Is Russia about to invade Ukraine? (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

Russia continues to mass assets within range of Ukraine - though the official explanations are that they are for various exercises. United States intelligence has noted that Russian operatives in Ukraine could launch 'false flag' operations as a predicate to invasion. The West has pressed for negotiations and on Friday in Geneva, the US Sec. State Blinken will meet with the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.

Certainly the Russian movements evidence some plan - but what is it? Some analysts believe that Putin's grand scheme involves securing Western commitments that NATO would never expand beyond its current composition. Whether that means action in Ukraine or merely the movement of pieces on the chess board remains to be seen.

VIENNA — No one expected much progress from this past week’s diplomatic marathon to defuse the security crisis Russia has ignited in Eastern Europe by surrounding Ukraine on three sides with 100,000 troops and then, by the White House’s accounting, sending in saboteurs to create a pretext for invasion.

But as the Biden administration and NATO conduct tabletop simulations about how the next few months could unfold, they are increasingly wary of another set of options for President Vladimir V. Putin, steps that are more far-reaching than simply rolling his troops and armor over Ukraine’s border.

Mr. Putin wants to extend Russia’s sphere of influence to Eastern Europe and secure written commitments that NATO will never again enlarge. If he is frustrated in reaching that goal, some of his aides suggested on the sidelines of the negotiations last week, then he would pursue Russia’s security interests with results that would be felt acutely in Europe and the United States.

There were hints, never quite spelled out, that nuclear weapons could be shifted to places — perhaps not far from the United States coastline — that would reduce warning times after a launch to as little as five minutes, potentially igniting a confrontation with echoes of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

Russia Issues Subtle Threats More Far-Reaching Than a Ukraine Invasion

If the West fails to meet its security demands, Moscow could take measures like placing nuclear missiles close to the U.S. coastline, Russian officials have hinted.

www.nytimes.com

Blinken Will Meet With Russia as U.S. Pushes for More Diplomacy

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken will meet with Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov of Russia in Geneva on Friday as the United States warns that Russia could soon attack Ukraine.

www.nytimes.com

How to think about war in Ukraine

Start with the Ukrainians

snyder.substack.com

 

[SaintForLife]

Excellent article on Ukraine both then and now. I'm not sure why the hyperlinks on the last part or the article didn't post here. If you want to see those hyperlinks then click on the article:

After alternately ignoring and vilifying advocates for restraint in Ukraine, the foreign-policy establishment is coming around to … restraint. Over the past few months, American and European diplomats have been urging the Ukrainian government to sue for peace. “The conversations have included very broad outlines of what Ukraine might need to give up to reach a deal,” NBC News reported over the weekend, citing unnamed officials on both sides of the Atlantic. “The discussions are an acknowledgment of the dynamics militarily on the ground in Ukraine and politically in the US and Europe.”

Talk about the Cassandra effect.

For the better part of two years, opponents of escalation called for exactly such a course of action, only to be told that it is immoral, unrealistic, or both. Pro-diplomacy voices have consistently maintained that peace talks and some kind of negotiated settlement would be in the best interests of ordinary Ukrainians and their war-battered country, and that the US government should use its leverage to make that happen. They rolled out a litany of evidence to support the claim that, in the words of Canadian-Ukrainian University of Ottawa professor Ivan Katchanovski, “even a ‘bad’ peace is better than a ‘good’ war.”

Restrainers indicated that while Kiev is certainly justified in defending itself and trying to reclaim territory seized by Russia, the potential costs to Ukraine of a prolonged war would be much worse than the costs of losing territory. They pointed to the conflict’s staggering and unsustainable casualty figures for a country with a prewar population less than a third of Russia’s. They also tallied the profound economic costs of continued warfare, which saw Ukraine’s GDP shrink by 30 percent in just the first year; the country survived on the back of international grants and loans that left it deeper in debt and increasingly at the mercy of its neoliberal creditors.

