That's your take on the Maidan square protests? I haven't heard this take before, that the makeup of the police force used to oppose violent insurrectionists was the reason for overthrowing the government.

What actually happened wasn't heavily reported because it's harmful to the propaganda narrative. Nonetheless it isn't like the truth is hidden. The facts were reported before the cold war machine was reving hot on russiagate so you can look in the archives of any major newspaper and get the rough outline. What really happened was radical nationalists Ukrainians whose aim was to overthrow the democratically elected government were given financial, diplomatic, and tactical support from the U.S. to do so. This happened even though those Ukrainians involved in the more violent and organized aspects were, if not explicit neo nazis, something more than neo nazis adjacent, certainly ethno-fascists. Do you need citations here? Do you want me to dig up who McCain and other U.S. officials met with? Do I have to link to the infamous Nuland phone call to establish this? I think we both know it's true. I wonder why you don't think it is relevant.

The election of Yanukovich was judged as fee and fair by international observers. If you are for violently overthrowing democratic governments because you disagree with their economic policy that would make you some kind of authoritarian fascist, would it not?


Ukraine repeatedly broke the Minsk agreement, an agreement which was revealed by Merkel recently to have been nothing to a ruse to buy time to arm and train Ukraine in preparation for war with Russia. NATO has been training Ukrainian fighters intensely since 2014. Russia has done everything to avoid this conflict because, as several think tanks have pointed out as they justify the aims of the security state, a war with Ukraine will see Russia "unbalanced" and "destabilized". Russia has said it has no plans to occupy Ukraine, that it just wants to demilitarize it and de nazify it. Their deployed forces are not large enough for an occupation. We have been yanking hard on every lever we can to make this happen. I don't understand how anyone cannot see that.


It is certainly a puppet regime but I think we are already seeing signs of blowback. The extremist nationalists we employed to execute our plan are looking now like the proverbial golem which slowly becomes uncontrollable and a danger to it's handler. At this point they wouldn't let him do anything other than fight Russia to the end. They paid their blood price for a seat at the table and they are not leaving until Russians come and drag them off like they did those other Nazis some decades ago. We've gone down this road many times. If you can't see the similarities between AQ and Azov then you really don't need to be hurting you head over these matters.

You're analysis, or story telling, does not make use of what any rational person would see as the relevant facts. You leave so many things out. A good account will make use of the facts, not act like they don't exist. There are plenty of people out there, of many different political persuasions and levels of pro or anti establishment credentials, who share my point of view. If there is any bias in that group it is that they actually know something about Russia other than just that Putin is the boogy man. If you don't like a conservative like University of Chicago prof. John Mearsheimer, how about a centrist type of guy like Stephen Cohen, now deceased (2020) but formerly a prof at Princeton and NYU, contributor at The Nation. His book War with Russia? is the basis of my knowledge on the subject. I'm no expert on Eastern European politics or Russia, but if you study U.S. foreign policy you start to see some pretty stark and reliable patterns emerge.

My experts are far more credentialed and esteemed than yours, and you are taking the propaganda line at face value. But it doesn't need to be about credentials or who is saying something. Just explain the Victoria Nuland call in your analysis. That's all. She said, in her leaked conversation with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, "Yats is the guy" to replace Yanukovich. And then, wouldn't you know it, Yats was in after Yanukovich's term, to which he was democratically elected, was terminated by violence. Was she just idly talking? What do you think the higher ups at state do, just sit around chatting, irrelevantly and without agency, about what is going to happen? And then there are like 50 other relevant facts I would love to see you incorporate into your explanation.

I was hoping you wouldn't throw that in my face. I kinda avoided the forums for awhile after that. It's the first time I've really been wrong about anything I've posted here that I know of.

Me and Zelensky were wrong on that prediction that Russia wouldn't invade. I thought it would be so stupid of them to do so, but it's not like I know everything they know. I don't know the tactical risks posed by NATO weapons installations in Ukraine and I don't know what kind of counter moves Russia might have in store. Under normal assumptions it was a stupid move, but what if the hidden game here has something to do with a NATO weapons system which can serve as a first strike option if it can get close enough?

To be clear I don't think Russia was justified to invade simply because they are fighting an anti-democratic ethno fascist government. I just think every country has a reasonable right to security and that NATO capture of Ukraine does constitute a legitimate security threat to Russia given the NATO/U.S. history of aggression, alongside what appears to be a cold war initiation on other fronts. You've got Kamala Harris attributing Colin Kaepernick's kneeling at the Anthem to Russia. U.S. officials are insane, fresh off making up reasons to kill a million Iraqis and waring with Afghanistan for 20 years, moving bombs right next door. I wouldn't tolerate that if I were in Russia's position. No country would. We wouldn't tolerate Russian weapons stationed in Mexico.

