It already is. And it’s losing. The idea that Russia loses its few remaining boomers at sea or all of its surface ships in the Black Sea should a tactical nuke go off in Ukraine is gaining currency. Instead of that, the CIA should be making entreaties to the highest elements of the Russian military that they will not face war crimes charges if Putin is gone.
Remember, the people running the show want war. They don’t want the war to end, at least until not after the midterms
The claim is the same for the Russian side one tier down from the top leadership as well, according to the article. For once maybe both sides should think about what they are bequeathing to their kids and grand-kids for lines on a map.
One of my pet theories is that people need to be reminded from time-to-time of the times they live in. I hope this isn’t one of those times.
That have always been gearing up, as has NATO on the reverse. However, it seems clear not that the Russian gear is insufficient. What’s new is that Russia seems to be wanting to return to the brinkmanship that existed from 1950 to 1980. Rhetoric is cheap until you actually have to do something to back it up, and brinkmanship ultimately hurt the Soviet economy.
not/now… annoying how Apple word anticipation likes to force words based on the grammar it assumes rather than just letting you write what you intend to say. AI sucks.
This needs to be put back in the can. There are too many what-ifs that only lead to escalation. Should this continue what’s to prevent a well armed Ukraine from marching into Belarus? Probably the government there much more likely to fall should that happen, etc etc. None of this is going well.
“This thread from RAND analyst Mike Mazarr got lots of buzz on political Twitter this afternoon, for good reason.”
Guys, I am already dumb but reading this made me even dumber or more dumber? See, it’s already happening. So some cheeto encrusted Twitter nerds took time off of developing their diabetes to plot out THE war? Sure all the English speakers on Twitter, an American company, will have all the inside info on what is going on in Ukraine and they can reach out on Twitter and talk to their sources in their native Russian and Ukrainian.
As Leland noted, Russia has always been gearing up to take us on. The question the Twitter Generals need to ask themselves is how to win a war and why someone in a war wouldn’t be trying to win.
The assumption here is that Russia wont do what it takes to win a war and that Ukraine will also not do what it takes to win a war. Twitter nerds pay attention, one of the two countries will win and have a strategy to do so.
Now, when one constructs a strategy to win, one looks at all the impediments to victory and how those impediments can be avoided or countered.
The USA is an impediment to Russia winning. Beware a Russia that wants to win. There are no safe spaces. There is an entire world out there outside of Twitter and gorilla glass wont protect you.
Should we worry about a Russian response? Yes, because we are already at war with them and all we have to protect us are politicians who are corrupt, incompetent, and want to overthrow our form of government, a military lead by psychopathic commies, and the hope of super secret weapons that would be deployed in the event of an attack against the homeland. Well, the first two make me doubt the third existing. I mean, same people building the SLS and making the recruits march in high heels while shouting their pronouns in cadence right?
I’m rather tired of dipshits getting us into military conflicts without forethought. Where are the sober voices?
Where are the sober voices?
I’ll toast to that. Again and again and again and again and again and…. What are we toasting?
It seems pretty clear what Russia’s strategy is. They have destroyed Ukraine’s ability to produce strategic goods to sell on the international market at both the high-end tech and low-end agricultural levels. Russia has gained control of 1/3rd of Ukraine’s major oil/gas fields and almost has the southern one. Ukraine’s economy is dependent now on foreign aid, thus explains Zelensky demanding the US pay for Ukraine’s pension program. Beyond Ukraine, Russia has ended gas contracts to Poland and Bulgaria, while the EU fumbles trying to figure out how to obtain Russian gas while using dollar sanctions and Russia bypassing by demanding roubles. Trump warned them of this 4 years ago, but people said he was racist for not backing NATO ally positions to become more dependent on Russian gas. The nuclear brinkmanship is obvious to scare off any desires to escalate the war.
To be fair, Ukraine seems to have developed a strategy of unconventional war by sabotaging Russian infrastructure and countering Russian psyops against its citizenry. The latter is what the rest of the world ought to be doing.
I agree with wodun that the Biden Administration is good with keeping this war going through the midterm. It gives them a handy scapegoat when they can’t blame their bad policy on the GOP. Russia’s strategy works better the longer the war continues. Ukraine needs to war to end soon. They can resist the siege as long as supplies roll in from the West, but eventually the West will need supplies from the East and they won’t get them. The timing of this war was no accident. Western economies are in as much economic dire straits as Russia’s. This is why we all still fear China might take the opportunity to “free” Taiwan.
