Ukraine..What's the Next Step?

Exactly right Midnight1... 

Raiders made an excellent point.

But here is another. Let's say the United States was once part of Canada and broke away on it's own. Canada was and is Democrat in this senario. The United States elects a Democrat leader who favors Canada. The main body of Democrats who elected this leader live in NewYork state and California. The Republicans hate the dems and stage an actual insurrection as they are the most populous in the middle of the country and Washington D.C. A Republican is inserted as the new leader. Fighting breaks out in New York with daily shelling. Canada reponds by taking California and backing the majority dems there. Republicans respond by financing a neo-nazi batallion to attack New York. Republicans also seek an alliance of other Republican nations to defend their new govt from Canada. Republicans, a day after talking to the Russian president shutdown all democratic television networks.

Canada has had enough and invades the United States and occupies New York. 

It's the same thing with different names. "No one entered my yard." Rather I overthrew an elected leader and then claimed "my democracy must be saved." Same shit we hear in this country.

This was in the Middle East thread.....copying for transparency and accuracy (not my post)

"I disagree on this and have said so many times. Ukraine was given their opportunity FROM Russia and I believe it was under tight guidelines and restrictions on what they could and could not do. Why would Russia give carte blanche to Ukraine when that would give the west a tight straight shot to attack at ease and short range weapons would do great damage it would also signal to the other states which were also granted similarly that they also could get in bed with the west. It would be the largest blunder that Russia could make and that is why Russia stepped in.

This reminds me of Iraq, the first Iraq where we were fed the idiot excuse that Iraq wanted to invade Kuwait and were going to expand their grip on the region so the US needed to defend the region from Saddam...yeah what a load of crap. It worked though because back then the media was not as fast to uncover lies like they are now, we just relied on CIA Bush and trusted that the agenda was legit and it was not. Iraq took an offensive to Kuwait because they were horizontal drilling into Iraqi oil fields and were warned for a long long time to knock it off. Then the wimpy Saudis got nervous and got us to do their dirty work and "protect" them when Iraq was never going to go to Saudi Arabia, their intention was to protect their national oil field production and stop Kuwait from stealing their oil.

The same is going on now, Ukraine is selling a pack of lies to the world in order to get our cash and weapons. Why would Russia take these actions, what in the history of their arrangement would suggest that Russia has any reason to go in there and be militarily aggressive? It makes no sense, Russia granted their independence in the first place, it just does not work from any logical perspective and I do not trust the doods running the scheme there at all."

Not as easy as the "get off my lawn" analogy.... 

Yeah I dont buy the narrative being shoveled, both Israel and Ukraine. What did the US do when there was a sniff of Russia setting up house in Cuba? We guard our access points and so does Russia. 

And why would Russia be ok with their granted "provinces" in aligning with the west? Why would Russia allow this to happen or even be considered to happen? I dont think Russia is stupid nor do I think that Russia is seeking to engage the west in a military incident. I think they are fully inside the rights they have to enforce what Ukraine agreed upon and if they felt the terms were being broached then the only recourse is to take over. It is super nice of the US to give BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars and debt so Ukraine can fund their agenda and its too bad most people are falling for the fake story about Russia brutally invading without cause. That pretense just makes zero sense, there is absolutely NOTHING to gain from Russia on a whim deciding to "invade".

Institute for study of war explains why Russia invaded Ukraine.  Putin has long tried to expand Russia's power, eradicate Ukraine statehood and destroy NATO.  There are no real threats from NATO and Ukraine but Putin see them as threats simply by existing.  He has always been more concerned about losing control over his sphere of influence.   For example, revolt by Russian population.  Initial 2014 invasion was followed by ceasefire which allowed Russia to regroup military.  After 8 years  campaign failed to force Ukraine to submit to Russian control, Putin resorted to a full scale invasion in 2022.  No diplomatic offering except surrender would have convinced Putin to abandon his plan.  There is no path to real peace other than helping Ukraine defeat Russia. 

Putin blames Gorbachev and Yeltsin for weakening central government control over population that caused dissolution of Soviet union.  Many factors contributed to this collapse including political, economic, defense spending and Chernobyl nuclear disaster.  After failed coup, nationalist movements lead to 15 republics declaring independence to become separate countries.  For decades, Putin has been obsessed with restoring glory of old Soviet union.

@thirdperson

 You lost me at Initial 2014 invasion was followed by ceasefire which allowed Russia to regroup military. 

How many battles in Crimea did the Russians need to regroup from? ZERO. Thirty-six day transition. 

Your old propaganda just isn't gonna fly. 

Or the death of the fascist running Russia, Putin.

