Jump to content

Putin has attacked Poland?


Moontanman
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, StringJunky said:

As bad as he is, I think he needs to be corralled away from those options by not forcing him to make those choices. We aren't going to do what we did to Saddam and Gaddafi... look where that led. When it looks like he's irrevocably stuck we need to give him options to save some face. The ultimate  judgement and any punishment, whatever form that might take, needs to be by his own. We need to know when to stop being hawkish, I think.

Indeed, unfortunately I think that means we need to accept a partial annex of Ukraine (and by we I mean Ukraine). 

Which is a very fine balancing act, give Ukraine enough support/weapon's to repel his army, but not enough to enable them to encroach on what he considers Russian territory.

No wonder the diplomats make a good wage... 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, unfortunately I think that means we need to accept a partial annex of Ukraine (and by we I mean Ukraine). 

Which is a very fine balancing act, give Ukraine enough support/weapon's to repel his army, but not enough to enable them to encroach on what he considers Russian territory.

No wonder the diplomats make a good wage... 

 

So you favor appeasement? WW2 europe would be proud. 

 

23 hours ago, iNow said:

Here's where I'd focus my primary challenge of your point. Just because we're not sending in tanks, troops, and missiles doesn't equate to us mandating appeasement or that Russia get anything they want.

I'm also not advocating that enough is currently being done, but steps are being taken to choke them economically and make it painful for them to continue on this path. It's just that they're also being propped up by counter measures and funds from the Saudies, Iranians, and related others which blunt the pushes being made from the West. 

Appeasement started when the west allowed Putin to have Crimea.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

So you favor appeasement? WW2 europe would be proud. 

 

Appeasement started when the west allowed Putin to have Crimea.  

You have a very good point but appeasement is a very different animal in the era of mutually assured destruction.

 

Were it not for Ukraine's noble resistance from day one of this latest phase of Russia's aggression the West would have acquiesced in Russia's theft of nearly all if Ukraine. 

That would have been a policy I would have supported since the alternative was a possible nuclear exchange btw Russia and Nato.

 

Ukraine's resistance and self assertion  has reshuffled the cards  but Russia is still a nuclear power led by a madman and we still have to navigate dangerous waters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The madman is probably Aleksandr Dugin, whose book Foundations of Geopolitics had a powerful influence on Putin and Russian leadership generally.  If you read a summary, it makes clear that US/NATO ceding any sovereign territory to Putin is a bad path to get on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

The book expresses an ideology called Neo-Eurasianism.

 

The ideology of the Eurasianism was partially incorporated into a new Neo-Eurasianism movement after the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union. It considers Russia to be culturally closer to Asia than to Western Europe. This ideology was influenced by political theorist Aleksandr Dugin to publish in 1997 a magnum opus by the name of Foundations of Geopolitics. He later founded the Eurasia Party on the Russian political scene.[12]

Political scientist Anton Shekhovtsov defines Dugin's version of Neo-Eurasianism as "a form of a fascist ideology centred on the idea of revolutionising the Russian society and building a totalitarian, Russia-dominated Eurasian Empire that would challenge and eventually defeat its eternal adversary represented by the United States and its Atlanticist allies, thus bringing about a new ‘golden age’ of global political and cultural illiberalism".

 

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Appeasement started when the west allowed Putin to have Crimea.

In a sense.  Though maybe sleepy indifference would be a better term than appeasement.  I think maybe US and NATO lulled themselves into believing that giving Russia a seaport would pacify it and, hey, the Crimea peninsula was mostly ethnic Russians anyway so why fuss.  Not sure if there was much awareness that Crimea was a domino falling.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Moontanman said:

So you favor appeasement? WW2 europe would be proud. 

I think they would be very proud of reducing half of Germany/Europe, to a small part of Ukraine, without another world war.

20 hours ago, TheVat said:

In a sense.  Though maybe sleepy indifference would be a better term than appeasement.  I think maybe US and NATO lulled themselves into believing that giving Russia a seaport would pacify it and, hey, the Crimea peninsula was mostly ethnic Russians anyway so why fuss.  Not sure if there was much awareness that Crimea was a domino falling.  

Indeed, although I'm not sure what they could do, even if they were aware of the domino.

 

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's easy to say "keep fighting" when you're not the pawn being used in another's game of chess...

Who is saying "keep fighting"?

It is "keep supporting"

 

(Obviously a grey area but the idea that we are fighting to the last drop of Ukrainian blood is very misleading)

 

You have already told us you are a pacifist ...good luck with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, geordief said:

Who is saying "keep fighting"?

