Started by Charles Ross3 · · 👁 747 views · 9.2K replies
…
Ronalddo said:🤣 I guess I'm wondering how they actually pull off those counterstrikes? Can you explain the method and how they pick their targets? It feels like there have been way more strikes hitting Moscow than Crimea this year, and since they're hitting such important spots, it seems like a lot of them are definitely Western-backed.
gentlerider7 said:John Mearsheimer’s piece in "Foreign Affairs" is just recycling those same old tired arguments about how Ukraine joining NATO was the big trigger for this whole war:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukrai...g-fire-ukraine
"Contrary to the common wisdom found in the West, Moscow didn't invade Ukraine just to conquer it and make it part of Great Russia. Their main thing was stopping Ukraine from becoming a Western fortress right on their doorstep. Putin and his advisors were especially paranoid about the possibility of Ukraine ever joining NATO. Back in mid-January, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov put it pretty bluntly during a press conference, saying the whole crux of the issue is guaranteeing that NATO won't keep expanding eastward. For the guys in charge in Russia, the idea of Ukraine joining NATO is—to quote Putin himself before the invasion started—a 'direct threat to Russian security.' It's the kind of threat they felt could only be wiped out by going to war and turning Ukraine into some sort of neutral or failed state."
"This mess creates a massive incentive to find some kind of diplomatic way out of the war. But honestly? There's no political deal in sight because both sides are dug in so deep on their war goals that compromise feels basically impossible. The Biden administration really should have been working with Russia to settle this Ukrainian crisis before everything kicked off in February. Now, we're past the point of making a deal. Russia, Ukraine, and the West are all stuck in this horrific deadlock with no clear exit strategy. All we can do is pray that the leaders on both sides manage the conflict in a way that avoids a total catastrophe. But for the tens of millions of people whose lives are actually on the line, that's cold comfort, isn't it?"
Nancy Lopez7 said:People are out there protesting about how those stubborn Ukrainians just won't stop fighting—and apparently, they think the "evil" West is just fueling the fire by backing them up.
🙂
I mean, seriously, why won't they just surrender to such a massive military force?
https://twitter.com/AnonOpsSE/status...htmode%3Dfalse
It feels like our neighbors haven't had much to say lately, hasn't it?
Does anyone have any intel on when things might finally wind down—any idea what's actually happening behind the scenes? 🍿
gentlerider7 said:John Mearsheimer’s piece in "Foreign Affairs" is just recycling those same old tired arguments about how Ukraine joining NATO was the big trigger for this whole war:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukrai...g-fire-ukraine
"Contrary to the common wisdom found in the West, Moscow didn't invade Ukraine just to conquer it and make it part of Great Russia. Their main thing was stopping Ukraine from becoming a Western fortress right on their doorstep. Putin and his advisors were especially paranoid about the possibility of Ukraine ever joining NATO. Back in mid-January, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov put it pretty bluntly during a press conference, saying the whole crux of the issue is guaranteeing that NATO won't keep expanding eastward. For the guys in charge in Russia, the idea of Ukraine joining NATO is—to quote Putin himself before the invasion started—a 'direct threat to Russian security.' It's the kind of threat they felt could only be wiped out by going to war and turning Ukraine into some sort of neutral or failed state."
"This mess creates a massive incentive to find some kind of diplomatic way out of the war. But honestly? There's no political deal in sight because both sides are dug in so deep on their war goals that compromise feels basically impossible. The Biden administration really should have been working with Russia to settle this Ukrainian crisis before everything kicked off in February. Now, we're past the point of making a deal. Russia, Ukraine, and the West are all stuck in this horrific deadlock with no clear exit strategy. All we can do is pray that the leaders on both sides manage the conflict in a way that avoids a total catastrophe. But for the tens of millions of people whose lives are actually on the line, that's cold comfort, isn't it?"
hollowdriver13 said:Here we go again with this guy and his mental diarrhea, despite having that fancy professor title.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/presiden...anced-template
Of course, Putin completely ignores this whole essay where he rambles on about "historical unity," being "one people," and the supposed need for Ukraine to return to the motherland it supposedly "escaped from."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...e-road-to-war
Now, this is an excellent article detailing how the U.S. was piecing together the fact that Russia was prepping for war, and how incredibly hard it was to convince Europe. Nobody wanted to believe Putin was actually that crazy; most people just thought Uncle Sam was blowing things out of proportion and trying to stir up trouble.
It also touches on how the US knew its own intelligence credibility was pretty shaky at the time. There was a huge political risk in coming forward with intelligence data to try and deter the attack publicly—because if the attack hadn't happened, nobody would have ever trusted us again, and everyone would have just said we were looking for a fight.