...For their efforts, pro-peace and pro-restraint voices were viciously attacked. They were slammed with scurrilous accusations of carrying water for the Kremlin, smeared as propagandists and traitors, charged with secretly supporting Putin’s war, and labeled appeasers no better than Neville Chamberlain in “rewarding” a Hitler-like aggressor. Just recall the hailstorm of invective that rained down upon the group of House progressives who last October issued what one congressional aide accurately called “the world’s softest trial balloon about diplomacy.” “Ukraine will win,” was the incessantly repeated cry justifying this disgraceful behavior, as escalation proponents looked forward to a counteroffensive they were sure would justify this industrial-scale suffering.

Well, it’s now five months since the Ukrainians launched their counteroffensive, and what has been the result? In short, it’s been an unmitigated failure: From Jan. 1 to the end of September, Ukrainian forces had only taken 143 square miles, at the cost of around 50,000 lives, according to US estimates, with Kiev resorting to conscripting older cohorts of men in the face of a dwindling pool of healthy recruits. Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, the commander of Ukraine’s armed forces, recently admitted the war is a “stalemate.” Advisers around Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky are anonymously calling him delusional and convinced of a victory that is simply impossible.

...In other words, just as pro-peace voices had warned, Ukraine is now looking at the worst of both worlds: accepting a far inferior peace deal, while having weathered the tremendous human and economic costs of a prolonged conflict. Most perversely, Kiev has been put into this position by those who postured as its most ardent supporters, the hawks who thought of the war as a way of humiliating Russia on the cheap.

Fact is, this war could have been brought to a close at several points earlier, and on identical or more favorable terms for Ukraine. There is now a mountain of corroborating evidence from those involved that peace talks in the earliest weeks of the war were bearing fruit, and that there was a tentative agreement for Russia to withdraw to its pre-February 2022 lines in exchange for Ukraine staying out of NATO. Washington and London scuttled such settlements in favor of a longer conflict that would be more damaging to Russia. Pro-war voices later pointed to the Bucha massacre to explain why these talks fell through, but both Zelensky and Ukrainian public opinion continued to favor negotiations after this atrocity was uncovered.

Zelensky himself was ignored throughout the middle of last year, when he repeatedly and publicly called for talks, and when there were ample signs that Moscow was open to them. Then, after the successful Ukrainian counteroffensive in September 2022—which saw a humiliating Russian retreat and the Ukrainian reconquest of more than 1,000 square miles of territory in six days—this stance changed. Kiev now rejected the Russian offers to negotiate and instead expanded its ambitions. The same Biden administration that had spent a year undercutting Zelensky’s attempts at negotiation now took up the mantle of “Nothing About Ukraine Without Ukraine” and fully backed Zelensky’s hawkish approach.

But it was only after this September decision that Moscow began attacking and destroying Ukrainian infrastructure, Ukraine started losing a reported three-digit number of troops every day in the Bakhmut disaster, and the destruction of the Kakhovka dam caused devastating damage to surrounding areas and Ukraine’s agricultural future. This isn’t even to mention tens of thousands of Ukrainian casualties, nor the fact that, by October, Russia had actually made a net gain of nearly 200 square miles since the start of the year. These disasters could have been entirely avoided had negotiations been supported last year—or at least mitigated, had the Biden administration followed up on Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley’s November call for Ukraine to “seize the moment” and pursue talks.

Instead, both the Biden administration and much of the US media establishment loudly rejected Milley’s plea in favor of maximalist aims on the battlefield. There is no denying that this blinkered mentality has now yielded precisely the disastrous state of affairs warned about. Only months later, with the Ukrainian offensive having gone nowhere, did a US official anonymously (and very quietly) admit to Politico that “Milley had a point.”

A Bitter Vindication for Ukraine Doves

After alternately ignoring and vilifying advocates for restraint in Ukraine, the foreign-policy establishment is coming around to … restraint. Over the past few months, American and European diplomats have been urging the Ukrainian government to sue for peace. “The conversations have included...

compactmag.com

 

[bird]

Excellent article on Ukraine both then and now. I'm not sure why the hyperlinks on the last part or the article didn't post here. If you want to see those hyperlinks then click on the article:

After alternately ignoring and vilifying advocates for restraint in Ukraine, the foreign-policy establishment is coming around to … restraint. Over the past few months, American and European diplomats have been urging the Ukrainian government to sue for peace. “The conversations have included very broad outlines of what Ukraine might need to give up to reach a deal,” NBC News reported over the weekend, citing unnamed officials on both sides of the Atlantic. “The discussions are an acknowledgment of the dynamics militarily on the ground in Ukraine and politically in the US and Europe.”