Ditto Wodun. The US had plans to fight Canada and sink the English navy. Any regional or major power worth its salt has contingency plans. The Russian Federation is no different in regard to Ukraine, eastern Europe or NATO.
I am galled that the West and the US in particular has been nibbling away at states around the RF via color revolutions, and is now calling for one in Russia itself. Having given arms and intel leading to the direct destruction of RF military assets, we are most definitely at war with Russia. Who knows what kinds of asymmetric responses will be coming at us?
All this simply to maintain a sclerotic uni-polar domination of the world? All to prevent some Mackinder pivot in Eurasia? It is not worth it. It is not moral and right either.
The problem with that narrative Orville, is that Russia does invasions of innocent countries not merely hypothetically enabling revolutions that likely would have happened on their own anyway.
Who knows what kinds of asymmetric responses will be coming at us?
The US has handled asymmetric responses for decades. Looks to me like we do a better job of it than the Russians are doing now.
You are naïve if you believe there is innocence on any side of a war. The argument that we are “more” innocent than them is not a good argument for war. Are you denying the Anglo-American empire supplied a causus belli in funding and organizing color revolutions around their border, or now that we are adding war materiel just approved by Biden, that we are not participants in war against Russia?
You are naïve if you believe there is innocence on any side of a war.
I saw that movie. Everyone has a secret, everyone has a sin, and the gritty detective will ferret that all out. Well, it has to be a lot of sin to justify an invasion like the one the Russians hatched. So what was that sin? There’s been plenty of time to come up with a good pretext. Instead, it’s feeble tripe about nazis, NATO, and Ukrainians allegedly doing mean things to people that Russia doesn’t care about.
Are you denying the Anglo-American empire supplied a causus belli in funding and organizing color revolutions around their border, or now that we are adding war materiel just approved by Biden, that we are not participants in war against Russia?
Yes, I deny that. The obvious thing that gets missed in the “color revolution” narrative is that these are mass movements. The US et al can’t magically conjure up widespread discontent or get lots of people to show at protests.
It also ignores that if the US really were doing color revolutions, then they’re actually doing something good. As I see it, the more color revolutions we have the more democracy we have. Some places might need repeated application. I’m comfortable with that.
My take is that this is just a feeble propaganda effort by the present Russian government to try to stop their own color revolution from happening.
“The US has handled asymmetric responses for decades. Looks to me like we do a better job of it than the Russians are doing now.”
We lost in Afghanistan but this isn’t about who is better USA or Russia, this is about the threats we face and whether or not our leaders are blundering into them or if they are able to keep ramping up action against Russia without Russia responding.
Russia has limited options, meaning they are more likely to use weapons of last resort, and I have no faith in our leaders.
No one here is pro-Russia, so trash talking Russia isn’t much of an insult to the commenters.
I haven’t seen any discussion from the bloodlust people about what happens next week or next month. It is always just living in the moment.
Wodun,
Am I correctly understanding that you oppose the strategy of arming Ukraine with sufficient weaponry to stop Russia from overthrowing the Ukrainian government and occupying the majority (or all) of Ukraine? If so, and if you prefer a strategy that looks ahead (and I agree, we certainly should do that!), then what’s *your* plan for what happens next month and next year?
As for me, I share your concern that we’re putting Russia in a situation where they’ll want to use weapons of last resort. I also share your concern that Russia will find asymmetrical ways to attack us.
But I don’t see any better alternatives: we don’t want to appease Russia entirely, just enough to stay out of a direct conflict. The danger of a direct conflict between Russia and the US is nuclear war, but the danger of appeasement is that Russia will be emboldened to try to split NATO by doing something like having little green men “liberate” Russian speakers in Estonia, or even attempt to “adjust” the Suwalki Gap and create a land bridge to Kaliningrad, and that path also could easily lead to nuclear war.
The West’s current strategy of arming Ukraine with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons has a successful precedent in that the same strategy convinced the Russians to leave Afghanistan. Additionally, the current strategy has united NATO, which makes us all safer. And finally, the West’s current strategy stays true to our ideological goals of freedom, democracy, and sovereignty, and stands up for innocent people’s right to not be brutalized. If you have a better plan, I’d be interested in hearing it.
“Am I correctly understanding that you oppose the strategy of arming Ukraine with sufficient weaponry to stop Russia from overthrowing the Ukrainian government and occupying the majority (or all) of Ukraine? ”
No, but notice the manner in which it is done, with zero proxies. We are directly involved. We even have troops in Ukraine.
