related to internal politics. In some instances its not about conceding to Putin but instead the will of the people as alien as that may seem to some.
I'd like to reiterate this does not mean I'm excusing Russia war crimes. This is just based of my own research from reputable sources listed below.
Sources
[1] - https://www.usagm.gov/2014/06/03/uk...crimeans-turning-to-russian-sources-for-news/
[2] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea
[3] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26713727
[4] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_election
He's also the fecking idiot that threatened Canada, Britain, Germany and France saying that if they followed the ICC ruling, "we will sanction you and crush your economy.
The ultimate contradiction of the US's 'rules-based order' where the 'rule' now is you're forbidden to follow the rules.
Do you not think that when it comes to the Ukranian conflict that our media do it a disservice by speaking about Ukranians as a whole without referencing the vast differences in opinion across the different regions?
Here is an article from an independant body of the US government dated June 2014:
[1]
The Ukranians have never been a majority in Crimea and haven't outpopulated the Russians since 1850.[2]
Even during the annexation of Crimea there was little resistance and many defections within the military especially in senior positions:
[3]
If you look at every election over the last number of decades you'll see a trend in the regional voting patterns with West Ukraine being more pro west and east more pro Russia.
[4]
I feel people often gloss over the revolution of dignity and decommunization when discussing some of the prologue to the conflict too.
I also think the assumption that all the regions universally want to stay under Ukraine is incorrect. So surely whatever the solution should be, it should ensure that those who inhabit the land have the right to self declare their future?
None of this excuses Russias own crimes, political interference or invasion of Ukraine. But to pretend all Ukranians think the same and this is all down to "Russian aggression" is incorrect.
While I can't argue for all the regions. There is a strong possibility that the people of Crimea just do not want to be part of Ukraine and that's not due to Putins aggression but instead mostly related to internal politics. In some instances its not about conceding to Putin but instead the will of the people as alien as that may seem to some.
I'd like to reiterate this does not mean I'm excusing Russia war crimes. This is just based of my own research from reputable sources listed below.
Sources
[1] - https://www.usagm.gov/2014/06/03/uk...crimeans-turning-to-russian-sources-for-news/
[2] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea
[3] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26713727
[4] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_election
Have you ever considered that this is the case, because, well, this is just what Russia do?
You know, ethnic genocide, its a common tradition of theirs.
I have seen no surveys that people in the east would welcome Russian occupation. Being pro-Russian can mean different things such as increasing trade with Russia and welcoming Russian investment. That doesn't mean there was a majority willingness to secede. Again, I have seen no consistent polling or survey data that a majority in the Donbas wanted Russia annex them pre-2014.Do you not think that when it comes to the Ukranian conflict that our media do it a disservice by speaking about Ukranians as a whole without referencing the vast differences in opinion across the different regions?
Here is an article from an independant body of the US government dated June 2014:
[1]
The Ukranians have never been a majority in Crimea and haven't outpopulated the Russians since 1850.[2]
Even during the annexation of Crimea there was little resistance and many defections within the military especially in senior positions:
[3]
If you look at every election over the last number of decades you'll see a trend in the regional voting patterns with West Ukraine being more pro west and east more pro Russia.
[4]
I feel people often gloss over the revolution of dignity and decommunization when discussing some of the prologue to the conflict too.
I also think the assumption that all the regions universally want to stay under Ukraine is incorrect. So surely whatever the solution should be, it should ensure that those who inhabit the land have the right to self declare their future?
None of this excuses Russias own crimes, political interference or invasion of Ukraine. But to pretend all Ukranians think the same and this is all down to "Russian aggression" is incorrect.
While I can't argue for all the regions. There is a strong possibility that the people of Crimea just do not want to be part of Ukraine and that's not due to Putins aggression but instead mostly related to internal politics. In some instances its not about conceding to Putin but instead the will of the people as alien as that may seem to some.
I'd like to reiterate this does not mean I'm excusing Russia war crimes. This is just based of my own research from reputable sources listed below.
