The Ukraine War, implications, outcome?

[msufan]

This is why Zelensky is not the "hero" many see him as. He is despicable for the reasons:

2) Ukrainian propaganda seems to be trying to get Ukrainians to think that they actually have a chance to defeat the Russians. This in turn gets more civilians to take up arms to fight and sacrifice their lives. Zelensky is sending his own people to die.

It depends how you define "defeat". Who won the Vietnam War?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[otek]

Interesting conversation! Perspective from Finland. Sorry for grammar mistakes, made this post in a hurry.

Putin, like Hitler before, seems to have been encouraged by weak "Chamberlain" type of response from West. Previously Putin limited the scope of his attacks to "small" countries or regions like Georgia (3.7 million people) Krim (over 2 million), donbass, Luhansk Regions, Chechnya ( over one million) and some other. He received quite weak sanctions.

Now he decided to do full scale attack to Ukraine which has 40 million people. Zelenskiy actually did not build good defences around the borders because he did not want to provoke Putin - bad idea. That's why Russians could initially just drive in.
Zelenskiys intentions to join NATO has been stated as reason. Would argue, that is not all.

Putin wrote essay last summer about Ukraine and basically saying it should not be independent, Russian empire once had it, common heritage etc. The Nato thing seems to be also used as an excuse to attack actually. Even if Ukraine had been adamantly "NO NATO" Putin would have probably tried to take it if feasible or install a puppet. Like Putin now has Belarus via Lukashenka, which was "NO NATO" country.

Imagine a world where there was no NATO. Putin would in that world probably try to conquer pretty much the same regions or install puppet governments. Old soviet states and old regions that once belonged to Russian empire first. Then some more if he could.

Putin has jailed, forced to exile, killed and poisoned his enemies internally and he does not have to worry that much about public opinion in Russia. He has the media in control which also helps him a lot. Putin can get away with bombing civilians. His citizens will never know, RT or other tv stations will not air anything too negative.

Putin seems to be opportunistic KGB style dictator that calculated that Ukraine could be taken easily with little cost. So far west has not punished him that much why would that change? Great to see Ukraine fighting back hard and Putin is finally getting some resistance.

Finland is not in NATO? Here in Finland, with only 5.5 million people, we have relied on our own military as a steep cost for attacker. We managed to stop the soviet union in Winter War so we are maybe more inclined to think that we don't need allies that urgently. But we got some material and some volunteers in Winter War, and it helped for sure.

It's possible to get "defensive win". We Lost only 11 percent of our territory to Soviet union after Winter war. Ukraine can on best scenario achieve something similar, every bit of help counts.

Regarding our NATO plans for future. After the Ukraine attack Putin has showed that he is able to start war with massive, 40 million people, country like Ukraine, things have changed. Now the NATO question is on The table. We can't rely on being impartial.

Putin is capable of attacking. For example If he has plans for greater Baltic sea control. Would perhaps make sense to try to take us out and gain better control of Baltic sea and encircle The Baltic NATO countries.

Would be good excuse for Putin to use that we are threatening st. Petersburg or something made up. Say that our potentiality to join NATO is a risk etc.

To Be clear, I don't believe that Putin is attacking Finland due to our adequate military threat. Finland has also harder terrain for attacker. Ukraine was encircled by russian forces, with roads not land mined. So it likely made the invasion more lucrative.

There is possibility that Ukraine achieves similar "Winter war" miracle that we had in Finland. And only loses, say 10 percent of territory. Every bit of help is useful to ukraine.

It also reduces chances that Putin gets emboldened even more and starts to think: "maybe I could get those Baltic states back" etc.

 

[nothingness]

This has got to be one of the most idiotic things ever done since the Chernobyl disaster. Whoever gave these orders is completely f*cked in the head.

WTF Putin! Why are you bombing the nuclear plant! If you want war, go all in to wipe the military targets, capture Zelensky if you have to and end this already! Let people get on with their lives!

This was, as usual, Western propaganda. Instead they were attacking the government office...which the Ukrainians conveniently placed 100 meters from their nuclear power plant.
And of course, everyone fell for that news piece.

 

[Andreas Thiel]

This was, as usual, Western propaganda. Instead they were attacking the government office...which the Ukrainians conveniently placed 100 meters from their nuclear power plant.
And of course, everyone fell for that news piece.

Interesting that the Times Of Israel published an article that the holocaust memorial has not actually been hit. This piece of fake news was the only thing that my colleagues found interesting and it shaped their emotions and opinions. In times where these fake news get exposed and that doesn't make millions of people ask uncomfortable questions I feel pretty bad about democracy ... and free will.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Antifragile]

The fake news is a legitimate strategy.

It's like lawyers in courtrooms saying something only to be slapped on the wrist by a judge who then says "the jury will disregard this last statement".

You cannot unring a bell, unscramble the egg or unknown a feeling.

It works.