@thirdperson and @anyone else who is actually interested in making themselves more educated on the dynamic that is International Relations and US Foreign Policy...This is a "real" person, someone who is much smarter than me, anyone in this cesspool sub and the majority of those people living on this planet.  Here is a link to just ONE of his papers on the Russian/Ukraine War.  I'm sure one or two of you might read it, but those who do will be doing a great service to themselves.  Please take note of the cited SOURCES he provides.  FAX as the kids say.... 

John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, where he has taught since 1982.

John Joseph Mearsheimer is an American political scientist and international relations scholar who belongs to the realist school of thought. He is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago. He has been described as the most influential realist of his generation.

This is from this past Summer but a very in depth and detailed academic paper....his whole substack is full of great educational material in the realm of foreign relations and US foreign policy.  

https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/the-darkness-ahead-where-the-ukraine?r=6o004&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Other political scientists disagree with Mearsheimer's controversial theory that the west (not Russia) is to blame for Putin's invasion.  According to the Hill, Mearsheimer said, "I am attempting to predict the future which is not easy to do, given that we live in an uncertain world.  Thus, I am not arguing that I am right.  In fact, some of my claims may be wrong."  Indeed some of his predictions have been proven wrong.

@thirdperson

 "tell me you didn't read the paper, without telling me"   

Like I said, one or two of "you" might read it..... you weren't one of those that I was talking about and it clearly shows....hence, you picked out one sentence from an entirely different publication, "the Hill", and used it to back up your regime propaganda narrative that the "West had nothing to do with it".  Laughable but expected.  

Academia is not a strong point around here, I get it, the paper is thousand of words and requires critical thinking and understanding of subject matter too complex for a simple "cut & paste job" (as you attempted).  As I also said, it was from June 2023.  Was this political scientist absolutely correct on everything he wrote about?  Of course not, I never claimed anything such, nor "cherry picked" anything he said (as you did) but again, if someone actually reads the paper they will come away with insight and perspective beneficial to one's awareness of the reality of the world you live in..... that is of course, if you have any interest in reality and truths....

“It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person”

-Bill Murray

@thirdperson

what color is the sky when you look up??  

A) Blue you dummy

B) Depends on the weather

C) Whatever my Regime Propaganda Narrative tells me to believe 

@kcblitzkrieg

 That was good reading, thanks for posting.

A little more pessimistic than I was hoping for, but I like factual conculsions not emotional.

@UNIMAN

 my pleasure  

 I wasn't familiar with his work until just very recently.  His substack looks to have some other good papers that I'll eventually get to, just started with that old one and going to work my way up to the more recent stuff.  I'm not promoting to agree or disagree with him or any of his points.  It's information and education that is critical for discussion of subject matter not necessarily always black / white.  Ignorant Americans love to simplify these things...."Putin BAD, Zelensky GOOD".  "Save Israel at all costs, genocide Palestine".  There is so much more nuance to these topics, not usually a "right or wrong" answer because the questions posed are vast and dynamic.  

Stories like these leave me shaking my head; https://time.com/longform/eastern-ukraine-war-civilian-life-frontline/

Eastern Ukraine 2018;

For some 6 million people in these communities, the war is a backdrop. Bullets fly here and shells land there, killing and wounding civilians at a rate now of a couple people per week. Many residents now live in buildings that have been bombed and temporarily repaired. Children are born and raised with the knowledge that it’s not safe to play 100 feet away from the house, because that’s often where the minefield begins. (According to the U.N., the region has become one of the most mined territories in the world—but it is still densely populated.) Everyone has a collection of shrapnel pieces, gathered from hits to their apartment or backyard—a kind of memento mori, reminding them that they have somehow survived another day, or month, or year.

Sometimes, I turn up the volume on the television so that the sounds of shelling outside don’t distract me from watching a movie. 

Israel; https://www.foxnews.com/us/american-survived-attack-israeli-music-festival-returns-rise-us-antisemitism-i-dont-feel-safe

"One of the girls from our campsite came and woke us up to let us know that there had been some rockets that were sent in our direction that had been intercepted by the Iron Dome [missile defense system], that everything was fine, that it's normal for the area that we're in and that hopefully it will just be a few, and then the party will continue," Sanandaji told Fox News Digital. "I want people to try to imagine anywhere else in the world where a festival is taking place, taking place with such young kids attending, and they see rockets being intercepted over their heads and their automatic reaction is, 'Oh, this is normal because of the area that we're in. This happens. It's fine."