The problem I have is idiots thinking they can fight a war but the other side won’t do anything in return all the while trying to provoke and prolong greater conflict and not to help Ukraine or grind out both countries so we benefit but because Democrats need an issue for the midterms.
I love seeing the lolbertarian case for war without going through the legal steps and the peace and love bloodlust for dead Russians. All I see are unserious people engaging in extremely serious actions when non of our country’s interests are at stake, certainly not to the padgentry of the response.
This isn’t being treated like a war but a Netflix series.
No one here is pro-Russia, so trash talking Russia isn’t much of an insult to the commenters.
I disagree. I’ve seen a lot of pro-Russia people play this sort of game. Sure, they’ll say that Russia did some bad stuff, if you press them on it. Otherwise, all they can talk about is the flaws of the western powers, Ukraine, and everyone of us who happens to oppose what Russia is doing in Ukraine. For example, just above we have this humdinger from Orville:
Are you denying the Anglo-American empire supplied a causus belli in funding and organizing color revolutions around their border
Notice how it is spun, implying that Russia has a valid justification for its invasion and that western powers are at fault. Meanwhile they’ll never reverse roles – asking us if we “deny” the Russian empire supplied a causus belli by invading Ukraine? Or that the terrible governments which fell provided a causus belli for their people? When your ethical arguments can’t handle role reversal, then that’s a sure sign that the arguer has picked a side.
Given Karl’s arguments in favor of color revolutions, he must of necessity then support the likes of Victoria Nuland, Obama, Soros, et al. Along with the supporting the attacks against ethnic Russians in the Donbass these last eight years.
Overthrowing governments is ok when the US or it’s NGOs do it. Particularly since Ukraine, and Georgia before it, are existential threats to the USA. But a Ukraine hostile to its next-door neighbor Russia is not ok. Nice Karl, glad you aren’t my neighbor.
Ukrainian forces were gearing up for a major battle in the Donbass area along Russia’s border, and those damn Russians beat them to the punch and upset all the poor Neocons and the systemic graft they had going in. Ukraine.
The biggest point I’d stress is that the US has no business meddling there, or anywhere, unless of course we are an empire seeking to expand our hegemony. Then it’s all on the table. Empire is antithetical to most of the founding fathers. But of course, Neocons love their empire and wars.
Given Karl’s arguments in favor of color revolutions, he must of necessity then support the likes of Victoria Nuland, Obama, Soros, et al. Along with the supporting the attacks against ethnic Russians in the Donbass these last eight years.
With such a non sequitur, one can say the same thing about you. So why do you hate ethnic Russians in Donbass so much?
Overthrowing governments is ok when the US or it’s NGOs do it. Particularly since Ukraine, and Georgia before it, are existential threats to the USA. But a Ukraine hostile to its next-door neighbor Russia is not ok. Nice Karl, glad you aren’t my neighbor.
Rather when the public overthrows the government, that makes it ok in my world. The problem with your narrative is that we have massive public commitment over the entire Euromaidan period. The same goes for most, if not all of those other color revolutions.
The biggest point I’d stress is that the US has no business meddling there, or anywhere, unless of course we are an empire seeking to expand our hegemony. Then it’s all on the table. Empire is antithetical to most of the founding fathers. But of course, Neocons love their empire and wars.
What’s the point of carving out an exception (“unless”) for empire building? Would that be something you would approve of?
And funny how you obsess over the US’s alleged empire building while ignoring Russia’s present day empire building. As I noted, a key sign of a Russian supporter is that they can’t reverse roles.
Here’s another one. Why doesn’t Russia try its own color revolutions on the US and neighbors, if they work so well? Answer: there are few governments near the US that would be susceptible to such. Perhaps you should wonder why Russia is surrounded by weak tyrannies while the US isn’t.
It is impossible to discuss the issue with you because you don’t take rational positions. You make contradictory claims and when people note the inconsistency, you say they are pro Russian.
Yeah, lets get those evil ruskies until we run out of Ukranians and taxpayer money. Big Pharma got theirs, now its the turn of Raytheon right Gen. Austin?
Yeah, lets get those evil ruskies until we run out of Ukranians and taxpayer money.
Yes, it’s so mean of the US to hoist Russia on their own petard. When I heard that Russia probably had lost a fifth of their active tank forces (not armored vehicles, actual tanks), I shed some crocodile tears.