 

[Black_Dragon43]

If Putin pushes into NATO territory then it will be Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, Poland at least, speaking historically now. However, if it gets that far it will be very very serious, and very stupid for Europe, NATO and the US to allow it to get that far.

What is happening now is exactly what happened with Hitler. People said “oh don’t worry, it’s just Poland, Hitler won’t go forward, let’s not fight and lose lives”. And soon enough his panzers conquered Paris.

Because there are many “useful idiots” as Hitler and Lenin called them, who do not understand the seriousness of this, or the mindset of people like Putin.

Putin has just blocked Facebook in Russia because he fears that the Russian people will learn the truth: Facebook and BBC 'blocked' in Russia as Putin continues invasion of Ukraine

Russians who know Putin are very worried, and demand more actions from the West, with which I agree:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1499569064414351361

View: https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1499569064414351361?s=20&t=YhClDSFXh7gpfb1TeGZSRg


No time to play with Putin, we must crush him! Cut the oil, show him he’s not the boss over Ukraine and put some limits to what the West will permit him. If this is a special operation and not war, then he should act like it.

 

[S.Y.]

If Putin pushes into NATO territory then it will be Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, Poland at least, speaking historically now. However, if it gets that far it will be very very serious, and very stupid for Europe, NATO and the US to allow it to get that far.

What is happening now is exactly what happened with Hitler. People said “oh don’t worry, it’s just Poland, Hitler won’t go forward, let’s not fight and lose lives”. And soon enough his panzers conquered Paris.

Because there are many “useful idiots” as Hitler and Lenin called them, who do not understand the seriousness of this, or the mindset of people like Putin.

Putin has just blocked Facebook in Russia because he fears that the Russian people will learn the truth: Facebook and BBC 'blocked' in Russia as Putin continues invasion of Ukraine

Russians who know Putin are very worried, and demand more actions from the West, with which I agree:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1499569064414351361

View: https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1499569064414351361?s=20&t=YhClDSFXh7gpfb1TeGZSRg


No time to play with Putin, we must crush him! Cut the oil, show him he’s not the boss over Ukraine and put some limits to what the West will permit him. If this is a special operation and not war, then he should act like it.

How can the West crush Putin?
And should the world be willing to risk a nuclear event?

I don't like Putin. I don't like the Ukraine invasion. I am also not going to stand here and no point out the hypocrisy of the West. Nor am I going to ignore that if he gets desperate, it can become a Nuclear event.

(genuinely asking)

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Black_Dragon43]

How can the West crush Putin?
And should the world be willing to risk a nuclear event?

I don't like Putin. I don't like the Ukraine invasion. I am also not going to stand here and no point out the hypocrisy of the West. Nor am I going to ignore that if he gets desperate, it can become a Nuclear event.

(genuinely asking)

In my opinion:

1. By not getting intimidated by Putin and responding to his threats in a way that communicates to him that we’re not afraid of him regardless of what he does (and that includes throwing nuclear bombs - which I honestly don’t think he’d ever do, but he uses as leverage precisely because he knows the West are cowards. So our job is to show him we’re not)
2. By drawing a red line in the sand - in my opinion, this red line should have been Ukraine, but it’s now kinda too late for that, given Biden’s initial weakness in responding to Putin. So whatever that red line is, we need to make it clear to Putin that we will not let him cross it regardless of the cost to us.
3. By eliminating Russia from all international organisations (such as Interpol as Kasparov said), and making it clear that we will not tolerate this continued aggressive behavior and rhetoric.
4. By cutting the gas and oil imports, and blocking Russia’s access to Western/NATO ports and seas.
5. By removing diplomats from Russia, blocking travel to and from Russia and essentially isolating Russia to the point that they become another terrorist regime just like North Korea.
6. By stating clearly and unequivocally that we demand regime change if we are to ever accept Russia back into the civilised world, and the removal of Putin - basically our refusal to talk with Putin for what he has done. At the moment our leaders say that Putin is a dictator, criminal and thug, and then sit down and talk with him as if they’re friends. This is nonsense. If he’s a criminal, we don’t talk with him.
7. By continuing to send weapons, equipment and even training to Ukraine and helping them as much as we can without getting directly involved. I am against Ukraine joining NATO/EU at this point because if we accept them in either, it just normalizes the idea of Putin attacking NATO/EU member states, which imo should definitely be a red line. I’d like to see them join, but only after this conflict is over.

 

[Silverfox148]

Interesting that the Times Of Israel published an article that the holocaust memorial has not actually been hit. This piece of fake news was the only thing that my colleagues found interesting and it shaped their emotions and opinions. In times where these fake news get exposed and that doesn't make millions of people ask uncomfortable questions I feel pretty bad about democracy ... and free will.

Israel has a lot to lose if this goes south for either the Russians/USA. They have been very restrained and have offered several times to broker peace prior to the conflict starting, their PM even called Putin with the offer. They want the war over as quickly as possible, hence they have been active about debunking the "Jewish" angle propaganda Zelensky has been cranking out.