It is "keep supporting"

 

(Obviously a grey area but the idea that we are fighting to the last drop of Ukrainian blood is very misleading)

Indeed...

12 minutes ago, geordief said:

You have already told us you are a pacifist ...good luck with that.

What makes you think that a pacifist doesn't fight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed...

What makes you think that a pacifist doesn't fight?

It has always been my understanding(very likely ignorant or flawed)

.Do you want  to explain under what circumstances a "pacifist" might take up arms against an "enemy"?

 

Perhaps in another thread as I think pacifism ,at least as I have understood it is the last thing that Ukraine needs just now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole thing resolves down to do we allow Russia to continue its imperialistic designs or does the west decide to stand up to the not so subtle intentions of Russia to regain it's old imperial holdings? Russia is just as vulnerable to nukes as the west is, Russia has no more of a desire to see it's cities turned into radioactive rubble than the west does. The main difference is that west seems to think that allowing Russia to conquer the world it the only way to avoid the use of nukes. 

The first thing the west needs to do is take over the tiney holding of Russia left behind in Europe, if the people want to leave for russia so be it but allowing a hostile nation to have a foothold in the midst of Europe is intolerable. Russia must be expelled from Ukraine, Crimea included, if russia cannot act like a same nation then it must be isolated from the civilized nations of the world before our own maga chuds surrender our nations to Russia. NO I HAVEN'T HAD MY COFFEE YET!!! DAMN MACHINE IS BUSTED! 

Edited by Moontanman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teaspoon of grounds in mug, pour boiling water in, let sit a minute.  Grounds will settle, you can drink off most of it without fuss.

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

The first thing the west needs to do is take over the tiny holding of Russia left behind in Europe, if the people want to leave for russia so be it but allowing a hostile nation to have a foothold in the midst of Europe is intolerable

Kaliningrad is Russia's only ice free seaport on the Baltic.  And without Crimea it might be their only ice free seaport except for Vladivostok.  I'm all for containment, but that could verge on strangulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Teaspoon of grounds in mug, pour boiling water in, let sit a minute.  Grounds will settle, you can drink off most of it without fuss.

Kaliningrad is Russia's only ice free seaport on the Baltic.  And without Crimea it might be their only ice free seaport except for Vladivostok.  I'm all for containment, but that could verge on strangulation.

So much the better, threat of strangulation would show Russia they need to be a part of the world community, cooperation instead of domination of the world. 

Speaking of Nukes... this is just weird, not sure what is going on. Is it a real movement, or just government backed crazies to try and scare the west? 

 

Edited by Moontanman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2022 at 8:23 AM, dimreepr said:

Indeed, unfortunately I think that means we need to accept a partial annex of Ukraine (and by we I mean Ukraine). 

A partial annex this year so we can have peace.
In a couple of years V Putin tries again, and Ukraine lets him have another piece to keep the peace.
Then a couple of years later ...
( there is no Ukraine left and V Putin moves on to the next country )

I wonder if he would have tried this stunt if Ukraine and the West had stood up to him in 2014 when he annexed Crimea ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expansionism to Soviet levels is Putin's MO. We either let him or we don't. The choice seems to be binary, given that, evidently, any opportunity towards a compromise just gives him time to remaneuver. This why Zelenskyy is not interested in talking to him at this point in the conflict It would be militarily and politically foolish to  lose any hard earned gains to anything else, given that this conflict is going to be extremely difficult going forward in their winter, which apparently is brutal. Our next task will be helping the civilians and armed forces keep warm enough to endure the likely struggle ahead.  Russian conscript losses are going to be an order of magnitude more numerous. The support they have in the field is pitiful. This image of a new influx of conscripts says it all:

conscripts.thumb.PNG.b3d361c08f385f56f5dad280c3f2a3a4.PNG

 

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, MigL said:

A partial annex this year so we can have peace.
In a couple of years V Putin tries again, and Ukraine lets him have another piece to keep the peace.
Then a couple of years later ...
( there is no Ukraine left and V Putin moves on to the next country )

I wonder if he would have tried this stunt if Ukraine and the West had stood up to him in 2014 when he annexed Crimea ?

Who knows??? But it was the same question deliberated after WWII and we know where that lead; eventually everyone sees who the arsehole is...

11 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Expansionism to Soviet levels is Putin's MO. We either let him or we don't. The choice seems to be binary, given that, evidently, any opportunity towards a compromise just gives him time to remaneuver.