Talk about the Cassandra effect.

For the better part of two years, opponents of escalation called for exactly such a course of action, only to be told that it is immoral, unrealistic, or both. Pro-diplomacy voices have consistently maintained that peace talks and some kind of negotiated settlement would be in the best interests of ordinary Ukrainians and their war-battered country, and that the US government should use its leverage to make that happen. They rolled out a litany of evidence to support the claim that, in the words of Canadian-Ukrainian University of Ottawa professor Ivan Katchanovski, “even a ‘bad’ peace is better than a ‘good’ war.”

Restrainers indicated that while Kiev is certainly justified in defending itself and trying to reclaim territory seized by Russia, the potential costs to Ukraine of a prolonged war would be much worse than the costs of losing territory. They pointed to the conflict’s staggering and unsustainable casualty figures for a country with a prewar population less than a third of Russia’s. They also tallied the profound economic costs of continued warfare, which saw Ukraine’s GDP shrink by 30 percent in just the first year; the country survived on the back of international grants and loans that left it deeper in debt and increasingly at the mercy of its neoliberal creditors.

...For their efforts, pro-peace and pro-restraint voices were viciously attacked. They were slammed with scurrilous accusations of carrying water for the Kremlin, smeared as propagandists and traitors, charged with secretly supporting Putin’s war, and labeled appeasers no better than Neville Chamberlain in “rewarding” a Hitler-like aggressor. Just recall the hailstorm of invective that rained down upon the group of House progressives who last October issued what one congressional aide accurately called “the world’s softest trial balloon about diplomacy.” “Ukraine will win,” was the incessantly repeated cry justifying this disgraceful behavior, as escalation proponents looked forward to a counteroffensive they were sure would justify this industrial-scale suffering.

Well, it’s now five months since the Ukrainians launched their counteroffensive, and what has been the result? In short, it’s been an unmitigated failure: From Jan. 1 to the end of September, Ukrainian forces had only taken 143 square miles, at the cost of around 50,000 lives, according to US estimates, with Kiev resorting to conscripting older cohorts of men in the face of a dwindling pool of healthy recruits. Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, the commander of Ukraine’s armed forces, recently admitted the war is a “stalemate.” Advisers around Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky are anonymously calling him delusional and convinced of a victory that is simply impossible.

...In other words, just as pro-peace voices had warned, Ukraine is now looking at the worst of both worlds: accepting a far inferior peace deal, while having weathered the tremendous human and economic costs of a prolonged conflict. Most perversely, Kiev has been put into this position by those who postured as its most ardent supporters, the hawks who thought of the war as a way of humiliating Russia on the cheap.

Fact is, this war could have been brought to a close at several points earlier, and on identical or more favorable terms for Ukraine. There is now a mountain of corroborating evidence from those involved that peace talks in the earliest weeks of the war were bearing fruit, and that there was a tentative agreement for Russia to withdraw to its pre-February 2022 lines in exchange for Ukraine staying out of NATO. Washington and London scuttled such settlements in favor of a longer conflict that would be more damaging to Russia. Pro-war voices later pointed to the Bucha massacre to explain why these talks fell through, but both Zelensky and Ukrainian public opinion continued to favor negotiations after this atrocity was uncovered.

Zelensky himself was ignored throughout the middle of last year, when he repeatedly and publicly called for talks, and when there were ample signs that Moscow was open to them. Then, after the successful Ukrainian counteroffensive in September 2022—which saw a humiliating Russian retreat and the Ukrainian reconquest of more than 1,000 square miles of territory in six days—this stance changed. Kiev now rejected the Russian offers to negotiate and instead expanded its ambitions. The same Biden administration that had spent a year undercutting Zelensky’s attempts at negotiation now took up the mantle of “Nothing About Ukraine Without Ukraine” and fully backed Zelensky’s hawkish approach.