The rest of Europe should be taking cues from Israel as to how to exist between super powers, Israel is a "staunch" ally of the United States, regularly engages with trade with China and Russia yet is still the biggest "ally" of the United States, that's some fine line walking right there. Ukraine should have emulated Israel and we might have had a better result.

This unique position Israel has held is beginning to erode as we speak as the U.S rushes to sign a deal with Iran so that it does not automatically join the U.S dollar alternatives that are going to sprout up. Israel's concerns are moot at this point and they know it as the focus shifts away from the Arab world towards Europe.

 

[MJ DeMarco]

The fake news is a legitimate strategy.

Perhaps in the short run, but long-term it will lead to the destruction of humanity. We live in a post-truth world where the truth is terribly hard to decipher which leads to the masses being either misinformed or manipulated at will.

Neither is good for humanity.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MoneyDoc]

Perhaps in the short run, but long-term it will lead to the destruction of humanity. We live in a post-truth world where the truth is terribly hard to decipher which leads to the masses being either misinformed or manipulated at will.

Neither is good for humanity.

MJ, I love your new picture

 

[GPM]

Perhaps in the short run, but long-term it will lead to the destruction of humanity. We live in a post-truth world where the truth is terribly hard to decipher which leads to the masses being either misinformed or manipulated at will.

Neither is good for humanity.

Just wait until these deep fakes get a little better. They are already frighteningly close to realistic. It's only a few short years away that literally anything can be faked convincingly

 

[S.Y.]

View attachment 42427
This is what I’m talking about. The EU and NATO are still being weak on Putin. Yes, we should say loud and clear that we want and demand regime change for the actions that Putin has taken, and we want nothing to do with him anymore.

The guy is threatening us with nuclear attack, and we handle him with gloves, afraid that he might break? This is nonsense. If he threatened us with nuclear war, then he is not welcome to have any kind of discourse with us, and if Russia wants to talk with us, they have to do it through other officials until Putin is no longer the Russian leader. We should have no shame about saying this, just as he has no shame about threatening us with nuclear war.

Here my opinion on all of this.

You might have probably heard the whole what if Russia had weapons in Mexico, how would the US react? Well, it is a bit silly, but if the table was reversed, the USA will have probably reacted the same. So let's start with that.

Two, I am against what Putin did. And also, why other wars have not been as denounced vehemently as this is something to mention. The USA and NATO are as much as bullies as Russia. Iraq is an example, where a country was destroyed for weapons that never existed. Lybia is another one. Both will use force if they deem it necessary. I do favor the western way than the communist way; I also recognize that it is aggression against people that think differently.

Three, unless if my knowledge of history is failing me, NATO was created to fight the USSR. If I am not mistaken, NATO has agreed not to expand East in the late 90. Well, turns out not to be the case. The expansion led to a series of events leading to the war in Yugoslavia. Not to mention the clear violation of the NATO-Russia act by the USA. Less not forget all the pacts the USA withdrew from.

Four, in the recent past, as far as 2007-2008, Ukraine was against joining NATO. Uncle Sam obviously put pressure and meddled. Plus Kossovo, anyone?

What am trying to say here is, the West violated many agreements and meddled to have NATO expand closer and closer to Russian borders. The situation today is just the results of all those decisions. Lets not forget history.

And again, the West has repeatedly shown they will use force if they deem fit. Now it just happens to be Russia, a country that can fight back (at least for now). And again, if the table were reversed, the US would have probably attacked "to defend its security" (in fact it has)

So let's us first jump off our high horse and act all shocked. We the west have done the same shit.

The narrative here matters. From a Lens of few years, Russia is clearly in the wrong. If we extend it to few decades, the west is as responsible.

NOw, to the current crisis... I don't know what should be done to solve it. It is a very unfortunate situation, specially for people in Ukraine (local and foreigners living there). But I feel that Russia has a goal and will go to the end, even if they have to use their nuclear arsenal. So I don't know.

(and for those that are tempted to say aggression from the west wwere to defend their securities or are just past actions - please. The West has not been accountable for their terrible acts and will use force if they feel threaten. That has been the case over and over. Russia is using the same playbook now)

Edit: looking for a dialogue mate. Happy to do it through DMs.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kevin88660]

U.S government is cracking down on bitcoin as it might be used to bypass sanction. We will see how it goes since BTC is decentralised.

I wonder if business selling “prepping” supply will prosper in Europe. Can food, emergency medical, fuel, home made water distillation system, radiation resistant suit.

 

[juicey]

It gets worse...
Russia’s parliament unanimously passed a law banning fake news — or news that they don’t agree with and not approved by Moscow — with a punishment of up to 15 years in prison.