I do stand by that you are just repeating propaganda. The propaganda will be accurate from time to time. But it's still true that you would be in here, talking about how the permafrost in Russia melted to reveal alien blueprints on how to produce an army of Ivan Drago clones not for boxing but for writing agitprop on Twitter, if Rachel Maddow told you it was so.

You must have missed that spate of articles showing a large percentage of the weapons are unaccounted for with many ending up on the dark web. Ukraine is one the most corrupt counties in Europe (or maybe the most?), so corrupt that it was privately told it's not ever getting into NATO proper.

I doubt this shrinkage is seen as a problem to the security state. It only increases demand, so you and I get to shell out even more money for war. And when the weapons end up in the hands of some terrorists we don't like at some moment in time then, hey, mo money mo money mo money as we then have to fight them and buy even more weapons to do so.

No, the principal obstacle to Ukraine's NATO membership (and this is quite public) is that it has disputed borders. Under the treaty, NATO members can't have disputed borders. Otherwise it is not clear when a border violation has occurred. In Ukraine's case, the Russian invasion has gone beyond the disputed areas, but the rule remains and the idea of Ukraine joining NATO is a Russian propaganda fiction. Ukraine could only join if the treaty were amended, and that won't happen and has not even been proposed.

We can all agree Ukraine was not likely to join NATO officially. But if NATO is training their army "up to NATO standards" and equipping them, then what's the difference from a security standpoint? It would seem like not being an official member is actually beneficial to starting a war because the war can be contained without an article 5 invocation and therefore poses a smaller risk to NATO.

I'm kinda disappointed to see you take the positions you have here because you seem like one of the smarter posters here. But I know a lot of smart people who want nothing more than to shovel advanced weaponry to the corrupt, ethno fascists in Ukraine. It feels like mass insanity has taken hold and even as the truth of things comes out (like noticing how racist the Ukraine immigrants are in their new host countries) slowly it's like nobody can back down and say they were wrong. We all know the Twain quote about it being easier to dupe a man than to convince him he has been duped. We all know that quote and understand it but we can't apply that wisdom because, I'm guessing, we think it will shatter our ego or something. Or people don't want to be in the minority opinion in these times especially.

Could you respond to my other reply to you where I analogize the situation to Russia being involved with a violent overthrow of a Mexican government and proceeding to host weapons there? What am I missing? Unlike 99% of people I am open to the possibility that I am missing something so if you have any effective rebuttal I'd be very interested.

Oh, I'm quite sure the country is corrupt and that the weapons are going there in a leaky bucket.
I was replying to someone who implied that the US was sending the weapons for the purpose of supporting neo-nazis, which I think is ridiculous.

In response to one of your earlier posts, could you elaborate on how "Russia has done everything to avoid this conflict"?

Firstly, Ukraine is the most corrupt in Europe. And this war is about much more than money.
PUTIN IS A COMPLETE DUMASS, AND IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE RN. That's step #1 to digesting this war. So to rationalize this war from Russian pov is just lol

Ukraine certainly has problematic corruption, but Russia routinely ranks worse on corruption indexes. Which incidentally makes it the worst country in Europe for corruption.

As for the claim that Russia is only defending itself...

Obviously Ukraine which since its independence in 1991 has been one of the most peaceful countries in Europe is the unrelenting aggressor, while Russia which has routinely invaded and occupied neighboring countries in the same time-frame is the peaceful victim which had no choice but to start bombing Ukrainian cities indiscriminately, sending Ukrainian citizens to concentration camps and rattle the nuclear sabre.

This hot take from the same poster which mocked people who spoke of possible invasion, claiming they were believing conspiracy theories. Now, without an ounce of intellectual humility, he is taking the same arrogant tone in this thread.

There are bad takes, there are hot takes and then there is sounding like RT.

A lot of people did not think Putin would start a war bc it would be seemingly idiotic to do so.

So they aren't as wrong as the critics are claiming bc it certainly appears to have been a dumb move by Russia.

Painting anyone who didn't expect an invasion as a Russia supporter doesn't really make any sense.

