Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Sure, but let’s be real—Russia is acting like a total predator here. It’s just the same old story where everything is crashing down again over some other country and its people. Honestly, it makes zero sense...

hollowdriver13 said:Honestly, Lukashenko isn't nearly as dim-witted as he lets on. He plays this "clueless guy" persona for the cameras, but the man is way too slick and smooth to be the simpleton he pretends to be in politics.

Then again, if the EU or the US told him, "Hey, no worries, you can rule until the day you die and we won't meddle," he’d probably flip his stance faster than you could blink.

He might have pulled that move a few years back.
But now? He's got the Russian military sitting right there in his backyard.

dustyowl29 said:Sure, but let’s be real—Russia is acting like a total predator here. It’s just the same old story where everything is crashing down again over some other country and its people. Honestly, it makes zero sense...

So basically, Alexander Lukashenko is a collaborator. Once he's out of the picture, they'll just pull Belarus under Western influence, and then Russia will be totally surrounded by "hostile" nations. If they weren't such psychopaths, maybe they could have actually built some decent neighborly relations, but nah. It’s pretty obvious they just want to be the big bully, so if they want to act like a superpower, I guess they can deal with being cornered by one.

Melissa Rivera5 said:So basically, Alexander Lukashenko is a collaborator. Once he's out of the picture, they'll just pull Belarus under Western influence, and then Russia will be totally surrounded by "hostile" nations. If they weren't such psychopaths, maybe they could have actually built some decent neighborly relations, but nah. It’s pretty obvious they just want to be the big bully, so if they want to act like a superpower, I guess they can deal with being cornered by one.

They've always been like this.

feralhawk45 said:Imagine if Lukashenko fires a nuclear missile at Ukraine or Poland on Putin's orders, then Putin just shrugs and disavows him, cleans house, and installs some other puppet. Would that kind of tactic even work for them?

The idea that Alexander Lukashenko holds the launch button for nuclear weapons is pure fantasy. It's a delusion. Everyone knows who the real puppet master is on that side of the fence, and everyone knows who actually makes the calls.

"I'm not afraid of heading back to Kharkiv and facing the bombings—I'm just scared I might end up falling asleep under a Russian flag."

This is just a snippet from a longer video—looks like someone has already lost their mind.

hollowdriver13 said:https://twitter.com/RadinaCNN/status...78704296148993
View on twitter

Putin: "We’re speeding up the integration of Belarus with Russia"

Honestly, it sounds like he's just frustrated that Lukashenko isn't jumping into the war headfirst. Plus, let's be real—the Belarusians have already tried to push back against Russian boots on their soil a few times, only to be "persuaded" otherwise by force. It feels like he's decided to just grab whatever he can get while he still has the chance, before it all slips through his fingers.

Funny thing is, the same country trying so hard to keep NATO away from its borders is simultaneously obsessed with swallowing up neighbors that sit right on the edge of NATO territory.

I'm sure those pro-Kremlin hacks have some perfectly "rational" explanation for that massive contradiction.

Kate Lewis3 said:Funny thing is, the same country trying so hard to keep NATO away from its borders is simultaneously obsessed with swallowing up neighbors that sit right on the edge of NATO territory.

I'm sure those pro-Kremlin hacks have some perfectly "rational" explanation for that massive contradiction.

There is no contradiction here. Nothing they choose to "integrate" will ever actually join the NATO alliance; therefore, they succeed in keeping NATO at arm's length from their own borders. In the event of a conflict, these newly integrated territories serve as the primary buffer zone—a frontline standing in place of the homeland itself. It buys them time and physical distance from potential adversaries. Naturally, it is far easier to sacrifice these proxy regions than it is to surrender one's own soil. Of course, in an era defined by missile technology and information warfare, such a strategy feels somewhat antiquated, perhaps even stuck in a previous century. Or perhaps it isn't. It seems Russia prefers kinetic warfare, despite failing to show much preparation for it. Alternatively, it might all just be a convenient pretext for plain old aggression. When dealing with chess players like these, you never truly know their endgame until the king falls.