Russian ‘fake news’ law could give offenders 15 years in prison

It was signed by Putin today.

www.theverge.com

 

[Xeon]

This was, as usual, Western propaganda. Instead they were attacking the government office...which the Ukrainians conveniently placed 100 meters from their nuclear power plant.
And of course, everyone fell for that news piece.

Where can one read news from the Russian side? TASS?

NATO was created to fight the USSR. If I am not mistaken, NATO has agreed not to expand East in the late 90. Well, turns out not to be the case. The expansion led to a series of events leading to the war in Yugoslavia. Not to mention the clear violation of the NATO-Russia act by the USA. Less not forget all the pacts the USA withdrew from.

NATO is a "defensive" organisation, or so they say.

NOw, to the current crisis... I don't know what should be done to solve it.

Zelensky should pressure EU, and together with the EU, pressure the US to sign a formal deal with Russia that they (the US and NATO) will not accept Ukraine into NATO or EU.

Honestly, if I were Putin, I would ignore and bypass Zelensky and NATO completely and demand for talks and guarantees directly and solely from the US. We know who is the one controlling NATO.


Side note, this is an interesting piece of news today:

Kraken CEO fires back at Ukraine’s request to freeze Russian crypto: ‘Step 1 would be to freeze all U.S. accounts’

Kraken CEO Jesse Powell has responded to calls for his company to freeze the crypto assets of Russians amid Vladimir Putin’s attack on Ukraine.

finance.yahoo.com

This guy is doing the right thing.

Zelensky: 'The end of the world has arrived'

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Thursday issued a dire appeal for help as Russia's attacks across the country intensified.

sg.yahoo.com

Seems Zelensky is worn out and shows signs of desperation. I hope Putin can have direct talks with him asap so that a resolution can be worked out.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[juicey]

Three, unless if my knowledge of history is failing me, NATO was created to fight the USSR. If I am not mistaken, NATO has agreed not to expand East in the late 90. Well, turns out not to be the case. The expansion led to a series of events leading to the war in Yugoslavia. Not to mention the clear violation of the NATO-Russia act by the USA.

Seems like no such agreement actually existed.

Fact-checking claims that NATO broke agreement on expansion

Two days before Russia invaded Ukraine with an assault that intelligence officials had warned was coming, conservative c

www.politifact.com

 

[Xeon]

Seems like no such agreement actually existed.

Fact-checking claims that NATO broke agreement on expansion

Two days before Russia invaded Ukraine with an assault that intelligence officials had warned was coming, conservative c

www.politifact.com

If anything, this article simply proves that the US and NATO has wild ambitions beyond being a defensive organisation.


Add:

Offshore empire and $40 million from Kolomoisky: Zelenskyy became one of the defendants in Pandora Papers

Ukrainian businessmen and politicians, including President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, have become defendants in an extensive investigation by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). In a document called the Pandora Papers, more than 600 journalists from around the world...

en.thepage.ua

Pandora Papers Reveal Offshore Holdings of Ukrainian President and his Inner Circle - OCCRP

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky rode to power on pledges to clean up the Eastern European country, but the Pandora Papers reveal he and his close circle were the beneficiaries of a network o...

www.occrp.org

Zelensky is no angel or war hero. Maybe he profits from the war somehow, which is why he refuses to surrender or even compromises just a little?

 

[otek]

Zelensky should pressure EU, and together with the EU, pressure the US to sign a formal deal with Russia that they (the US and NATO) will not accept Ukraine into NATO or EU.

Problem is, this would likely not end The conflict. From Putin's point of view, Ukraine has lucrative farmland, industrial ports, ship engine builders etc. Remember he is opportunistic power hungry KGB style dictator who has military Power greatly exceeding Ukraine. And he has only so many years left to carve his mark.

Putin would likely try to take it anyways. Would be more lucrative as Putin would know for sure that NATO would not help. Maybe Via puppet, with assasination of Zelenskiy. Or use The neo nazis as an excuse for invasion. There are neo nazis on Ukraine (Azov) but not all ukrainians, Azov is maybe couple thousand to 40 million population. But it would Be good Angle for Putin to use. Actually Putin uses it already. One stated Goal is denazification.

After Ukraine, Moldova would Be good target for next denazification etc.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Xeon]

Problem is, this would likely not end The conflict. From Putin's point of view, Ukraine has lucrative farmland, industrial ports, ship engine builders etc. Remember he is opportunistic power hungry KGB style dictator who has military Power greatly exceeding Ukraine. And he has only so many years left to carve his mark.

Putin would likely try to take it anyways. Would be more lucrative as Putin would know for sure that NATO would not help. Maybe Via puppet, with assasination of Zelenskiy. Or use The neo nazis as an excuse for invasion. There are neo nazis on Ukraine (Azov) but not all ukrainians, Azov is maybe couple thousand to 40 million population. But it would Be good Angle for Putin to use. Actually Putin uses it already. One stated Goal is denazification.

After Ukraine, Moldova would Be good target for next denazification etc.