Russia started with 2700 tanks. They lost 680 so far.
25%.
Source may be biased, but so would any Russian source.
Over here, I see a moderately smaller estimate from April 25:
The UK defence secretary, Ben Wallace, estimated those losses on Monday as a quarter of Russia’s pre-invasion strength, with more than 2,000 armoured vehicles knocked out, including at least 530 tanks, as well as 60 aircraft.
Also, next time you ask “Source please….” perhaps you ought to practice that as well.
We all know how messed up government contracting is, especially in defense, but we haven’t bought stingers in almost 20 years.
Looks like we have a new bob.
Check out Larry Johnson’s blog, “The son of the new american revolution”
He certainly makes excuses for Russia more eloquently than you do. But it’s ridiculously biased. For example, his concept of “Ukraine is winning” was:
“What you would expect to see if the Ukrainians functioned as an effective army: number one, in the east, they would have broken out. They would have actually launched a counterattack against the Russians and pushed the Russians back to the border. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the reports show steady progress by these Russian backed forces in Donetsk and Luhansk in pushing back the Ukrainian military.
“Number two, the Russians have basically they have sealed, completely shut down, the southern coast of Ukraine and their access to the Black Sea. Again, if the Ukraine had a viable, capable army that could fight against that, they would be launching counterattacks to push the Russians out and to open those ports. They haven’t done that. What we’re seeing is that this group of neo-Nazis that are in the steel plant area of Mariupol are slowly being encircled and killed. So again, if Ukraine had a functioning army, you’d expect to see artillery strikes coming in to try to push back the Russians. We’re not seeing that. You’d expect to see air strikes, some sort of air operation, whether with fixed wing or rotary wing. We’re not seeing that. Cruise missiles. We’re not seeing that. So do they not have it or are they just incapable of using it in an effective manner? And I think it’s the latter. Because it’s irrational for them not to use it if it’s still viable. I do know that their ability to conduct air to air intercept with fixed wing combat aircraft was curtailed the first 24 hours of the war on February 24th because the ground radars were blown up and those ground radars were what the pilots needed in order to vector themselves in on a target.”
So in order to be “winning” Ukraine had to completely beat Russia on the eastern front (which incidentally has the most secure supply lines of the Russian fronts) and conduct military operations in the south that Johnson would deign to note. I’ll note that since that interview, Russia lost one of its largest naval ships in the Black Sea and completely retreated all the way to the border for their Kiev/northeast front. So there might well be some degree of winning that he might choose to acknowledge.
Real insight or knowledge is welcome. Another Russian shill is not.
group of neo-Nazis
I’m not sure if the proper response to that is laughing out loud or yawning.
Yawning. Your brain will need that oxygen after plowing through that.
Hate to break it to you but if they don’t get their land back, they lost.
Why go through this show of death just to give Russia what they wanted in the first place?
It already is. And it’s losing. The idea that Russia loses its few remaining boomers at sea or all of its surface ships in the Black Sea should a tactical nuke go off in Ukraine is gaining currency. Instead of that, the CIA should be making entreaties to the highest elements of the Russian military that they will not face war crimes charges if Putin is gone.
Remember, the people running the show want war. They don’t want the war to end, at least until not after the midterms
The claim is the same for the Russian side one tier down from the top leadership as well, according to the article. For once maybe both sides should think about what they are bequeathing to their kids and grand-kids for lines on a map.
One of my pet theories is that people need to be reminded from time-to-time of the times they live in. I hope this isn’t one of those times.
That have always been gearing up, as has NATO on the reverse. However, it seems clear not that the Russian gear is insufficient. What’s new is that Russia seems to be wanting to return to the brinkmanship that existed from 1950 to 1980. Rhetoric is cheap until you actually have to do something to back it up, and brinkmanship ultimately hurt the Soviet economy.
not/now… annoying how Apple word anticipation likes to force words based on the grammar it assumes rather than just letting you write what you intend to say. AI sucks.
This needs to be put back in the can. There are too many what-ifs that only lead to escalation. Should this continue what’s to prevent a well armed Ukraine from marching into Belarus? Probably the government there much more likely to fall should that happen, etc etc. None of this is going well.
“This thread from RAND analyst Mike Mazarr got lots of buzz on political Twitter this afternoon, for good reason.”