The article even mentions that in November 2021, as one of the last attempts to calm the Russians down regarding NATO (given all that noise about NATO being a threat), the U.S. offered to set up a joint group so the Russians could have access to data on NATO troop deployments in the East. I mean, what more could you offer than actual insight into how troops are positioned and what they're doing? But, predictably, they turned it down.
Kevin Murphy7 said:So that would explain why our Navy was moving down to the southern coast during that time.
Joshua Myers432 said:Look, the Russians have been pretty damn clear about this since the early 1950s: they don't want NATO on their borders, and they certainly don't want it anywhere near them. It’s a simple choice. You either respect their demands—which, let's be real, are issued from a position of strength—or you go to war. Or, you can just sit there thinking they're bluffing.
Europe thought they were dealing with option three, but instead, they got hit with option two. 😁
Joshua Myers432 said:Look, the Russians have been pretty damn clear about this since the early 1950s: they don't want NATO on their borders, and they certainly don't want it anywhere near them. It’s a simple choice. You either respect their demands—which, let's be real, are issued from a position of strength—or you go to war. Or, you can just sit there thinking they're bluffing.
Europe thought they were dealing with option three, but instead, they got hit with option two. 😁
Joshua Myers432 said:Look, the Russians have been pretty damn clear about this since the early 1950s: they don't want NATO on their borders, and they certainly don't want it anywhere near them. It’s a simple choice. You either respect their demands—which, let's be real, are issued from a position of strength—or you go to war. Or, you can just sit there thinking they're bluffing.
Europe thought they were dealing with option three, but instead, they got hit with option two. 😁
I don't have any text from "gFlores" to rewrite yet! Please provide the post you'd like me to work on, and I'll get right to crafting it in that long, detailed, laid-back style for you. kaže:
Look, the Russians have been pretty upfront about this since back in the early 1950s—they aren't interested in seeing NATO anywhere near their borders, let alone right on top of them. It really boils down to a simple choice: you either respect their demands, which they’re making from a position of strength, or you go to war because you thought they were just bluffing.
Europe thought they were dealing with a third-tier problem, but instead, they got hit with the second one. 😁
wiredseal7 said:Looks like there was some minor posturing between Russ and the US in the Ionian and Mediterranean Seas back in July—something our local news outlets didn't even bother to mention while they were busy obsessing over the war in Ukraine.
goldenowl73 said:Does anyone else remember those super critical Siemens turbines? You know, the ones without which Nord Stream 1 is basically a paperweight, and the ones that caused all that massive drama from the Russians for weeks on end.
They finished them a long time ago, but it looks like the Russians aren't exactly in a rush to finally take delivery. I mean, it’s hard to believe they aren't just playing games and lying to us again.
Crucial Nord Stream turbines still waiting to be picked up by Russia
https://english.nv.ua/nation/crucial...-50263893.html
Even Siemens has started low-key trolling Russia by posting about that lonely little turbine.
Our famous turbine is still not where it should be. It’s standing around lonely at our site in Mülheim. Let’s do the poor thing a favor and create a @Spotify playlist. What should be included?
We'll start with "So Lonely" by the @ThePoliceBand ... what are your suggestions? https://t.co/uVgvV8Jaza
William Anderson5 said:Forget about the Russians; in this entire saga, the Germans have come out looking the most pathetic. As if being humiliated by Russia wasn't enough, they managed to humiliate themselves even further with this attempt to return the turbine. That turbine was never the actual reason gas supplies dropped, nor did the Russians ever actually want it back.
It's a total collapse of the once-great Germans; they should have just dumped the turbine and left it in Canada...
Just like the geniuses over here who seem to think Putin wouldn't have shut off the taps to Europe if Europe hadn't imposed sanctions and started arming Ukraine.
Nathan Thomas12 said:So what, they spent 10 years invading their neighbor in Afghanistan because of NATO? Or they took territory from Georgia back in '08? Or turned Belarus into a puppet state? It's the exact same playbook they're using in Ukraine.
If it's really all about NATO, then I guess we should expect an invasion of Finland before they join. There isn't a second or third option here.
goldenowl73 said:Honestly, in this whole situation, it’s pretty much what we expected—Russ has just been playing us with all those lies and manipulations, while the Germans acted like total opportunists, basically letting themselves get played by the Kremlin's games.
It just goes to show, yet again, that throwing money at Russia and bending over backwards to meet their demands always ends up being a massive, painful screw-up. The Germans really need to finally wake up and realize that Russia operates just like a mafia state, constantly sniffing out any sign of weakness to exploit.
