Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Jose Clark2 said:It's obvious they won't pull out of Ukraine completely. Russ simply cannot afford to lose this war; they need concessions. If we don't give them what they want, what happens then?

But what concessions are we even talking about here? I mean, if you look at it like Ukraine is basically just step one in a massive operation they've been plotting for over 15 years... any little concession is just a tiny nudge for Putin toward his actual goal. And that goal is kicking the USA and the UK off the European continent, getting back that old-school influence the USSR used to have in Europe, and eventually forcing the EU—specifically heavy hitters like Germany, France, and Italy—into a partnership under Russian control. So, yeah, every single move we let Putin make while he's actively attacking a sovereign nation is basically the death of international law. It’s like we're sliding back into some medieval way of settling things. And honestly, once we start dealing with these savages who offer nothing to civilization except death, destruction, and blackmail, the fallout is gonna be way worse. Is that really the vibe we want for the continent? I guess Merkel didn't get it and let this monster grow (though, personally, I think she knew exactly what was happening and played along), and now Macron doesn't seem to grasp it either. He’s forgetting how much damage their "friendly" attitude toward Russia caused after the global order fell apart—just look at how sneaky they were when they occupied Crimea with those unmarked soldiers and then actually bragged about it. Unfortunately, you can't just satisfy their appetite by giving up Donbas or Crimea, because that's just setting them up for the next move. That's why we gotta stop this mess at the very first step.

Jose Clark2 said:It's obvious they won't pull out of Ukraine completely. Russ simply cannot afford to lose this war; they need concessions. If we don't give them what they want, what happens then?

In short... the Ukrainians need to stage a massive tractor brigade movement. At the end of the day, they are fighting for their own soil. If they don't do it, who else will?

darkwalker1 said:You've hit the nail on the head. The UA Defense Minister mentioned he received orders from Zelenskyy to develop plans for liberating the southern coastal regions of Ukraine.

That was "sometime in the future," vaguely defined.

But then a news outlet picks it up and runs a headline like "Zelenskyy orders liberation of Ukraine," and now we're stuck dealing with the fallout we see today. 😁

I honestly don't trust anything these journalists write anymore.

Susan Collins3 said:But what concessions are we even talking about here? I mean, if you look at it like Ukraine is basically just step one in a massive operation they've been plotting for over 15 years... any little concession is just a tiny nudge for Putin toward his actual goal. And that goal is kicking the USA and the UK off the European continent, getting back that old-school influence the USSR used to have in Europe, and eventually forcing the EU—specifically heavy hitters like Germany, France, and Italy—into a partnership under Russian control. So, yeah, every single move we let Putin make while he's actively attacking a sovereign nation is basically the death of international law. It’s like we're sliding back into some medieval way of settling things. And honestly, once we start dealing with these savages who offer nothing to civilization except death, destruction, and blackmail, the fallout is gonna be way worse. Is that really the vibe we want for the continent? I guess Merkel didn't get it and let this monster grow (though, personally, I think she knew exactly what was happening and played along), and now Macron doesn't seem to grasp it either. He’s forgetting how much damage their "friendly" attitude toward Russia caused after the global order fell apart—just look at how sneaky they were when they occupied Crimea with those unmarked soldiers and then actually bragged about it. Unfortunately, you can't just satisfy their appetite by giving up Donbas or Crimea, because that's just setting them up for the next move. That's why we gotta stop this mess at the very first step.

I suspect these megalomaniacal theories simply aren't grounded in reality. Even fifty Putins couldn't pull this off. It's pure fantasy. In my view, his actual objective is Ukraine—if not bringing it back into the Russian sphere of influence, then at least securing part of it as a buffer zone, keeping Ukraine out of NATO. Ultimately, Ukraine's pivot toward NATO is what triggered this Russian reaction. It's the red line Putin has been talking about for fifteen years.

Russian lawmakers are pushing to expand those "gay propaganda" laws to include all adults

Jose Clark2 said:I suspect these megalomaniacal theories simply aren't grounded in reality. Even fifty Putins couldn't pull this off. It's pure fantasy. In my view, his actual objective is Ukraine—if not bringing it back into the Russian sphere of influence, then at least securing part of it as a buffer zone, keeping Ukraine out of NATO. Ultimately, Ukraine's pivot toward NATO is what triggered this Russian reaction. It's the red line Putin has been talking about for fifteen years.

Putin and his enemies aren't afraid of NATO because they know he isn't actually coming for them. NATO was nothing more than a convenient excuse to invade Ukraine.

The real motive is different. To them, Ukraine is just a province of Russia—much like how the Midwest is just another part of the States. They view Ukrainians as Russians, just as they view people from the Midwest as Americans. That is their core stance.

So, if they manage to conquer all of Ukraine—or even just a chunk of it—they will declare victory and claim the war is over. At least for now, anyway... though what happens next depends entirely on the massive consequences this war will have on them.

Amanda Allen4 said:Putin and his enemies aren't afraid of NATO because they know he isn't actually coming for them. NATO was nothing more than a convenient excuse to invade Ukraine.