Guys, I am already dumb but reading this made me even dumber or more dumber? See, it’s already happening. So some cheeto encrusted Twitter nerds took time off of developing their diabetes to plot out THE war? Sure all the English speakers on Twitter, an American company, will have all the inside info on what is going on in Ukraine and they can reach out on Twitter and talk to their sources in their native Russian and Ukrainian.
As Leland noted, Russia has always been gearing up to take us on. The question the Twitter Generals need to ask themselves is how to win a war and why someone in a war wouldn’t be trying to win.
The assumption here is that Russia wont do what it takes to win a war and that Ukraine will also not do what it takes to win a war. Twitter nerds pay attention, one of the two countries will win and have a strategy to do so.
Now, when one constructs a strategy to win, one looks at all the impediments to victory and how those impediments can be avoided or countered.
The USA is an impediment to Russia winning. Beware a Russia that wants to win. There are no safe spaces. There is an entire world out there outside of Twitter and gorilla glass wont protect you.
Should we worry about a Russian response? Yes, because we are already at war with them and all we have to protect us are politicians who are corrupt, incompetent, and want to overthrow our form of government, a military lead by psychopathic commies, and the hope of super secret weapons that would be deployed in the event of an attack against the homeland. Well, the first two make me doubt the third existing. I mean, same people building the SLS and making the recruits march in high heels while shouting their pronouns in cadence right?
I’m rather tired of dipshits getting us into military conflicts without forethought. Where are the sober voices?
Where are the sober voices?
I’ll toast to that. Again and again and again and again and again and…. What are we toasting?
It seems pretty clear what Russia’s strategy is. They have destroyed Ukraine’s ability to produce strategic goods to sell on the international market at both the high-end tech and low-end agricultural levels. Russia has gained control of 1/3rd of Ukraine’s major oil/gas fields and almost has the southern one. Ukraine’s economy is dependent now on foreign aid, thus explains Zelensky demanding the US pay for Ukraine’s pension program. Beyond Ukraine, Russia has ended gas contracts to Poland and Bulgaria, while the EU fumbles trying to figure out how to obtain Russian gas while using dollar sanctions and Russia bypassing by demanding roubles. Trump warned them of this 4 years ago, but people said he was racist for not backing NATO ally positions to become more dependent on Russian gas. The nuclear brinkmanship is obvious to scare off any desires to escalate the war.
To be fair, Ukraine seems to have developed a strategy of unconventional war by sabotaging Russian infrastructure and countering Russian psyops against its citizenry. The latter is what the rest of the world ought to be doing.
I agree with wodun that the Biden Administration is good with keeping this war going through the midterm. It gives them a handy scapegoat when they can’t blame their bad policy on the GOP. Russia’s strategy works better the longer the war continues. Ukraine needs to war to end soon. They can resist the siege as long as supplies roll in from the West, but eventually the West will need supplies from the East and they won’t get them. The timing of this war was no accident. Western economies are in as much economic dire straits as Russia’s. This is why we all still fear China might take the opportunity to “free” Taiwan.
Ditto Wodun. The US had plans to fight Canada and sink the English navy. Any regional or major power worth its salt has contingency plans. The Russian Federation is no different in regard to Ukraine, eastern Europe or NATO.
I am galled that the West and the US in particular has been nibbling away at states around the RF via color revolutions, and is now calling for one in Russia itself. Having given arms and intel leading to the direct destruction of RF military assets, we are most definitely at war with Russia. Who knows what kinds of asymmetric responses will be coming at us?
All this simply to maintain a sclerotic uni-polar domination of the world? All to prevent some Mackinder pivot in Eurasia? It is not worth it. It is not moral and right either.
The problem with that narrative Orville, is that Russia does invasions of innocent countries not merely hypothetically enabling revolutions that likely would have happened on their own anyway.
Who knows what kinds of asymmetric responses will be coming at us?
The US has handled asymmetric responses for decades. Looks to me like we do a better job of it than the Russians are doing now.
You are naïve if you believe there is innocence on any side of a war. The argument that we are “more” innocent than them is not a good argument for war. Are you denying the Anglo-American empire supplied a causus belli in funding and organizing color revolutions around their border, or now that we are adding war materiel just approved by Biden, that we are not participants in war against Russia?
You are naïve if you believe there is innocence on any side of a war.