@thirdperson

FACTS!      Also this is well understood about the fascist-dictator/former KGB officer.  Which is why I would never, under any circumstances, trust Putin's WORD (or those of his ideological accomplices) about anything!  He's like trump in so many ways: if he says it's raining outside, the sheep under his influence who buy his fascist rhetoric and history of outright lies might believe it [although 99% of Russian citizens are terrified of challenging his lies for valid fear they will, ummm, err, "accidentally" meet their demise real soon]  but those outside of Russia who know better would head for the nearest window to verify.... And sure it might indeed be raining when he says so......or it might not....THAT is the point.

 This is NOT to imply that Ukraine are angels....FAR FROM IT!!  But for that matter neither is USA, nor have we been "angels" at any point in our lifetime.   It's all a matter of degrees....

@thirdperson

 I disagree again with your contention that Putin wants to return Russia to what it was prior, that is not something that makes sense nor that is plausible or realistic. If Putin wanted to restore Russia to its previous geographic boundaries they would revoke the arrangement and request that the satellite provinces return to the larger collective. He would not invade or be hostile, that is the way which costs more, a larger loss of lives and provokes the west, none of that is in his character. What you are describing in action is something that wacko from North Korea would do, an impulsive stupid decision based on a lack of ego and a need to dominate and control.

To me as Ive said so many times, the Ukraine situation was caused BY Ukraine and is an issue of contagion, Russia granted the satellite provinces given certain understandings and THAT makes total sense. While Ukraine is different than Russia they are not what the moron media is claiming as a democracy, that is laughable but for sure they are a twist off of Russia but still not like the UK or the US as to a democracy. Russia was forced to take action as Ukraine was not abiding by the terms of the agreement and Russia does not want to invite the west in any fashion or give ANY suggestion to other satellite provinces that this is even remotely tolerable and that Russia is fine with them engaging in any sense with the west.

@wallstreetcappers

 There's very little to debate,  here... of course Putin wants to reunify the great Soviet Empire.

He himself proclaimed in 2005  that the collapse of the Soviet empire was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century." 

That's quite a statement... 

Of course he wants to restore Russia to its former large land mass..  

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7632057

@Rush51

 I disagree, especially not this way. If he wanted to call in the "provinces" there are different ways to do it than to militarily attack. My contention is that the reason Putin is going this route is because Ukraine is violating the terms of their "freedom" and put the larger Russia at risk by Ukraine even considering engaging with the west.

Maybe there is value in unifying Russia, I do not think he is interested in military force to take things back and if anything this would create more hassle than what could be gained. It is the wrong way to go about this and I do not believe that is his intention and there has been zero reference to this in any way from Russia or Putin.

@kcblitzkrieg

 KC, thanks for providing the link to that article by Mearscheimer... an interesting read, for sure..not sure I agree w his premise on Russia,  though..  read on.. 

For starters, you have to understand,  .... and I'm sure you do, that Russia puts forward lots of propaganda,  even to the West.  Consider this statement from the article; 

It has been clear since April 2008 that Russian leaders across the board view the West’s efforts to bring Ukraine into NATO and make it a Western bulwark on Russia’s borders as an existential threat. Indeed, President Putin and his lieutenants repeatedly made this point in the months before the Russian invasion, when it was becoming clear to them that Ukraine was almost a de facto member of NATO.

Now for some perspective.... No NATO member has ever threatened or invaded Russia , ( and it's hard to imagine how that would change w Ukraine).  Russia's leaders know damn well that bringing Ukraine into NATO would not threaten its survival..  it's all a ruse !  IMHO, Russia's leaders don't believe what they are saying, but they convey it to the West as the reason to reject Ukraine's NATO membership....  So, why do they say it then ? 

Because Russia cannot afford to have  Ukraine  share values and economic ties w the West.  Russia can ill afford to have their little neighbor country be a beacon of hope to other former satellite republics.  So, Ukraine not only seeks NATO membership, but also wants greater economic ties to the EU.  Russia cannot allow either of these to happen under any circumstance.  

Now, Remember the overarching goal of Putin is to reunify the old Soviet empire.   They must invade to ruin any chance of their independence,  and bring them back to the heavy- handed rule of the Russian empire.  

@Rush51

 I have to agree with Wallstreet here. If Putin really wanted to invade Ukraine he wouldn't have openly massed troops on the border for over 10 months. He tried talking to Biden, he pled his case over and over. Zelensky publically mocked Putin on the invasion date, he wanted it to happen, IMO.

The way I see it an elected President was forced to flee the country from an angry mob. Nevermind an election was coming up. Ukraine had been arm wrestling for years whether to be pro West or pro Russian as both have their benefits. The pro-Russian citizens were left out in the cold, Putin stepped in.

Not saying I trust Russia. They were enriching their economy with energy sales to Europe. Things were going good for them until this war. Putin couldn't have wanted it. Was backed into a corner.

Therein lies the problem