Wasn't it Ukraine that was violating the Minsk agreement and shelling Dombass and wasn't it Georgia that was attacking Russian troops in South Ossetia?

and say russia suddenly wanted peace and were willing to give up everything why would they do this? it would just mean they would have less to bargain with. this is not a pro Russian thing just logical. negotiation's have to start somewhere and no ones gonna give up free land even if they will happily give it up so they dont have to pay war reparations or w/e. Ever play a strategy game in your life. hell this is a strategy game forum? If russia actually just left They would be eaten alive and be given germany ww1 level economic damage because they have nothing to offer

protect them from who? lol you have like 10x the military of the next guy oh and your on an island essentially from the rest of the world. The us military is all offense. You would be perfectly fine with a gdp of spending of like 0.02%. Also with nukes military spending is like 100% pointless except for attacking nukeless countys which is what russias doing and what the us does constantly.

also the germans and french have nothing to worry about even without the us since we have seen the russian military at work. They have very strong militarys (well one of them)

They've tried repeatedly to see if they could join NATO or, failing that, to work constructively with the U.S. to develop a security framework everyone can live with.

They've been extremely clear on what would invoke a (what they consider) defensive assault on Ukraine, specifically NATO membership for Ukraine, official or de facto. They've been extremely clear with their reasoning, reasoning which seems rather simple and valid. They are not acting like the proverbial, game theory supported "mad man" ala the U.S. They were saying just don't do this one thing and we won't attack.

They've given alternatives to NATO and EU membership to Ukraine, alternatives which the legitimately elected government of Ukraine, after seeing the extremely unfavorable terms of EU membership, chose. In other words the competed and won instead of going directly to unilateral moves, not giving Ukraine cause to feel disrespected or controlled, minimizing pretexts used by the ethno-fascists now in control of Ukraine to enlarge a conflict.

They put forward a framework for Ukrainian neutrality in which Ukraine could do pretty much whatever it wanted except for join NATO or host NATO weapons.

They have held back from opening cans of whoop ass in spots where there would be popular support to do in the civil war leading up to the invasion, spots where people who were more or less Russian were being killed. Russia has shown a lot of restraint and tried earnestly to avoid inflaming the situation prematurely.

They've made many diplomatic appeals to European countries in order to avoid this. I don't recall reading in my history book that Hitler went around pleading for consensus on any possible path to avoid a security compromise which any country on earth would fight to prevent.

Again, you're not using the facts of the case in making your argument. Why won't you? You are trying to use what? Historical interpolation to establish Russia as the bad guy? If you had any real argument you wouldn't need the smoke and mirrors.

57Red has obviously yielded and reversed his position. At least, that my take on why he won't answer the Mexico. Or we could call it the Canada question. What say you on the matter? Were you a policy planner in the U.S. would you militarily intervene if Russia was deeply involved in a coup in Canada that went in it's favor and, subsequently, started hosting it's weapons on your border and arming and training tens of thousands of anti-U.S. soldiers? Does Canada's sovereignty include hosting the weapons of a military alliance hostile to the U.S.?

Yeah I (and Zelensky and the defense department) predicted no invasion, that Putin would avoid playing into the U.S. plan to use Ukrainian lives to weaken Russia and selling a bunch of weapons in so doing. I didn't say believing the Russian invasion would happen was believing a conspiracy theory. I said Russiagate proves you would believe just about anything, that what you believe is not necessarily either fact based or susceptible to contradiction by fact.

When did Russia try to join NATO? If they were willing to host US troops and weapons like every other NATO country, I would imagine they would be welcome to join.

And what does your mention of Ukraine joining NATO have to do with anything? As someone else just pointed out above, Ukraine would not even qualify for membership, at least since Russia took over Crimea.
There was no movement to change the rules that I know of, so any talk of Ukraine in NATO by anyone was pure speculation. Yet Russia somehow still felt "threatened" enough that they decided to invade.

I don't know the most recent ask but I've read/heard it said by subject experts that the attempts go way back to the Clinton years. They were not welcomed. Recall that once Russia decided to go capitalist it was like a contestant on a makeover show. The dominant attitude was like ok you are one of us now. Some people understood that it was just a show, and some of those people are on the Atlantic Council.

Ukraine was told, we know, that it would not be getting into NATO anytime soon but to publicly maintain the possibility. But actually Ukraine was getting equipment, weapons, and extensive training without official membership. This de facto membership violated the security boundaries Russia has repeatedly made explicit.