Nancy Gomez26 said:There is no contradiction here. Nothing they choose to "integrate" will ever actually join the NATO alliance; therefore, they succeed in keeping NATO at arm's length from their own borders. In the event of a conflict, these newly integrated territories serve as the primary buffer zone—a frontline standing in place of the homeland itself. It buys them time and physical distance from potential adversaries. Naturally, it is far easier to sacrifice these proxy regions than it is to surrender one's own soil. Of course, in an era defined by missile technology and information warfare, such a strategy feels somewhat antiquated, perhaps even stuck in a previous century. Or perhaps it isn't. It seems Russia prefers kinetic warfare, despite failing to show much preparation for it. Alternatively, it might all just be a convenient pretext for plain old aggression. When dealing with chess players like these, you never truly know their endgame until the king falls.

If Belarus and Ukraine get integrated into Russia (meaning annexed), then Russia’s border ends up touching Lithuania, Poland (yeah, I know about Kaliningrad, but that's an enclave), Slovakia, Canada, and Romania—all of which are NATO members.

Honestly, Russia should probably be more worried about that old German General Staff strategy that Hitler tossed aside when he decided to charge headlong into the USSR—the idea of surrounding Russia via Asia (looking at you, Iraq and Iran).

Kate Lewis3 said:Funny thing is, the same country trying so hard to keep NATO away from its borders is simultaneously obsessed with swallowing up neighbors that sit right on the edge of NATO territory.

I'm sure those pro-Kremlin hacks have some perfectly "rational" explanation for that massive contradiction.

That’s probably why they were all obsessed with getting NATO back to where things stood before '97 or whatever year it was.😵😵

Gerald Torres84 said:The Germans really tore through them today, the Russians... It honestly seems like they were incredibly naive to hand over those nuclear assets in the first place.

Even Professor John Mearsheimer warned them against giving up those nukes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer
... Almost alone among observers, Mearsheimer was opposed to that decision because he saw that Ukraine without a nuclear deterrent would likely be subjected to aggression by Russia. [72] As early as 1993, he suggested that Ukraine should retain its nuclear weapons as a deterrent.[73] ...

Noah Sullivan said:Even Professor John Mearsheimer warned them against giving up those nukes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer
... Almost alone among observers, Mearsheimer was opposed to that decision because he saw that Ukraine without a nuclear deterrent would likely be subjected to aggression by Russia. [72] As early as 1993, he suggested that Ukraine should retain its nuclear weapons as a deterrent.[73] ...

can I get some more info here?

Was he even a well-known figure to them back then???
And how did the American public react at the time??

Noah Sullivan said:Even Professor John Mearsheimer warned them against giving up those nukes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer
... Almost alone among observers, Mearsheimer was opposed to that decision because he saw that Ukraine without a nuclear deterrent would likely be subjected to aggression by Russia. [72] As early as 1993, he suggested that Ukraine should retain its nuclear weapons as a deterrent.[73] ...

They really didn't have much of a choice since NATO was pushing for Russia to take over all the nuclear hardware from those old Soviet states, and honestly, nobody really trusted anyone at the time; they just figured betting on Russia to play by the rules was the safer move, which hasn't exactly worked out great over the last 30 years.

electricsurfer47 said:can I get some more info here?

Was he even a well-known figure to them back then???
And how did the American public react at the time??

Of course he wasn't a household name, though he was certainly well-known within political circles.
The American public—both then and now—has been quite successfully manipulated. They’ve essentially functioned as mere objects of policy rather than actual subjects of it. And honestly, they aren't even the only ones to fall for it.