So from your point of view, Putin wants Ukraine and wants to run it, that's why he didn't bomb Ukraine much compared to the US vs Iraq? E.g. he wants to capture Ukraine as intact as possible? Bear in mind, Russia could have gone all out and flatten many of the key cities during the first night when they had all the time advantage in the world.

 

[Black_Dragon43]

You might have probably heard the whole what if Russia had weapons in Mexico, how would the US react? Well, it is a bit silly, but if the table was reversed, the USA will have probabky reacted the same. So let's start with that.

To be honest, this is a Russian talking point, they’re the ones who first thought it up. I’m not sure it would be such a big issue to be honest with you. We do have the prior example of Cuba, which was a big deal, as evidence for the opposite point of view…

But look at India and Pakistan. Both nuclear powers right next to each other, who don’t like each other. They’re not going to war. Look at China and India -> they also don’t like each other, but share a border, both large economies with massive populations, and nuclear armament. Skirmishes and soldiers shooting each other happen ALL THE TIME on their border.

That makes me tell you that it’s not a security threat to have even a nuclear armed neighbor next to you who doesn’t like you. Especially in Russia’s case, since NATO has been an organisation in decline for many many years, being there more in name than otherwise.

Two, I am against what Putin did. And also, why other wars have not been as denounced vehemently as this is something to mention. The USA and NATO are as much as bullies as Russia. Iraq is an example, where a country was destroyed for weapons that never existed. Lybia is another one. Both will use force if they deem it necessary. I do favor the western way than the communist way; I also recognize that it is aggression against people that think differently.

We haven’t denounced other wars so vehemently because they didn’t occur so close to us and in what we deem to be “the civilized world”. Take the Saudi conflict and attacks on Yemen which were largely ignored in Western media.

Iraq isn’t such a clear case. Iraq did not have nuclear weapons, BUT, they did have chemical weapons which were used against the civilian population and also a very advanced biological weapons program. That being said, the Iraqis themselves welcomed US soldiers with open arms, unlike what is happening in Ukraine if anyone remembers the early days of the war.

But sure, I agree with your general point regarding invasion of Afghanistan, Lybia, and Vietnam, all conflicts which were strategic military attacks for the US.

Three, unless if my knowledge of history is failing me, NATO was created to fight the USSR. If I am not mistaken, NATO has agreed not to expand East in the late 90. Well, turns out not to be the case. The expansion led to a series of events leading to the war in Yugoslavia. Not to mention the clear violation of the NATO-Russia act by the USA. Less not forget all the pacts the USA withdrew from.

NATO never agreed not to expand East. NATO agreed in 1990 that it would not expand with troops and weaponry into East Germany (whcih had been Soviet controlled) in order to allow for the unification of Germany and the retreat of the Soviet army. This was later changed when Gorbachev was paid $100bn to allow the reunification to go through.

Then in 1997, Russia and NATO signed the Rusia NATO Founding Act in which Eastern expansion WAS discussed, and NATO agreed not to station permanent troops or nukes in the territory of Eastern states that border Russia and may join NATO. This was before Romania, Poland, Lithuania and so on joined. This was respected, troops in those territories were always rotational rather than permanent.

Russia, by the way, agreed to similar committments which were broken in 2015 with the annexation of Crimea, so Russia has NO RIGHT to talk about any betrayal at this point, and NATO must become a lot more aggressive against the Russians, even to the point of actively undermining their efforts in regions of interest.

Now this point you bring up is another Russian talking point with no merit. It’s basically propaganda.

Four, in the recent past, as far as 2007-2008, Ukraine was against joining NATO. Uncle Sam obviously put pressure and meddled. Plus Kossovo, anyone?

No, Uncle Sam didn’t put pressure. It was Putin’s own stupidity that turned Ukraine West. After he annexed Crimea support for joining NATO climbed from 28% or so to above 50%. Alsp because by annexing those areas Putin removed a large Russian voting block from Ukraine’s elections, and of course threatened them, causing them to turn West. So it’s not the West’s fault that Ukraine wants to join - it is 100% Putin and he should pay the price. Which is why I was initially for defending Ukraine militarily against Russia, if only Biden hadn’t been so weak.

Again, Putin has no right to dictate any terms just because he’s mighty. We’re also mighty and it’s time to show it and stand up for ourselves.

What am trying to say here is, the West violated many agreements and meddled to have NATO expand closer and closer to Russian borders. The situation today is just the results of all those decisions. Lets not forget history.

And again, the West has repeatedly shown they will use force if they deem fit. Now it just happens to be Russia, a country that can fight back (at least for now). And again, if the table were reversed, the US would have probably attached to defend its security (in fact it has)

So let's us first jump off our high horse and act all shocked. We the west have done the same shit

I disagree with all of this because it’s just no true. We shouldn’t jump off our high horse, we actually need to climb on it and grow a pair in front of Putin, because he clearly sees us as cowards and has no respect for us. Again, we didn’t cause this situation, Putin is the cause of it. So his blatant disrespect for history, blame throwing and temper tantrum needs to be put where it belongs.