Sources
[1] - https://www.usagm.gov/2014/06/03/uk...crimeans-turning-to-russian-sources-for-news/
[2] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea
[3] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26713727
[4] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_election
Crimea might be different.
Interesting bit from an obscure US agency within the State Department on eastern Ukraine.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/351638/bureau-of-intelligence-and-research-inr-guidance-explained
Jesus, this is worse than I remember. I thought that he did the same 25 sec speech twice, not three times in a row.
Oh for feck sake, just when I got out, I had to back in.
In the entire super-duper-evil bombing of Serbia for 78 days, NATO killed roughly the same number of civilians as Serbia did in a single day (27 April 1999) in Meja massacre.
But I guess NATO should have left Serbia genocide the shit of all Albanians in Kosovo, same how they should have left Russia genocide Ukraine.
While posting from the comfort of the evil USA, country you decided to adopt.
It was actually the feeling that "russian aggression" felt like a simple explanation to a complicated issue which made me try to understand it more.
I can't disagree with you when it comes to the Donbas. I think they have a unique history themselves.
However I think the decommunization laws introduced under Petro Poroshenko in 2015 probably haven't helped relations and instead fuelled further separatism.
Whatever the solution to the war is, it needs to take long term peace into account too. Unfortunately it seems whatever the outcome that Ukranians will be the biggest losers by the end of it.
I don't want this to turn into YouTube comment section. Never said Serbs are angels. NATO has won Kosovo an independence, action that already has and will have further consequences. In a war, those who can kill, kill. There were many killings of Serbian civilians and Serbian police in Kosovo as well. We killed more because we could. Now Serbians in Kosovo are second class citizens who are frequently beaten and sometimes murdered because Kosovo police can do it. Shift of power has changed.
The bombing stopped after 78 days because Serbia surrendered to NATO conditions. If Ukraine surrendered and Russian interests were met, war would stop there as well.
Have you actually been involved in a war? Because this is...not reality.
Have I actually fought in a war as a soldier? No. I have lived in a war. I was in Croatia during the Civil war, and I was in Serbia during 1999 bombing. I was a kid so thankfully I didn't witness any atrocities. Yes, this is reality. Even with the "improved" coverage of war, the real horror of war is still hidden from majority of the viewers. I have heard many of those stories - not only from people involved in 1990s Yugoslav wars, but from many US veterans who were deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libia etc... The longer the conflict goes, the higher chance an atrocity against civilians or POV will occur. No nation, no race, no religion is an immune to committing atrocities. War is ugly.
I have done two tours of Afghanistan, two tours of Iraq and been deployed to many other hot-zones and...for the vast majority of actors, "Those can can kill, kill" is just something that is unheard of.
I'm sorry but that kind of thinking is pure cope to deal with the fact that Serbia was doing some absolutely outrageous things.
The only time what you said applied is my experiences in dealing with ISIS and some random Shia militias.
O yeah Serbia has done some fecked up things, and fecked up things were done to us. I am not coping. I am a harsh critic of what Serbs have done in Srebrenica, and I am also a critic of Serbian strategy/lack of strategy, chicanery during 1990s. We should have fought much harder to avoid the war. Some of my people still haven't learned, and that makes me sad.
You are a veteran, and I have a lot of respect for people who were involved in a war. Your story is different from the stories I have heard from a friend, who is an army ranger and was also deployed in Afghanistan.
Just in the Iraq war, more Iraqi civilians died than in Yugoslav wars combined. It is estimated that 186k to 210k civilians died in Iraq from March 2002 to April 2009, while total deaths in Yugoslav war (all parties, both civilians and soldiers) the death toll is 140k. I am using Wikipedia as a source. If they lie, I lie. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the estimated number of civilians killed is ~70k.
Last edited:
You might want to check with IraqBodyCount the actual causes of those deaths...and it isn't soldiers killing people.
It's Sectarian violence, which I point to my post above.