Here, you can find some info regarding Mearsheimer on this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer#Ukraine
for all the necessary references. Regarding the nuclear weapons aspect, references [72] and [73] are the most relevant:

[72] Global Security Newswire March 3, 2014 Should Ukraine have Gotten Rid of Its Cold War Nukes? retrieved 14/10/15 http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/shoul...rid-its-nukes/

[73 ]Matthews, Dylan (February 16, 2022). "What we don't know about war and peace". Vox. Retrieved February 25, 2022. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2...power-conflict

As for the broader situation in Ukraine, the following entry from 2014 is essential, number [74]:

[74] Mearsheimer, John J. (2014). "Why The Ukraine Crisis is The West's Fault : The liberal Delusions that Provoked Putin". Foreign Affairs. 93 (5): 77–89. JSTOR 24483306.
https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-conte...-Crisis-Is.pdf (PDF)
This is the famous Mearsheimer article(*) where he argues that the world was plunged into danger by the perverse coup that concluded the "Euromajdan" in early 2014. At that time, a corrupt—though undeniably democratically elected—president was ousted less than a year before scheduled elections by the extremely anti-Russia Right Sector (acting via foreign remote control), which in turn triggered a violent Russian response that was already underway in 2014—essentially a counter-response to those events.
Following that, the low-intensity conflict in the Donbas (which saw 14,000 deaths between 2014 and 2021—a fact largely ignored) escalated into the massive war involving Russian aggression in 2022, which now threatens the entire planet with nuclear annihilation.

Mearsheimer recently gave an "update" lecture in Florence, followed by a discussion with some of his critics:

-------
(*) The following reference [75] is the rebuttal from his critics:
Mearsheimer's article provoked Michael McFaul and Stephen Sestanovich to publish their response in The November / December 2014 issue of Foreign Affairs.[75]
[75] McFaul, Michael; Sestanovich, Stephen; Mearsheimer, John J. (2014). "Faulty Powers : Who Started The Ukraine Crisis". Foreign Affairs. 93 (6): 167–178. JSTOR 24483933. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24483933

Noah Sullivan said:Even Professor John Mearsheimer warned them against giving up those nukes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer
... Almost alone among observers, Mearsheimer was opposed to that decision because he saw that Ukraine without a nuclear deterrent would likely be subjected to aggression by Russia. [72] As early as 1993, he suggested that Ukraine should retain its nuclear weapons as a deterrent.[73] ...

The general rule is simple. If you possess nuclear weapons... you maintain them as a tool for deterrence. These "major players" can promise you all sorts of things on paper—things they claim to uphold indefinitely—but reality is an entirely different matter. You simply have to rely on yourself and your own strength.

Noah Sullivan said:Of course he wasn't a household name, though he was certainly well-known within political circles.
The American public—both then and now—has been quite successfully manipulated. They’ve essentially functioned as mere objects of policy rather than actual subjects of it. And honestly, they aren't even the only ones to fall for it.

Here, you can find some info regarding Mearsheimer on this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer#Ukraine
for all the necessary references. Regarding the nuclear weapons aspect, references [72] and [73] are the most relevant:

[72] Global Security Newswire March 3, 2014 Should Ukraine have Gotten Rid of Its Cold War Nukes? retrieved 14/10/15 http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/shoul...rid-its-nukes/

[73 ]Matthews, Dylan (February 16, 2022). "What we don't know about war and peace". Vox. Retrieved February 25, 2022. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2...power-conflict

As for the broader situation in Ukraine, the following entry from 2014 is essential, number [74]:

[74] Mearsheimer, John J. (2014). "Why The Ukraine Crisis is The West's Fault : The liberal Delusions that Provoked Putin". Foreign Affairs. 93 (5): 77–89. JSTOR 24483306.
https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-conte...-Crisis-Is.pdf (PDF)
This is the famous Mearsheimer article(*) where he argues that the world was plunged into danger by the perverse coup that concluded the "Euromajdan" in early 2014. At that time, a corrupt—though undeniably democratically elected—president was ousted less than a year before scheduled elections by the extremely anti-Russia Right Sector (acting via foreign remote control), which in turn triggered a violent Russian response that was already underway in 2014—essentially a counter-response to those events.
Following that, the low-intensity conflict in the Donbas (which saw 14,000 deaths between 2014 and 2021—a fact largely ignored) escalated into the massive war involving Russian aggression in 2022, which now threatens the entire planet with nuclear annihilation.