But it was only after this September decision that Moscow began attacking and destroying Ukrainian infrastructure, Ukraine started losing a reported three-digit number of troops every day in the Bakhmut disaster, and the destruction of the Kakhovka dam caused devastating damage to surrounding areas and Ukraine’s agricultural future. This isn’t even to mention tens of thousands of Ukrainian casualties, nor the fact that, by October, Russia had actually made a net gain of nearly 200 square miles since the start of the year. These disasters could have been entirely avoided had negotiations been supported last year—or at least mitigated, had the Biden administration followed up on Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley’s November call for Ukraine to “seize the moment” and pursue talks.

Instead, both the Biden administration and much of the US media establishment loudly rejected Milley’s plea in favor of maximalist aims on the battlefield. There is no denying that this blinkered mentality has now yielded precisely the disastrous state of affairs warned about. Only months later, with the Ukrainian offensive having gone nowhere, did a US official anonymously (and very quietly) admit to Politico that “Milley had a point.”

A Bitter Vindication for Ukraine Doves

After alternately ignoring and vilifying advocates for restraint in Ukraine, the foreign-policy establishment is coming around to … restraint. Over the past few months, American and European diplomats have been urging the Ukrainian government to sue for peace. “The conversations have included...

compactmag.com

First, the Obama administration did not overthrow the Ukrainian government.

Now, regarding the offensive please look at the Russian failure when they were on the offensive. They invaded a sovereign nation to assuage Putin’s longing for a Russian empire like the USSR. They eventually encountered resistance which resulted in their military being bogged down. Apparently Putin learned little from the USSR’s misadventures in Afganistan. Ukraine started its counter-offensive which has run into much of the same problems that Russia did. Entrenched defensive positions are difficult to overcome.

Finally, regarding peace or ceasefire, please layout an argument as to why Russia should be allowed to keep any land which they have taken.

 

[DaveXA]

Maps showing Ukraine advances. This is from ISW.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

How long do you think we should continue to fund the Ukraine War if they aren't making any progress as it has been the case the last 6 months or so?

I think people should stand up to bullies until the bully is defeated. The alternative is to let the bully continue to take until you have nothing left,

Demanding promises? You asked me what the parameters of a ceasefire should be.

And you responded with "What if Russia offered a ceasefire if Ukraine committed to not join NATO?" You are the one who brought up Russia demanding a promise (in this case, to not join NATO).

Russia is responsible for invading Ukraine, but let's not leave out how the US pushed for the coup in 2014 and have been using Ukraine in a proxy war with Russia since 2014.

Does any of this give Russia the right to invade a sovereign nation?

 

[SaintForLife]

Maps showing Ukraine advances. This is from ISW.

Maps from who?

Well, it’s now five months since the Ukrainians launched their counteroffensive, and what has been the result? In short, it’s been an unmitigated failure: From Jan. 1 to the end of September, Ukrainian forces had only taken 143 square miles, at the cost of around 50,000 lives, according to US estimates, with Kiev resorting to conscripting older cohorts of men in the face of a dwindling pool of healthy recruits. Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, the commander of Ukraine’s armed forces, recently admitted the war is a “stalemate.” Advisers around Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky are anonymously calling him delusional and convinced of a victory that is simply impossible.

A Bitter Vindication for Ukraine Doves

After alternately ignoring and vilifying advocates for restraint in Ukraine, the foreign-policy establishment is coming around to … restraint. Over the past few months, American and European diplomats have been urging the Ukrainian government to sue for peace. “The conversations have included...

compactmag.com

The Ukrainian General says there is a stalemate and negotiations have been ongoing recently for a ceasefire, but continue posting things that act like the war is going fine if you want.

 

[SaintForLife]

I think people should stand up to bullies until the bully is defeated. The alternative is to let the bully continue to take until you have nothing left,

Despite little to no progress in the last 6 month to a year & the Ukrainian commander saying the war is at a stalemate you still think the US commitment to funding the Ukraine war should be unlimited?