I can give you some extra context of just how prohibitive the rules of engagement are in the NATO space:
Every discharge of ammunition needs to be accounted for:
If you were in a firefight, there needs to be a report about it. Your CO needs to know how/why the ammunition was used.
If you are on patrol and literally fired into the air for some reason, your CO will need to brief their CO and a report will be made on it.
If your unit orders fire support for any reason, be it in the form of mortars, artillery, helicopter support or air support, a report will be made on it.
It's almost impossible for NATO units to go rogue and start gunning down civilians en-masse without heavy documentation and a paper trail linking you to this war crime.
Every time civilians are killed in an action, an AAR will need to explain how/why it happened.
You'll never get a situation where a regiment just enters a town and starts gunning down the civilians because theres systems in place to prevent this from happening.
Every discharge of ammunition needs to be accounted for:
If you were in a firefight, there needs to be a report about it. Your CO needs to know how/why the ammunition was used.
If you are on patrol and literally fired into the air for some reason, your CO will need to brief their CO and a report will be made on it.
If your unit orders fire support for any reason, be it in the form of mortars, artillery, helicopter support or air support, a report will be made on it.
It's almost impossible for NATO units to go rogue and start gunning down civilians en-masse without heavy documentation and a paper trail linking you to this war crime.
Every time civilians are killed in an action, an AAR will need to explain how/why it happened.
You'll never get a situation where a regiment just enters a town and starts gunning down the civilians because theres systems in place to prevent this from happening.
Hopefully NATO works hard to avoid war with Russia as a lot of documentation will be required. I get it, NATO just kills civilians in a nicer way. From the distance and it is not personal.
Can you seriously not tell the difference between firing a mortar round where an enemy sniper is positioned and collaterally killing 2 other civilians who were also in that building
vs
marching into a city, rounding up civilians of a specific ethnic group, making them stand in a line and then shooting them all?
Off course I can. The person that dies can't.
Right, and if you can understand that surely you can understand why the judgement or moral perception is not the same and the former is very far away from, "Those who can kill, kill."
I'm not sure that those 2015 laws mattered much in the grand scheme of things. The Russians were already involved in the east by then. Even without those laws, they weren't going to leave the east and let Ukraine retake the areas that weren't controlled by the government.
Instead of a "Ukrainian Politics Thread" where we could have discussed the intricacies of Ukrainian elections etc, we now have a "Russian invasion of Ukraine" thread. Again, I emphasize that for all this talk of divided sentiments (pro-West or pro-Russian) there was not a majority in the east that showed a willingness to secede, not to my knowledge anyway.
And besides, Ukraine in 2014 was independent for about 25 years. A young country in which older people still had memories of the Soviet Union, and some degree of nostalgia for the Soviet times in the Donbas which experienced a decline when the Soviet Union collapsed.
The analogy between Kosovo and Ukraine is the laziest analogy ever.
Kosovo is small, Ukraine is big.
Kosovo has no minerals, Ukraine has many.
Kosovo is geopolitically completely irrelevant, Ukraine is geopolitically important to lock Russia.
Kosovo has no sea, Ukraine has (again important against Russia).
Kosovo didn’t join another country, Russia annexed part of Ukraine.
To believe that Kosovo liberation from NATO has anything else to do except for humanitarian purposes is pure delusion. In fact, Albanians in Kosovo were lucky cause Serbia genocide Bosnia, and genocides in Europe are bad for TV, and Clinton did not want his legacy to be the guy under whose watch two genocides happened. So then US prevented another one.
But Kosovo had 0 irrelevance in grand scheme of things. In Bondsteel that you mentioned there are 500 soldiers. Every country surrounding Kosovo except Serbia is in NATO and the US can host soldiers there.
You know what would have happened in Ukraine if Kosovo liberation didn’t happen? Exactly the same as it happened now. The idea that Putin invaded Georgia and Ukraine because of Kosovo is schaudenfraude copium.