Again, if I was Biden before this Ukraine crisis I would have told Putin ONE Russian soldier over Ukraine’s border in breach of international law is a THREAT to NATO and NATO will intervene with overwhelming might to expel Russia out of Ukraine. And if he then threatened me with nuclear weapons, I would have told him that we also have nuclear weapons, and much better defence capabilities than he does, so he better think twice before speaking in that manner with us. And yes, that’s how we should be speaking with him. No “we don’t want a third world war bullshit”.

He needs to listen, because we have a much bigger stick than he does. He’s in no position to give orders or make threats. While we don’t want conflict with him, we are not shy about having one if that’s what it takes to enforce our boundaries.

 

[Xeon]

That makes me tell you that it’s not a security threat to have even a nuclear armed neighbor next to you who doesn’t like you.

It's not a security threat unless that neighbour is US, the king of regime change, chaos, war and meddling.

He needs to listen, because we have a much bigger stick than he does. He’s in no position to give orders or make threats.

Putin and Russia has a lot less to lose compared to Biden and US, in the event of a nuclear war. Russia is already poor to begin with. Imagine a poor man and a billionaire in a fight to the death. If both dies, which one stands to lose more?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Black_Dragon43]

It's not a security threat unless that neighbour is US, the king of regime change, chaos, war and meddling.

But the neighbor is Ukraine, not the USA lol

Putin and Russia has a lot less to lose compared to Biden and US, in the event of a nuclear war. Russia is already poor to begin with. Imagine a poor man and a billionaire in a fight to the death. If both dies, which one stands to lose more?

Putin of course. Putin is probably one of the richest men on the entire planet, with much greater power over Russia and its people than Biden over America. He is pretty much guaranteed dictatorship for life, and whatever lifestyle he wants to have.

The Russian people may be poor, but their elites certainly are not.

Also, this isn’t a fight to the death contrary to Russian propaganda and will never be. The US and NATO have no interest to try and conquer Russian territory. But the US and NATO should be willing to defend against Russian aggression, until Russia stops. The ball will always be in Russia’s court to STOP.

 

[otek]

So from your point of view, Putin wants Ukraine and wants to run it, that's why he didn't bomb Ukraine much compared to the US vs Iraq? E.g. he wants to capture Ukraine as intact as possible? Bear in mind, Russia could have gone all out and flatten many of the key cities during the first night when they had all the time advantage in the world.

Putin wan'ts to install puppet or just take it wholly. Now seemed that Putin expected it to be easy and did not use all the force possible at the start.

Now that Ukraine resistance was greater than expected, bombing civilians May be used to try to demoralize, wreak chaos, and force to surrender. Putin is well known to be brutal civilian bomber, (Grosnyi, Chechnyan war for example).

 

[Andreas Thiel]

Seems like no such agreement actually existed.

Fact-checking claims that NATO broke agreement on expansion

Two days before Russia invaded Ukraine with an assault that intelligence officials had warned was coming, conservative c

www.politifact.com

I have seen historic "Tagesschau" coverage (German mainstream) of that topic recently.

They clearly stated that there were promises that the Nato would not expand to the east at all.
Then they still did it and Russia could not do anything about it.
Current fact checking sites are not a great source of information.

That article even puts it this way:

No binding, legal agreement ever codified the terms that Putin’s camp — and Owens — now say were violated.

That is the go to excuse now. We lied ... but it was okay to break our promises because we did not sign anything. Doing that was used as an example of how despicable Hitler and Stalin were when I went to school.

Same with Minsk. Russia was promised that the Russians would have autonomy and then they stationed troops close to them, started referring to them as separatists and bullying them, just to poke the bear and show Russia how weak it is.

Now, to the current crisis... I don't know what should be done to solve it. It is a very unfortunate situation, specially for people in Ukraine (local and foreigners leaving there). But I feel that Russia had a goal and will go to the end, even if they have to use their nuclear arsenal. So I don't know.

Up until yesterday I mostly worried about those kinds of escalation as well and I think that is what the media wants to do to put pressure on Putin.
Actually the bigger danger seems to be the slow bleed. Russia has eliminated dependencies on other coutries as much as they could. They are autonomous and prosperity will decline on both sides. So this has already turned into some kind of arm wrestling match.

The US thought that they are far away from the conflict and they will only profit from a war.
They can spread a narrative that countries like Germany were / are not pulling their weight and they now have to do their part, which is ridiculously stupid.

The longer the conflicts remains unresolved, the countries that are directly hit by poverty and - over time civil unrest - will turn to the US for help.
That pressure on the US will increase. When they are desperate enough, many might even turn to China.
The best the west can do now is prepare for those dynamics and find ways to make sure every country does ... okayish - maybe even prosper somehow.