And you responded with "What if Russia offered a ceasefire if Ukraine committed to not join NATO?" You are the one who brought up Russia demanding a promise (in this case, to not join NATO).

There is now a mountain of corroborating evidence from those involved that peace talks in the earliest weeks of the war were bearing fruit, and that there was a tentative agreement for Russia to withdraw to its pre-February 2022 lines in exchange for Ukraine staying out of NATO. Washington and London scuttled such settlements in favor of a longer conflict that would be more damaging to Russia. Pro-war voices later pointed to the Bucha massacre to explain why these talks fell through, but both Zelensky and Ukrainian public opinion continued to favor negotiations after this atrocity was uncovered.

A Bitter Vindication for Ukraine Doves

After alternately ignoring and vilifying advocates for restraint in Ukraine, the foreign-policy establishment is coming around to … restraint. Over the past few months, American and European diplomats have been urging the Ukrainian government to sue for peace. “The conversations have included...

compactmag.com

I'm posting the links from that paragraph because the hyperlinks arent showing:

The Grinding War in Ukraine Could Have Ended a Long Time Ago

An early peace deal could have ended the bloody war in Ukraine. But NATO opposition and revelations about the Russian massacre of civilians at Bucha, along with US media that all but ignored potential routes to peace, dashed those hopes.

jacobin.com

The Mounting Evidence That the US Blocked Peace in Ukraine - Antiwar.com

On June 13, 2023, taking questions from war correspondents at the Kremlin, Putin confirmed what had already been reported: that Russia and Ukraine had - Ted Snider for Antiwar.com

original.antiwar.com

Former German leader Schroeder divulges more on Russia-Ukraine peace deal that seemed within reach

Former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is the latest figure to confirm that a Russia-Ukraine peace deal was nearly reached in the spring of 2022. ...

www.bne.eu

Ukraine's Zelenskiy Says 'No Other Choice' Than To Talk To Russia, As Bucha Anger Rises

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy says there is "no other choice" than to negotiate an end to the war with Russia, even if it's difficult to do amid signs that Russian forces may have committed atrocities against civilians.

www.rferl.org

Does any of this give Russia the right to invade a sovereign nation?

How many times will you ask that question? Do expect to get a different answer from me? As I've said before, Russia bears the legal and moral responsibility for invading Ukraine, but let's not ignore the US role through its pushing the coup in 2014 and the proxy war since then.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Despite little to no progress in the last 6 month to a year & the Ukrainian commander saying the war is at a stalemate you still think the US commitment to funding the Ukraine war should be unlimited?

I believe that we should be committed to helping Ukraine in any way that we can to stand up to Russia and expel the invaders.

There is now a mountain of corroborating evidence from those involved that peace talks in the earliest weeks of the war were bearing fruit, and that there was a tentative agreement for Russia to withdraw to its pre-February 2022 lines in exchange for Ukraine staying out of NATO. Washington and London scuttled such settlements in favor of a longer conflict that would be more damaging to Russia. Pro-war voices later pointed to the Bucha massacre to explain why these talks fell through, but both Zelensky and Ukrainian public opinion continued to favor negotiations after this atrocity was uncovered.

A Bitter Vindication for Ukraine Doves

After alternately ignoring and vilifying advocates for restraint in Ukraine, the foreign-policy establishment is coming around to … restraint. Over the past few months, American and European diplomats have been urging the Ukrainian government to sue for peace. “The conversations have included...

compactmag.com

I'm posting the links from that paragraph because the hyperlinks arent showing:

The Grinding War in Ukraine Could Have Ended a Long Time Ago

An early peace deal could have ended the bloody war in Ukraine. But NATO opposition and revelations about the Russian massacre of civilians at Bucha, along with US media that all but ignored potential routes to peace, dashed those hopes.

jacobin.com

The Mounting Evidence That the US Blocked Peace in Ukraine - Antiwar.com

On June 13, 2023, taking questions from war correspondents at the Kremlin, Putin confirmed what had already been reported: that Russia and Ukraine had - Ted Snider for Antiwar.com

original.antiwar.com

Former German leader Schroeder divulges more on Russia-Ukraine peace deal that seemed within reach

Former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is the latest figure to confirm that a Russia-Ukraine peace deal was nearly reached in the spring of 2022. ...

www.bne.eu

Ukraine's Zelenskiy Says 'No Other Choice' Than To Talk To Russia, As Bucha Anger Rises

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy says there is "no other choice" than to negotiate an end to the war with Russia, even if it's difficult to do amid signs that Russian forces may have committed atrocities against civilians.

www.rferl.org

None of this has anything to do with what I said.