The real motive is different. To them, Ukraine is just a province of Russia—much like how the Midwest is just another part of the States. They view Ukrainians as Russians, just as they view people from the Midwest as Americans. That is their core stance.

So, if they manage to conquer all of Ukraine—or even just a chunk of it—they will declare victory and claim the war is over. At least for now, anyway... though what happens next depends entirely on the massive consequences this war will have on them.

When there was a pro-Russian government in Kyiv, there were no attacks in Ukraine and no one was asking for Crimea back. Back then, most people in the West viewed Ukrainians as Russian allies, or at least as a similar nation. As for NATO not attacking Russia, Putin believes the opposite; he sees NATO as a threat, even before Ukraine became the focus. For Russia's positioning, Ukraine is simply a red line that was crossed. It isn't anything new; it was all signaled quite a while ago.

Jose Clark2 said:I suspect these megalomaniacal theories simply aren't grounded in reality. Even fifty Putins couldn't pull this off. It's pure fantasy. In my view, his actual objective is Ukraine—if not bringing it back into the Russian sphere of influence, then at least securing part of it as a buffer zone, keeping Ukraine out of NATO. Ultimately, Ukraine's pivot toward NATO is what triggered this Russian reaction. It's the red line Putin has been talking about for fifteen years.

Did Ukraine actually join NATO back in 2014 when Putin started the occupation?

Putin envisioned Ukraine as his own little puppet state—a place where, much like in Belarus, he could dictate exactly how everything functions. Once that plan fell apart and his lapdog Yanukovych crawled back to his master, he decided to pursue his objectives through military force instead.

Jose Clark2 said:When there was a pro-Russian government in Kyiv, there were no attacks in Ukraine and no one was asking for Crimea back. Back then, most people in the West viewed Ukrainians as Russian allies, or at least as a similar nation. As for NATO not attacking Russia, Putin believes the opposite; he sees NATO as a threat, even before Ukraine became the focus. For Russia's positioning, Ukraine is simply a red line that was crossed. It isn't anything new; it was all signaled quite a while ago.

Nicole James said:Did Ukraine actually join NATO back in 2014 when Putin started the occupation?

Putin envisioned Ukraine as his own little puppet state—a place where, much like in Belarus, he could dictate exactly how everything functions. Once that plan fell apart and his lapdog Yanukovych crawled back to his master, he decided to pursue his objectives through military force instead.

The whole "threat" from the NATO alliance is such a huge deal in Ukraine that Russia is actually pulling troops away from the Finnish border, which means they'll be bordering a legitimate NATO member very soon.

https://euobserver.com/tickers/155443

http://frontnews.eu/en/news/details/35176

Seems like a pretty strange setup if NATO is only considered a danger coming from the direction of Ukraine, right? 🤔

It’s a straight-up war of conquest because Putin thinks it all belongs to him, and he can't stand the thought of them trying to be independent.

Jose Clark2 said:When there was a pro-Russian government in Kyiv, there were no attacks in Ukraine and no one was asking for Crimea back. Back then, most people in the West viewed Ukrainians as Russian allies, or at least as a similar nation. As for NATO not attacking Russia, Putin believes the opposite; he sees NATO as a threat, even before Ukraine became the focus. For Russia's positioning, Ukraine is simply a red line that was crossed. It isn't anything new; it was all signaled quite a while ago.

I'm sorry... I've been reading your posts and I honestly can't believe someone who knows how to write, operate a computer, and potentially possesses an IQ north of 70 could output this garbage. Honestly, I’d be terrified if you were my son-in-law and I actually needed you to protect my daughter and grandkids one day.
I don't know how old you are, but if we had thought like you do back in the day, we'd be writing everything in Cyrillic here in San Diego.

feralhawk45 said:I'm sorry... I've been reading your posts and I honestly can't believe someone who knows how to write, operate a computer, and potentially possesses an IQ north of 70 could output this garbage. Honestly, I’d be terrified if you were my son-in-law and I actually needed you to protect my daughter and grandkids one day.
I don't know how old you are, but if we had thought like you do back in the day, we'd be writing everything in Cyrillic here in San Diego.

I get why people are emotionally invested; they see parallels to the wars we had here. There are similarities, sure, but there are differences too.

Jose Clark2 said:When there was a pro-Russian government in Kyiv, there were no attacks in Ukraine and no one was asking for Crimea back. Back then, most people in the West viewed Ukrainians as Russian allies, or at least as a similar nation. As for NATO not attacking Russia, Putin believes the opposite; he sees NATO as a threat, even before Ukraine became the focus. For Russia's positioning, Ukraine is simply a red line that was crossed. It isn't anything new; it was all signaled quite a while ago.