I saw that movie. Everyone has a secret, everyone has a sin, and the gritty detective will ferret that all out. Well, it has to be a lot of sin to justify an invasion like the one the Russians hatched. So what was that sin? There’s been plenty of time to come up with a good pretext. Instead, it’s feeble tripe about nazis, NATO, and Ukrainians allegedly doing mean things to people that Russia doesn’t care about.
Are you denying the Anglo-American empire supplied a causus belli in funding and organizing color revolutions around their border, or now that we are adding war materiel just approved by Biden, that we are not participants in war against Russia?
Yes, I deny that. The obvious thing that gets missed in the “color revolution” narrative is that these are mass movements. The US et al can’t magically conjure up widespread discontent or get lots of people to show at protests.
It also ignores that if the US really were doing color revolutions, then they’re actually doing something good. As I see it, the more color revolutions we have the more democracy we have. Some places might need repeated application. I’m comfortable with that.
My take is that this is just a feeble propaganda effort by the present Russian government to try to stop their own color revolution from happening.
“The US has handled asymmetric responses for decades. Looks to me like we do a better job of it than the Russians are doing now.”
We lost in Afghanistan but this isn’t about who is better USA or Russia, this is about the threats we face and whether or not our leaders are blundering into them or if they are able to keep ramping up action against Russia without Russia responding.
Russia has limited options, meaning they are more likely to use weapons of last resort, and I have no faith in our leaders.
No one here is pro-Russia, so trash talking Russia isn’t much of an insult to the commenters.
I haven’t seen any discussion from the bloodlust people about what happens next week or next month. It is always just living in the moment.
Wodun,
Am I correctly understanding that you oppose the strategy of arming Ukraine with sufficient weaponry to stop Russia from overthrowing the Ukrainian government and occupying the majority (or all) of Ukraine? If so, and if you prefer a strategy that looks ahead (and I agree, we certainly should do that!), then what’s *your* plan for what happens next month and next year?
As for me, I share your concern that we’re putting Russia in a situation where they’ll want to use weapons of last resort. I also share your concern that Russia will find asymmetrical ways to attack us.
But I don’t see any better alternatives: we don’t want to appease Russia entirely, just enough to stay out of a direct conflict. The danger of a direct conflict between Russia and the US is nuclear war, but the danger of appeasement is that Russia will be emboldened to try to split NATO by doing something like having little green men “liberate” Russian speakers in Estonia, or even attempt to “adjust” the Suwalki Gap and create a land bridge to Kaliningrad, and that path also could easily lead to nuclear war.
The West’s current strategy of arming Ukraine with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons has a successful precedent in that the same strategy convinced the Russians to leave Afghanistan. Additionally, the current strategy has united NATO, which makes us all safer. And finally, the West’s current strategy stays true to our ideological goals of freedom, democracy, and sovereignty, and stands up for innocent people’s right to not be brutalized. If you have a better plan, I’d be interested in hearing it.
“Am I correctly understanding that you oppose the strategy of arming Ukraine with sufficient weaponry to stop Russia from overthrowing the Ukrainian government and occupying the majority (or all) of Ukraine? ”
No, but notice the manner in which it is done, with zero proxies. We are directly involved. We even have troops in Ukraine.
The problem I have is idiots thinking they can fight a war but the other side won’t do anything in return all the while trying to provoke and prolong greater conflict and not to help Ukraine or grind out both countries so we benefit but because Democrats need an issue for the midterms.
I love seeing the lolbertarian case for war without going through the legal steps and the peace and love bloodlust for dead Russians. All I see are unserious people engaging in extremely serious actions when non of our country’s interests are at stake, certainly not to the padgentry of the response.
This isn’t being treated like a war but a Netflix series.
No one here is pro-Russia, so trash talking Russia isn’t much of an insult to the commenters.
I disagree. I’ve seen a lot of pro-Russia people play this sort of game. Sure, they’ll say that Russia did some bad stuff, if you press them on it. Otherwise, all they can talk about is the flaws of the western powers, Ukraine, and everyone of us who happens to oppose what Russia is doing in Ukraine. For example, just above we have this humdinger from Orville:
Are you denying the Anglo-American empire supplied a causus belli in funding and organizing color revolutions around their border
Notice how it is spun, implying that Russia has a valid justification for its invasion and that western powers are at fault. Meanwhile they’ll never reverse roles – asking us if we “deny” the Russian empire supplied a causus belli by invading Ukraine? Or that the terrible governments which fell provided a causus belli for their people? When your ethical arguments can’t handle role reversal, then that’s a sure sign that the arguer has picked a side.