How many times will you ask that question? Do expect to get a different answer from me? As I've said before, Russia bears the legal and moral responsibility for invading Ukraine, but let's not ignore the US role through its pushing the coup in 2014 and the proxy war since then.

Why do you feel the need to qualify this answer? Why do you attempt to justify Russia's illegal invasion?

 

[SaintForLife]

I believe that we should be committed to helping Ukraine in any way that we can to stand up to Russia and expel the invaders.

Another vague non answer to me asking you specifically if the US funding the Ukraine war should be unlimited eventhough there's been little to no progress in the last year?

Do you agree there has been little to no progress in the war in the last year or do you think the war is going fine for Ukraine as others here think is the case?

None of this has anything to do with what I said.

It's doesn't have anything to do with what you said? We were discussing possible parameters of a ceasefire which included Ukraine not joining NATO. I posted multiple articles that showed that there was a tentative agreement of a ceasefire that included Russia retreating to where it was before 2022 and Ukraine not joining NATO.

The US and the UK made sure that didn't happen because they wanted a longer war with Russa.

Please explain to be how that isnt related to what you said.

Do you agree with the US and UK making sure the ceasefire didn't happen at the beginning of the war?

Why do you feel the need to qualify this answer? Why do you attempt to justify Russia's illegal invasion?

I'm remembering why our discussions only go so far. I'm not justifying Russia invasion. You want a discussion that only includes Russia's actions vs Ukraine, but you don't want any discussion on the US role in the 2014 coup, the US being involved installing Ukraine's new leader and the proxy war with Russia through Ukraine. In your eyes it seems that any mention of the US involvement means I'm justifying the Russian invasion. I'm not. I'm simply stating facts that you don't want to discuss.

 

[bdb13]

I have complicated thoughts on it.. I would say that I certainly believe in theory that Russia has no rights to the land they've taken from Ukraine in any sort of "peace" agreement that may be reached. I view the land as illegally taken from Ukraine by Russia and in my perfect world Ukraine is able to take back all of it and fully push Russia out.

But also in dealing with it in reality it seems that the actual progression of taking back land has mostly stalled and.. while I'm not saying I know for sure that we're to this stage of it just yet.. at what point does the situation need to be reassessed based upon that seeming reality and the connected realization that continuing to fund this war in the way we have been is only producing negligible gains at this point?

If there are real reasons to believe that breakthroughs are on the horizon, then OK.. but if that's not the case - which seems to be the situation based upon what that Ukrainian general or whoever recently said - I think we're probably getting to about the point here where things need to be reevaluated.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Despite little to no progress in the last 6 month to a year & the Ukrainian commander saying the war is at a stalemate you still think the US commitment to funding the Ukraine war should be unlimited?

Yes, we should continue to support Ukraine for however long it takes. Hopefully Putin dies soon and who ever takes over uses him as a scapegoat and ends the war.
NOTHING good will come from Russia winning in Ukraine.

 

[bdb13]

Yes, we should continue to support Ukraine for however long it takes. Hopefully Putin dies soon and who ever takes over uses him as a scapegoat and ends the war.
NOTHING good will come from Russia winning in Ukraine.

Whoever takes over for Putin is not going to give land back that Russia currently controls imo - I just don't see that as any sort of a realistic scenario.. if it becomes apparent that Ukraine simply cannot make any more progress, we still just keep funding it as a forever war? That does not make logical sense to me even as someone who is extraordinarily sympathetic to Ukraine and the Ukrainians and as someone who has fully supported what we're doing over there.