Okay, but seriously, how exactly is NATO a threat to the Russians? Like, let's say Ukraine actually joins NATO—what does that even change regarding Ukraine's relations with everyone else outside the alliance? And does Russia have nukes? Yeah, obviously they do. So, in what world does NATO plan on attacking or threatening Russia, whether Ukraine is involved or not? All this whining about Ukraine joining NATO only makes sense if Russia didn't have nuclear weapons. If they didn't, sure, we could talk. But as long as they've got those nukes, nobody is touching them. It wouldn't matter if NATO surrounded them from every single side. Here's my question for the day: why hasn't NATO attacked Russia yet? Why hasn't NATO, I don't know, bombed Moscow already?

Arthur Miller7 said:Okay, but seriously, how exactly is NATO a threat to the Russians? Like, let's say Ukraine actually joins NATO—what does that even change regarding Ukraine's relations with everyone else outside the alliance? And does Russia have nukes? Yeah, obviously they do. So, in what world does NATO plan on attacking or threatening Russia, whether Ukraine is involved or not? All this whining about Ukraine joining NATO only makes sense if Russia didn't have nuclear weapons. If they didn't, sure, we could talk. But as long as they've got those nukes, nobody is touching them. It wouldn't matter if NATO surrounded them from every single side. Here's my question for the day: why hasn't NATO attacked Russia yet? Why hasn't NATO, I don't know, bombed Moscow already?

It’s indisputable that Putin views the encirclement of Russia by NATO as a threat; he has for quite some time. Why he perceives NATO presence on his borders as a danger, I can't say, but it is a fact that he does. Perhaps it's just paranoia or an obsession, or perhaps he truly sees a legitimate threat.

Jose Clark2 said:It's obvious they won't pull out of Ukraine completely. Russ simply cannot afford to lose this war; they need concessions. If we don't give them what they want, what happens then?

Then let Putin fight until there isn't a single Russian left to fight. Because Russia simply cannot win this one.

William Anderson5 said:Then let Putin fight until there isn't a single Russian left to fight. Because Russia simply cannot win this one.

What does "winning" even mean? Until someone actually defines what victory looks like for Russia or Putin, any claim about whether they can or cannot win is purely speculative.

Jose Clark2 said:What does "winning" even mean? Until someone actually defines what victory looks like for Russia or Putin, any claim about whether they can or cannot win is purely speculative.

Right now, for the Russians, winning would mean—assuming Ukraine agrees to it on paper—achieving anything more than what they had before February 24th. They have nothing beyond that, and they’re going to have to face that reality, whether it's under Putin or whoever follows him...

William Anderson5 said:Right now, for the Russians, winning would mean—assuming Ukraine agrees to it on paper—achieving anything more than what they had before February 24th. They have nothing beyond that, and they’re going to have to face that reality, whether it's under Putin or whoever follows him...

Fair enough. If they just validate the pre-February 24th borders, does that mean they actually won the war?

Jose Clark2 said:Fair enough. If they just validate the pre-February 24th borders, does that mean they actually won the war?

And what exactly did Ukraine concede prior to February 24th? Just the stuff from the Minsk Agreement. That’s really the ceiling of what they can offer.

If Putin had been even slightly smarter—if he actually acted like a negotiator—the West would have been ready to hand over Crimea just to secure the Donbas, forcing the Ukrainians to swallow it. But the way things have played out, there isn't even a chance of getting his seizure of Crimea legitimized anymore...

William Anderson5 said:And what exactly did Ukraine concede prior to February 24th? Just the stuff from the Minsk Agreement. That’s really the ceiling of what they can offer.

If Putin had been even slightly smarter—if he actually acted like a negotiator—the West would have been ready to hand over Crimea just to secure the Donbas, forcing the Ukrainians to swallow it. But the way things have played out, there isn't even a chance of getting his seizure of Crimea legitimized anymore...

Weren't the Minsk Agreements essentially just something Ukraine refused to follow through on, even though they were signed under the guidance of France and others? Ukraine did sign Minsk-2.

Jose Clark2 said:It’s indisputable that Putin views the encirclement of Russia by NATO as a threat; he has for quite some time. Why he perceives NATO presence on his borders as a danger, I can't say, but it is a fact that he does. Perhaps it's just paranoia or an obsession, or perhaps he truly sees a legitimate threat.

The idea that NATO is some kind of threat to Russia is complete nonsense. It’s nothing more than a cheap soundbite designed to give Russians and Russophiles an excuse to justify the atrocities they're committing in Ukraine.

The reality is much simpler: the Russian Federation just can't stomach seeing former USSR members gain independence, thrive economically through cooperation with the EU, and pivot toward parliamentary democracy.
Putin plays well only with submissive autocrats and compliant nations that are hungry for cheap energy.
If a group of puppets following every Russian whim were in power in Ukraine, we wouldn't be seeing this war.
But let's not kid ourselves... the EU and the USA have essentially been in conflict with Russia since Putin took power (and really, since the end of World War II, with that brief pause during the collapse of the USSR). For the most part, it's been a quiet struggle where certain players were paid off to undermine the EU and NATO—think of all those green activists who fought nuclear energy only to leave the country tethered to Russian gas. We can't deny it worked quite well for him; he pivoted Germany toward Russia, bought off Viktor Orbán, and certainly shook things up in the US with Trump...