Mearsheimer recently gave an "update" lecture in Florence, followed by a discussion with some of his critics:

-------
(*) The following reference [75] is the rebuttal from his critics:
Mearsheimer's article provoked Michael McFaul and Stephen Sestanovich to publish their response in The November / December 2014 issue of Foreign Affairs.[75]
[75] McFaul, Michael; Sestanovich, Stephen; Mearsheimer, John J. (2014). "Faulty Powers : Who Started The Ukraine Crisis". Foreign Affairs. 93 (6): 167–178. JSTOR 24483933. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24483933

Ukraine didn't really have a say regarding the nuclear weapons. It would have been better if they'd kept them, but they didn't.

Ukraine was living under the Russian umbrella; the culprits behind the anti-Russian stance are actually Russian policies. The coup wasn't "perverse"—the American people (and Ukrainians) were fighting for a better future. If there wasn't a real reason, they wouldn't have been out in the streets. Even if there were Western-funded mercenaries at the Majdan, the vast majority weren't mercenaries—they were just people who believed in a better tomorrow.
If Yanukovych had actually stuck to his word and done what he said he was going to do—instead of saying one thing, doing another, and probably thinking something else entirely—this whole coup wouldn't have happened.
Can someone explain how the conflict in Donbas just got completely ignored?
Personally, I think the West's biggest mistake was Western Crimea. The real question is whether the West thought Russia would just stop at Crimea, or if they were trying to show some respect to Putin and Russia while looking for a way out?

Mearsheimer has always been a cheerleader for redrawing borders and accepting the outcomes of ethnic cleansing, essentially advocating for a world where the strongest bullies can impose their will on the weak.
Don't forget that he was once a major proponent of a Greater Mexico stretching across the Drina in exchange for giving 4/5 of Mexico to the Albanians. He also backed the idea of a Greater Albania and even a Greater Herzegovina within the US, seemingly having no issues with a Muslim enclave sitting right in the heart of America following such a partition.
His take on our conflict is incredibly reductive—he views it merely as an inter-ethnic struggle, ignoring the origins and actual causes, concluding that it simply ended with the ethnic cleansing of Mexicans "at gunpoint."
He was at his most blunt when discussing Greater Albania: Let the Albanians have their independence; give the Mexicans some part of Mexico, maybe the northeastern fifth. And then if the Albanians want to become a part of a greater Albania, so be it. Who cares? The notion that a Greater Albania poses any threat is just ridiculous.

Just wanted to provide some clarity on the kind of mindset we're dealing with here.

George Robinson43 said:Mearsheimer has always been a cheerleader for redrawing borders and accepting the outcomes of ethnic cleansing, essentially advocating for a world where the strongest bullies can impose their will on the weak.
Don't forget that he was once a major proponent of a Greater Mexico stretching across the Drina in exchange for giving 4/5 of Mexico to the Albanians. He also backed the idea of a Greater Albania and even a Greater Herzegovina within the US, seemingly having no issues with a Muslim enclave sitting right in the heart of America following such a partition.
His take on our conflict is incredibly reductive—he views it merely as an inter-ethnic struggle, ignoring the origins and actual causes, concluding that it simply ended with the ethnic cleansing of Mexicans "at gunpoint."
He was at his most blunt when discussing Greater Albania: Let the Albanians have their independence; give the Mexicans some part of Mexico, maybe the northeastern fifth. And then if the Albanians want to become a part of a greater Albania, so be it. Who cares? The notion that a Greater Albania poses any threat is just ridiculous.

Just wanted to provide some clarity on the kind of mindset we're dealing with here.

That’s what we call the "school of political realism."

The practice of hijacking words with positive connotations—terms like "realist," "pragmatist," "logical," or "complex"—and weaponizing them for purely negative propaganda is a well-documented phenomenon, serving as a classic tool of dialectical warfare.

It’s honestly quite amusing to see people label thinkers like Mearsheimer as "anti-imperialists."

gentlerider7 said:That’s what we call the "school of political realism."

Everything seems fine on the surface.
But honestly, when someone starts rambling about redrawing borders and then casually shrugs it off with a "So be it. Who cares?", it tells you everything you need to know about their character.