Given Karl’s arguments in favor of color revolutions, he must of necessity then support the likes of Victoria Nuland, Obama, Soros, et al. Along with the supporting the attacks against ethnic Russians in the Donbass these last eight years.
Overthrowing governments is ok when the US or it’s NGOs do it. Particularly since Ukraine, and Georgia before it, are existential threats to the USA. But a Ukraine hostile to its next-door neighbor Russia is not ok. Nice Karl, glad you aren’t my neighbor.
Ukrainian forces were gearing up for a major battle in the Donbass area along Russia’s border, and those damn Russians beat them to the punch and upset all the poor Neocons and the systemic graft they had going in. Ukraine.
The biggest point I’d stress is that the US has no business meddling there, or anywhere, unless of course we are an empire seeking to expand our hegemony. Then it’s all on the table. Empire is antithetical to most of the founding fathers. But of course, Neocons love their empire and wars.
Given Karl’s arguments in favor of color revolutions, he must of necessity then support the likes of Victoria Nuland, Obama, Soros, et al. Along with the supporting the attacks against ethnic Russians in the Donbass these last eight years.
With such a non sequitur, one can say the same thing about you. So why do you hate ethnic Russians in Donbass so much?
Overthrowing governments is ok when the US or it’s NGOs do it. Particularly since Ukraine, and Georgia before it, are existential threats to the USA. But a Ukraine hostile to its next-door neighbor Russia is not ok. Nice Karl, glad you aren’t my neighbor.
Rather when the public overthrows the government, that makes it ok in my world. The problem with your narrative is that we have massive public commitment over the entire Euromaidan period. The same goes for most, if not all of those other color revolutions.
The biggest point I’d stress is that the US has no business meddling there, or anywhere, unless of course we are an empire seeking to expand our hegemony. Then it’s all on the table. Empire is antithetical to most of the founding fathers. But of course, Neocons love their empire and wars.
What’s the point of carving out an exception (“unless”) for empire building? Would that be something you would approve of?
And funny how you obsess over the US’s alleged empire building while ignoring Russia’s present day empire building. As I noted, a key sign of a Russian supporter is that they can’t reverse roles.
Here’s another one. Why doesn’t Russia try its own color revolutions on the US and neighbors, if they work so well? Answer: there are few governments near the US that would be susceptible to such. Perhaps you should wonder why Russia is surrounded by weak tyrannies while the US isn’t.
It is impossible to discuss the issue with you because you don’t take rational positions. You make contradictory claims and when people note the inconsistency, you say they are pro Russian.
Yeah, lets get those evil ruskies until we run out of Ukranians and taxpayer money. Big Pharma got theirs, now its the turn of Raytheon right Gen. Austin?
Yeah, lets get those evil ruskies until we run out of Ukranians and taxpayer money.
Yes, it’s so mean of the US to hoist Russia on their own petard. When I heard that Russia probably had lost a fifth of their active tank forces (not armored vehicles, actual tanks), I shed some crocodile tears.
Source please….
Taking absolutely no time at all with Google…
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/ukraine-war-heres-why-russia-has-lost-so-many-tanks-2880939
Russia started with 2700 tanks. They lost 680 so far.
25%.
Source may be biased, but so would any Russian source.
Over here, I see a moderately smaller estimate from April 25:
Also, next time you ask “Source please….” perhaps you ought to practice that as well.
We all know how messed up government contracting is, especially in defense, but we haven’t bought stingers in almost 20 years.
Looks like we have a new bob.
Check out Larry Johnson’s blog, “The son of the new american revolution”
He certainly makes excuses for Russia more eloquently than you do. But it’s ridiculously biased. For example, his concept of “Ukraine is winning” was:
So in order to be “winning” Ukraine had to completely beat Russia on the eastern front (which incidentally has the most secure supply lines of the Russian fronts) and conduct military operations in the south that Johnson would deign to note. I’ll note that since that interview, Russia lost one of its largest naval ships in the Black Sea and completely retreated all the way to the border for their Kiev/northeast front. So there might well be some degree of winning that he might choose to acknowledge.
Real insight or knowledge is welcome. Another Russian shill is not.
group of neo-Nazis
I’m not sure if the proper response to that is laughing out loud or yawning.
Yawning. Your brain will need that oxygen after plowing through that.
Hate to break it to you but if they don’t get their land back, they lost.
Why go through this show of death just to give Russia what they wanted in the first place?