 

[efil4]

I believe that we should be committed to helping Ukraine in any way that we can to stand up to Russia and expel the invaders.



None of this has anything to do with what I said.



Why do you feel the need to qualify this answer? Why do you attempt to justify Russia's illegal invasion?

Do yourself a favor- disengage.

A quick google search of the author, combined with just a few clicks of the hyperlinks in his opinion piece will take you to a place of understanding the angle from which his opinion is formed

I did that earlier and was happy that no one took the bait- just came back to see you embroiled in a circular debate.


Here is one he posted

The Mounting Evidence That the US Blocked Peace in Ukraine - Antiwar.com

On June 13, 2023, taking questions from war correspondents at the Kremlin, Putin confirmed what had already been reported: that Russia and Ukraine had - Ted Snider for Antiwar.com

original.antiwar.com

The first 3 lines tell you WHERE they got their info from to compose this opinion piece.

Putin- the guy who NEVER lies. lololol

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Whoever takes over for Putin is not going to give land back that Russia currently controls imo - I just don't see that as any sort of a realistic scenario.. if it becomes apparent that Ukraine simply cannot make any more progress, we still just keep funding it as a forever war? That does not make logical sense to me even as someone who is extraordinarily sympathetic to Ukraine and the Ukrainians and as someone who has fully supported what we're doing over there.

you do realize as soon as Ukraine backs off, Russia will try to advance again. So yes, how ever long it takes. Like i said the is NOT ONE POSITIVE THING will come from Russia taking control of Ukraine. Unless you are delusional and think Russia only attacked in self defense...
Do you honestly believe that if Ukrain said "ok, you can have what you have taken" Russia is just gonna stop there? We have been funding in the middle east for many many years. why should this be any different? Do you think we should stop funding Isreal also? we have been funding them for quite sometime for basically the same purpose.

 

[efil4]

Why do you feel the need to qualify this answer? Why do you attempt to justify Russia's illegal invasion?

but you don't want any discussion on the US role in the 2014 coup, the US being involved installing Ukraine's new leader and the proxy war with Russia through Ukraine.

Like i said @cuddlemonkey

you are wasting your time- He isnt interested in truth. He is interested in pushing an agenda.

Is there any evidence that the US interfered in, or contributed to, the events which resulted 2014 Ukranian President's loss of power?

In 2014, the then Ukrainian president Yanukovitch absconded the country, and de facto (although not de jure) abdicated power after the protests against him turned violent. A certain phone call, pre...

politics.stackexchange.com

Is there any evidence that the US interfered in, or contributed to, the events which resulted 2014 Ukranian President's loss of power?

In 2014, the then Ukrainian president Yanukovitch absconded the country, and de facto (although not de jure) abdicated power after the protests against him turned violent. A certain phone call, pre...

politics.stackexchange.com

When America supports a sovereign nation who is moving toward a democracy rather than an autocracy, some folks get scared and immediately look to label the US as "war mongerers" or "instigators" - Whereas they completely ignore the fact that had the authoritarians just simply let them evolve into a democratic nation, we wouldnt even be at this point. But authoritarians arent going to let that happen.

Their biggest fear? Losing power.

 

[UriUT]

Putin’s New Story About the War in Ukraine

How Russian propaganda went from “denazification” to fighting the West.

www.foreignaffairs.com

this should be a free article.

In the beginning, Russian President Vladimir Putin explained to the Russian public and the world that he considered an invasion of Ukraine justified because there was a need to “denazify” the country. Putin claimed that a Nazi junta had seized power in Kyiv and was terrorizing the people, especially those who spoke Russian. To rescue Ukraine, Putin argued, Russian troops had once again been dispatched to save the world from Nazis.

But it soon became clear that the Russian public wasn’t buying this message.
[...]
After this scandal, the Kremlin conducted a special study that revealed that the majority of Russians neither understood the term “denazification” nor believed that it applied to Ukraine. The study revealed that post-Soviet society is very pragmatic, if not cynical. The Russian public does not trust that Putin is going to save anyone, including Ukrainians. Propagandists soon stopped using the word “denazification.” By the fall of 2022, Solovyov was no longer posting his daily slogan.