If the US stays on the current course of wanting to get more ahead and put every country into debt that they will never be able to repay, then I think very bad things will happen.
Then again, given the debt of the US ... that probably seems like a great opportunity at this point in time.

Just play the thought. People in the west are still talking about inflation and rising gas / oil prices. We have barely seen the start of that and have been spoilt for decades.
The realization of what the next decades will look like will hit most people unprepared. What will that do to the morale ... and public sentiment? I know people who are unable to keep the heating on, even if they have the money because there is no way to order heating oil right now. Sentiment might start to shift pretty fast. I think those issues are just around the corner.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kevin88660]

As sanctions target Russia, FESCO says customers can pay yuan

Russia's FESCO Transportation Group accepts Chinese yuan from customers, it said this week, as businesses struggle to cope with international sanctions over Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

www.reuters.com

Companies in Russia accepting rmb for international business.

Russia will be very dependent on China in the future.

If your country is not sanctioning Russia. There could be business opportunity.

Russia’s relationship with Europe could not recover in less than 10-20 years.

With India and China not taking a stand, Russia will be integrating more with Asia in culture, economy and diplomacy.

Turkey will likely to benefit as the intermediary between east and west in the future in transcontinental trade and business.

 

[S.Y.]

@Black_Dragon43 appreciate the civil answer.

Propaganda is another way of saying narrative. Both side have a narrative going right now.

But look at India and Pakistan. Both nuclear powers right next to each other, who don’t like each other. They’re not going to war. Look at China and India -> they also don’t like each other, but share a border, both large economies with massive populations, and nuclear armament. Skirmishes and soldiers shooting each other happen ALL THE TIME on their border.

That makes me tell you that it’s not a security threat to have even a nuclear armed neighbor next to you who doesn’t like you. Especially in Russia’s case, since NATO has been an organisation in decline for many many years, being there more in name than otherwise.

Not the same historical context.

We haven’t denounced other wars so vehemently because they didn’t occur so close to us and in what we deem to be “the civilized world”. Take the Saudi conflict and attacks on Yemen which were largely ignored in Western media.

Iraq isn’t such a clear case. Iraq did not have nuclear weapons, BUT, they did have chemical weapons which were used against the civilian population and also a very advanced biological weapons program. That being said, the Iraqis themselves welcomed US soldiers with open arms, unlike what is happening in Ukraine if anyone remembers the early days of the war.

But sure, I agree with your general point regarding invasion of Afghanistan, Lybia, and Vietnam, all conflicts which were strategic military attacks for the US.

I don't see how Iraq is complicated. The invasion of Iraq was based on the belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that caused an imminent threat to the US and its allies. Turned out that was completely wrong. Chemical weapons were not part of the conversation and I don't recall them being used against the Iraqi when the country was invaded.

Any attempt to justify that now is just an attempt to legitimize our wrongs and rewrite history.

Agreeing with the point is not enough. If we want to hold other countries accountable for their transgressions, maybe we should start with ourselves. Because when we are the bully, it ends as "sorry we made a mistake" and we move on. But when it is Russia, we have to cut them from the world, is it?

Not that it makes what Putin is doing ok. It is just worth pointing out the double standard.

NATO never agreed not to expand East. NATO agreed in 1990 that it would not expand with troops and weaponry into East Germany (whcih had been Soviet controlled) in order to allow for the unification of Germany and the retreat of the Soviet army. This was later changed when Gorbachev was paid $100bn to allow the reunification to go through.

Then in 1997, Russia and NATO signed the Rusia NATO Founding Act in which Eastern expansion WAS discussed, and NATO agreed not to station permanent troops or nukes in the territory of Eastern states that border Russia and may join NATO. This was before Romania, Poland, Lithuania and so on joined. This was respected, troops in those territories were always rotational rather than permanent.

Russia, by the way, agreed to similar committments which were broken in 2015 with the annexation of Crimea, so Russia has NO RIGHT to talk about any betrayal at this point, and NATO must become a lot more aggressive against the Russians, even to the point of actively undermining their efforts in regions of interest.

Now this point you bring up is another Russian talking point with no merit. It’s basically propaganda.

Yes, they did. Nato agreed in 1990 to not expand troops and weaponry past the territory of East Germany. Granted, the Soviet Union still existed then. The speech is online for people to read.

What happened before Crimea?
- can we talk about how Bush was pressing for Ukraine to join NATO?
- can we also talk about how high ranks US officials were caught discussing influencing the election in Ukraine and work with political candidates they felt will be pro-US?
- can we talk about how this was done even though Russia was clear that it is unacceptable?

We all saw what happened when Russia was thought to have influenced the US elections. Yet, when the US repeatedly meddled in other countries affairs and try to install pro-US regimes, we give a pass?

--
If we are to be on our high horse, let's not stop with Russia, shall we? Once this is done, let's in fact start with the USA. Then China, then the UAE...