The NATO training was Ukrainians being prepared to be sent into a meat grinder by the psychopaths in DC. And that's what is really sickening beyond belief, that the U.S. instigators knew how this would play out. Russia has long maintained that NATO weapons in Ukraine was an existential threat which would be met with force. They knew they were training these guys merely so that they could be tougher meat to grind, to make Russia weaker by making people (who were going to be killed anyway) tougher to grind. Now Ukraine has lost, what, 150K troops? More than half their staring force? It's a war of attrition now. Russia will just outlast them. Ukraine will not point NATO weapons at Russia. Why did all this need to happen?

I come at this from a different angle to deuces but for the west to ignore that russia/putin was likely to respond the way they have - be it illegitmate, dishonest etc by russia/putin - was disgusting.

I very much hope this situation wasn't what the usa wanted and it's more a case of SNAFU. Depressingly this is the good outcome and it's extraordinarily dangerous to allow it to go unresolved for a long time. That doesn't create any solutions unfortunately. I cant see any.

I've seen several articles and interviews with think tank employees who explicitly spell out the strategy of using a war with Ukraine to weaken Russia. Think tanks justify the policies of the elites. Then you had Adam Schiff say, on the house floor, that we are using Ukraine so "we can fight Russia over there and we don't have to fight Russia over here".

I haven't heard Russia give the existence of NATO weapons being in Ukraine as a reason for the invasion (although I can't swear he didn't). All I have heard was he wanted to get rid of the Nazi regime, which is just so f'ing ridiculous when the president is Jewish.

I also don't understand how you can say that the Defense Dept did not expect an invasion, yet they (or NATO anyway) was preparing Ukraine's army for war. Did they think that Ukraine would invade Russia? I guess hoping they would take back Crimea could have been a possibility.

During the Clinton administration I worked for the federal government on a program to promote US agricultural exports (and feed people) in which we guaranteed loans to Russian buyers of US food. Personally, I thought Russia was going to join the community of western democracies, and I certainly hoped they were on their way there.
But the only time I ever heard of Russia trying to join NATO was right when the organization was first begun, which was not a genuine request. I think it would still be a fine idea to admit Russia, if they agreed to be treated the same as every other NATO country, but I am absolutely certain that Putin would never agree to that. Maybe there was the possibility that the government under Yeltsin would have, but if they did agree to that, I can't imagine why they wouldn't have been admitted.

Never. That is not a thing that has happened.

No, I haven't. I think I'd have noticed if I had.

Details are sketchy, but this is basically the one I had heard of, in 1954. I found some references to later attempts, including by Putin in 2000, but they did not include Russia going through the usual process to request membership; they basically wanted an invitation to join with no strings attached.

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publica...ato-march-1954

Have you ever head of google? Anyone can just type in a question and be shown facts, or that which is represented as fact, according to many different levels of consensus credibility. So anyone can just ask Goggle a question and see that you are absolutely wrong.

Well you kinda did, in my view if not yours. When someone makes an argument, a serious argument, and their opponent lets it sit there without responding that is tapping out. It would seem like you don't have a counter. You made a pretty sloppy argument which was seemingly negated by the revelation that the U.S. is bordered by Canada and Mexico.

In a way arguments are like territory- you only really hold them inasmuch as you can defend them. You've ceded your territory. Don't feel too bad about it. The argument that beat you is, as of yet, undefeated in many bouts.

A lot of racists wanted Clarence Thomas on the SCOTUS. In America we should be vey familiar with the tactic of using a minority to trojan horse policies harmful to that minority group. Also many who have followed the situation in a professional capacity, and who did so long before war broke out and every liberal muppet "Ukraine Expert" traded in their copy of White Fragility for Ukraine for Dummies, believe Zelensky is captive to the hard right extremists who have killed pols they suspected of being "pro Russian".

These Nazis are the people who executed the coup. These are the people who are proven to have assassinated protestors and policemen to galvanize the takeover. These are people who lead yearly, torch lit marches to honor the legacy of Stephan Bandera, a Nazi collaborator who held the exact Nazi doctrine and who killed Jews in Ukraine. You can easily google this. It's almost hard to avoid knowledge of this.

I don't recall the thinking or if reasoning was given. They expected something at some point but maybe not an invasion right then.

That's just not the way the security establishment thinks. We didn't undermine Russia for 40 years just to then build up a rival. Your thinking is way too superficial for the subject. This is about hegemony, weapons sales, client markets, getting to all the cheap labor in Ukraine, crippling an ally to China, preempting Russia European trade relations, energy, proxy wars.