Rather than fighting only the Ukrainians, Russia recast the conflict as a proxy war with NATO and the United States. Russia also stopped talking about rescuing Ukrainians from fascists. The tone of the propaganda hardened: Ukrainians were now traitors who therefore deserved punishment, not compassion.

So after the military failures, Russian propaganda moved from "denazification" to a "proxy" war with NATO and the US.

Today, the message being spread by Russian propagandists is that any superpower has the right to violence.

There's a bit more in the article about anticolonialism, which is a major talking point from Russia. Also a bit about the propaganda that 2014 was a "military coup" :/

As the message has changed, so has the audience. Putin is no longer speaking only to his people, trying to justify an ill-conceived war. Today, he is competing with the West for allies across the developing world, where his allegations of Western hypocrisy are resonating. And in recent weeks, Putin has found new material to exploit: the United States’ unconditional support for Israel in its war in the Gaza Strip.

 

[bdb13]

you do realize as soon as Ukraine backs off, Russia will try to advance again. So yes, how ever long it takes. Like i said the is NOT ONE POSITIVE THING will come from Russia taking control of Ukraine. Unless you are delusional and think Russia only attacked in self defense...
Do you honestly believe that if Ukrain said "ok, you can have what you have taken" Russia is just gonna stop there? We have been funding in the middle east for many many years. why should this be any different? Do you think we should stop funding Isreal also? we have been funding them for quite sometime for basically the same purpose.

I'm not delusional and absolutely do not believe Russia attacked in self-defense. The NATO crap is a bullshirt excuse for their naked aggression and Ukraine is fully within its right to defend its territory and attempt to regain what's been lost to Russia.

I was thinking about it and.. I'm really just thinking (typing) out loud here.. but perhaps a shift from offensive funding of Ukraine to defensive funding (yes I realize this was basically happening prior to Russia launching the war - and perhaps the argument is that what's occurring now is largely defensive funding) with a purpose of maintaining what Ukraine does currently possess may be necessary if it becomes clear that the Ukrainian effort in regaining territory is a lost cause. That latter part there is just the thing for me.. I don't see the point in funding a clear lost cause.

And yes, I am under no illusion that Russia will not try this again or.. whatever. Putin is a piece of shirt whose ultimate goal would be to piece back together the USSR as much as possible imo.

 

[efil4]

Putin’s New Story About the War in Ukraine

How Russian propaganda went from “denazification” to fighting the West.

www.foreignaffairs.com

this should be a free article.





So after the military failures, Russian propaganda moved from "denazification" to a "proxy" war with NATO and the US.



There's a bit more in the article about anticolonialism, which is a major talking point from Russia. Also a bit about the propaganda that 2014 was a "military coup" :/

Wait til the Cyprus Confidential papers are fully leaked - and Russian PAID influencers are named. So far, German author and Pro Kremlin - Huber Seipel.

Whats funny? Wikileaks/Assange are "radio silent" on this one. Huh.


just the tip of the iceberg of Russian paid influence for YEARS:

Cyprus Confidential: Three bombshells from Russian dark money data leak

The documents shed light on the role of the tiny Mediterranean island in helping President Vladimir Putin's inner circle access and move their fortunes.

www.newsweek.com

 

[bdb13]

you do realize as soon as Ukraine backs off, Russia will try to advance again. So yes, how ever long it takes. Like i said the is NOT ONE POSITIVE THING will come from Russia taking control of Ukraine. Unless you are delusional and think Russia only attacked in self defense...
Do you honestly believe that if Ukrain said "ok, you can have what you have taken" Russia is just gonna stop there? We have been funding in the middle east for many many years. why should this be any different? Do you think we should stop funding Isreal also? we have been funding them for quite sometime for basically the same purpose.

And no I would not argue to stop funding Israel and I'm not making the argument to stop funding Ukraine. I'm largely just saying that if the efforts to regain territory are indeed largely a lost cause (again, I'm not saying I know that we're there yet - just talking this out) then at that point imo there probably needs to be a shift in strategy.