If we are not ready to commit to that, then perhaps we should not be on the high horse. Rather on the ground, working to resolve this shit.

I just hope it gets resolved quickly and with as few casualties as possible. It is certainly tragic. Ukraine is suffering, Russians that were not for the war are suffering, everything is about to get more expensive and put a strain on many...

 

[Xeon]

Putin is well known to be brutal civilian bomber, (Grosnyi, Chechnyan war for example).

If Russia only focuses on taking out military targets and the Ukrainian army, I can understand that, but if they start to bomb and rape the civilians, then I have to join in the chantings of "F*ck Putin"

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Black_Dragon43]

Propaganda is another way of saying narrative. Both side have a narrative going right now.

It's not just a narrative. A narrative is a matter of interpretation. We're talking about LYING here, which is different than merely having a different interpretation.

When Putin said he will not attack, and then in the middle of the night attacked, that is not a different interpretation. That is not spinning a narrative. That is LYING and outright disregard for what others think.

I don't see how Iraq is complicated. The invasion of Iraq was based on the belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that caused an imminent threat to the US and its allies. Turned out that was completely wrong. Chemical weapons were not part of the conversation and I don't recall them being used against the Iraqi when the country was invaded.

Any attempt to justify that now is just an attempt to legitimize our wrongs and rewrite history.

Agreeing with the point is not enough. If we want to hold other countries accountable for their transgressions, maybe we should start with ourselves. Because when we are the bully, it ends as "sorry we made a mistake" and we move on. But when it is Russia, we have to cut them from the world, is it?

Yes, it was also based upon Iraq's failure to comply with Security Council Resolution 1441 (which was the culmination of another 10 Security Council resolutions Iraq failed to comply with) which was unanimously accepted by all 15 security council members, including Russia and China. Everyone believed Iraq had WMDs at that point and was working to produce more.

It's true that the US attacked without another Security Council resolution approving the attack (with France, Russia and China who voiced their clear opinion that they would veto). But this was an action taken after large diplomatic attempts at solving the situation had failed, and in a climate where everyone thought that Saddam had WMDs, but did not agree about the necessity to intervene with force.

This is NOT what Russia did. Attacking in the middle of the night, during an actual Security Council meeting on the topic of Ukraine that Russia itself chaired, after Russia promised not to invade is a FLAGRANT violation of international law and complete disrespect for the international order. And yes, this is a crime severe enough in itself, coupled with Russia's viciousness and persistence after the invasion, and threats of nuclear war to completely remove them from the civilized world.

There is again, NO COMPARISON between China and Russia and the West. Those two countries have always been extremely brutal and had no respect for moral laws. And this is true historically, when you had Ancient Chinese rulers and warlords who would sell their own daughters into slavery, kill their own families, and so on for dominion.

The West has had periods of brutality, that is true. Slavery, hunting the witches, and so on. But while those were brutal, they never occurred in a climate where moral laws were completely disregarded. China and Russia are what the Romans would rightly have viewed as BARBARIANS, again, historically speaking.

With regards to Iraq and chemical weapons, they WERE part of the conversation, and in fact the main reason for the invasion. While it's true that Saddam had stopped producing such weapons or actively using them, he did have quite a stockpile of them left, all produced before 1991. So the official reason for invading was wrong - but, looking back, Iraq is better without Saddam. I do not regret that the US took out a brutal dictator for one, and neither did his people who participated in the revolution at the time.

Sure, geopolitically and economically, it was a big mistake and financial disaster for the US. But morally speaking it's a different story.

Yes, they did. Nato agreed in 1990 to not expand troops and weaponry past the territory of East Germany. Granted, the Soviet Union still existed then. The speech is online for people to read.

So? You realise that Gorbachev himself accepted a payment from the German government in exchange for allowing them to reunify Germany and hence allowing NATO to hold troops there and expand.

How about when Yeltsin allowed Lech Walesa and Poland to join NATO in in his visit in 1993? Did that mean he no longer accepted what was said previously?

The point is that Russia accepted all those states joining NATO because they wanted MONEY - which the West gave them, and plenty of it too.

In addition to that, NATO and Russia agreed together when they signed the NATO Russia Founding Act in 1997, way after the moment you're discussing and before the Eastern countries joined to "respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security".

And that includes joining NATO.

So all this is propaganda and lies from a warmonger who is frustrated that Russia gave up ground during the end of the Cold War in exchange for financial aid and rescue from the West.

Again, we need to worry less about ourselves (and I know that's hard because leftist media in the West has been portraying the West as the devil for the past 20 years, due to slavery, patriarchy and so on) and be more worried about stopping another Hitler.

 

[Andreas Thiel]

If Russia only focuses on taking out military targets and the Ukrainian army, I can understand that, but if they start to bomb and rape the civilians, then I have to join in the chantings of "f*ck Putin"

What source can we trust? I won't ever be convinced I know what actually happens in Ukraine.