Politics is never a binary question, how can it be when so many people are involved?

11 hours ago, StringJunky said:

This why Zelenskyy is not interested in talking to him at this point in the conflict It would be militarily and politically foolish to  lose any hard earned gains to anything else

Indeed, but equally there must come a point when it's prudent for him to do so, that comes with every conflict; win or lose...

 

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2022 at 10:37 AM, Moontanman said:

Speaking of Nukes... this is just weird, not sure what is going on. Is it a real movement, or just government backed crazies to try and scare the west? 

Doubt it's anything but a cult overfed on propaganda.  They might be Millennarians who believe it's inevitable.  Somewhat akin to that doomsday cult Mike Pompeo and Pence are members of.   

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/mike-pence-mike-pompeo-belong-doomsday-cult-may-trying-bring-apocalypse/?mc_cid=d1d2f0da07&mc_eid=7bd263b041#.XD4aPp1NIMQ.reddit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The V.P. is waiting for the appearance of a weak Republican, conservative, pro-Russian, POTUS.. who will cut expenditures to Ukraine and/or Europe and/or NATO ("dissolve NATO").

So far, the victims are Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine #1, Syria, Ukraine #2..

The aim is - to merge Transnistria with Odessa, with Crimea and the Kherson region, Melitpol, Mariupol, and regions of eastern Ukraine with Russia..

So basically surround the rest of Ukraine with "Russian lands".. From which an attack on the rest will come in the next "wave"..

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

 

Indeed, but equally there must come a point when it's prudent for him to do so, that comes with every conflict; win or lose...

 

I think a lot depends on how Ukrainians hold up in the winter.  If infrastructure is destroyed to where many are freezing to death and Western aid can't get through, he may feel there is no moral choice other than negotiating.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, TheVat said:

They might be Millennarians who believe it's inevitable. 

If the probability of something occurring is 99%, why do you think it will be your preferred 1%?

If the probability of something occurring is 1%, why do you think it will be your preferred 99%?

 

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what that means.  Sorry - a minor language confusion.

In death cults, people believe they will die and are okay with it because they are rewarded in heaven or their souls are harvested by benevolent extraterrestrials or whatever.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Not sure what that means.  Sorry - a minor language confusion.

Are you referring to my post? (would be easier if you'd use @ Sensei )

It was math.

No language was used.

It was mathematics.

 

The things with non-zero probability happens. Sometimes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, TheVat said:

Doubt it's anything but a cult overfed on propaganda.  They might be Millennarians who believe it's inevitable.  Somewhat akin to that doomsday cult Mike Pompeo and Pence are members of.   

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/mike-pence-mike-pompeo-belong-doomsday-cult-may-trying-bring-apocalypse/?mc_cid=d1d2f0da07&mc_eid=7bd263b041#.XD4aPp1NIMQ.reddit

The idea of helping to bring about Armageddon runs deep in much of the fundie christian community. They are very scary people IMHO.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Moontanman said:

The idea of helping to bring about Armageddon runs deep in much of the fundie christian community. They are very scary people IMHO.   

What's really scary, is how easy it is to be made scared of a label 'fundie christian', 'musies', 'buddhist' et al; and the Armageddon we're persuaded to unleash on "THEM" to protect ourselves.

Which leads to another interesting question, why does a prepper, prepare? They're wealthy enough to store food, build extra shelter and spend so much time "training", that it seems illogical that they wouldn't actively seek the disaster they seek to avoid...

Quote

“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”― Frank Herbert, Dune

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2022 at 12:29 PM, dimreepr said:

What's really scary, is how easy it is to be made scared of a label 'fundie christian', 'musies', 'buddhist' et al; and the Armageddon we're persuaded to unleash on "THEM" to protect ourselves.

Which leads to another interesting question, why does a prepper, prepare? They're wealthy enough to store food, build extra shelter and spend so much time "training", that it seems illogical that they wouldn't actively seek the disaster they seek to avoid...

 

A neg seems inappropriate in this context:

Imagine Putin as a scared little boy, why wouldn't he think power trump's fear; my mate is bigger/biggest and stronger than you...

Every bully is a scared little boy; and every man knows, you can't douse a flame with fire...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Every bully is a scared little boy

Does it follow that Saddam was not a bully?

He met his end with more dignity than his executioners

 

Or can you be  a bully  and still  be physically brave?

 

Was he just deluded into thinking  those who did not share his allegiances   did not deserve respect?

Edited by geordief
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.