Avoiding a Russian Quagmire, the Improbable Ukrainian Peace, and the Risk of Direct Russo-NATO War

Interesting video from 2 days after the special military operation began which shows the mindset at the beginning.

Operation Z: Military commissars of the Russian Spring

‼️ 🇬🇧RUSSIAN SPECIAL FORCE NEAR KIEV APPEALED TO THE MILITARY APU!🇬🇧‼️02/26/2022

“We are not Americans and do not bring you democracy. If you have it, then we will not touch it. Ukraine remains Ukrainian.

In the near future we will deprive the regime that sells you to foreigners. Do not waste your lives for this rot, save them for your country and your loved ones. Your power can no longer be worse than the current one. Calling Russia an enemy and inviting NATO here, they left us no choice. We are not enemies. A little more and you will be convinced of this. Do not touch us, and we won’t touch you
.
565.8Kviews
edited
04:12

The article does not claim nor imply that "denazification" is laudable or essential; rather, it dryly remarks how the way the invasion has currently unfolded makes such a process practically inevitable, along with hypothetical outcomes regarding how far-right elements of Ukraine's military would react.

The article:

1. Implies that something like "denazification" even exists - and that Ukraine is in need of it.

2. Characterizes this alleged "denazification" as a "minimal war goal" - which makes it sound prudent and modest.

3. Refers to "eight years of humiliation and terror in the breakaway regions of Donbass" - implying that Ukraine was not acting entirely within its rights, using appropriate means, to suppress a foreign-backed separatist movement.

4. Refers to "Donbass's exuberance" in seizing additional Ukrainian territory, as though the Separatists were merely overzealous schoolboys.

The article is saturated with a pious air of "concern," but is in fact a shameless piece of hackwork in support of the unprovoked Russian invasion and land-grab.

Regards,

(Out of curiosity, if the article had opened up with "Ukraine is winning and will win its war with Russia", would those two claims also count as unsupported?)

Silly Rabbit! That would obviously depend upon whether the article then went on to actually furnish such supporting information!

The article, as it stands, does not analyze the current military situation on the ground, but instead indulges in wanton speculation about possible future developments (or simply takes certain developments for granted, to then pile further unsupported claims on top of them).

The article does not attempt to compare the relative military and economic strengths of the various different parties involved - directly or indirectly - in this conflict.

The article does not attempt to quantify casualties and losses of materiel or analyze the tactical incompetence exhibited by any of the parties.

The article does not attempt to assess the impact of economic sanctions or the relative abilities of the opposing sides to withstand them.

The article is pretty much worthless in almost every regard. Its goal is obviously only to spread worry and propagate defeatism.

Regards,

Russia has MATERIALLY violated over four international agreements with Ukraine, including the UN Charter, Budapest Memorandum, final settlement of the Soviet Union, anf Minsk.

With insignificant provocation.

It did those things in 2013, before Euromaidan, it did them again in 2014 by annexing Crimea, and its action in February was despite two years of DPR ombudsman reporting that the armistices were holding up albeit with 70 or so civilian casualties... Per year.

Not good enough, said Putin, even though half the casualties were on the Uke side and a third were due to things like leftover mines... So not directly linked to ongoing hostilities.

So what’s the point of yet another international agreement when Russia will just break the terms on the flimsiest of excuses?

Minsk 3 would be a waste of time. Ukraine would only have to fart in Russia’s general direction and Russia would break it.

We were obliged to do something when Russia broke all the agreements signed between the USSR collapse and accession of former SSRs to the UN. We didn’t intervene when we should’ve.

This mess is entirely the result of “don’t poke the bear” and Russia counting on it.

Loads wrong with that article.

it is unfortunately the case that a rump Ukraine may no longer provide in Russian eyes the security from the NATO/Ukraine threat it understandably (to some) seeks.

That's the first wrong thing by a country mile and it drives me round the bend.

The hard-headed rashists like Putin in Russia are still massively butt-hurt that the Berlin Wall fell, and they've been bitching about it ever since. Their "perceived threats" come from every damned direction in the former USSR - from Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia, Khazakstan, Chechnya and Ukraine.

Putin's felt like this from the first frickin' day after the Berlin Wall came down. Estonia came under massive cyber attacks from Russia a few years back - for no reason whatsoever OTHER THAN they aligned to the EU instead of turning into a Lukashenko-like USSR restoration wannabe.

It's high time we stopped indulging this nonsense. Don't Poke The Bear has left us unable to tell Russia straight - there's a reason why the ex-SSRs in eastern Europe are not the completely shitted up basket cases that Russia is, and it ain't Western Interference.

It's the kleptomaniac trousering of a trillion dollars of Russian state assets by Putin and his oligarchs that has beggared a once proud nation. It is three decades of such utter crookedness that their missile silos rusted up, and one of Russia's prize seagoing vessels had its propellers nicked and replaced with cheap knock-offs to make the commanding officer a millionaire.

It is this "look over there" bullshit waxing lyrical about Peter the Great, and quoting Pushkin. Putin's meandering essays that gloss over some of the reasons why the regimes he loved so much collapsed in the first place. The revisionist romanticisms of Dugin, and Zhirinovsky.

The Istanbul plan would establish a well-institutionalized form of Ukrainian neutrality.

No it would not. Or rather, it would, but Russia won't honor it.

Ukraine and other ex-SSRs signed up to neutrality in effect through the Budapest Memorandum, the Final Settlement, and a raft of other international agreements.

To this day the only state actor that has repeatedly violated one agreement it signed after another, with no hint of apology, is Russia.

By rights, if we and NATO and the UN had stuck entirely to our side of those very same agreements then Putin would've been given the Saddam Hussein 1990s treatment long before things kicked off in the Donbas.

We didn't live up to our commitments, but at least we didn't actually break them like Russia did.

NATO expansion is a bullshit justification by Russia. Think about it- has NATO even once threatened to attack Russia since the end of the Cold War? No.

It's a massive deception. Russia thinks NATO would attack it, for one reason only: because Putin KNOWS he has designs on restoring a Russian empire by reacquiring eastern Europe and he KNOWS that means, at some point, he's going to have to park some tanks on, or fire some rockets at, NATO's lawn.

Classic projection - because he intends to park his tanks on NATO lawn he can't afford to have NATO putting tanks or rockets anywhere near that lawn.

We were obliged to do something when Russia broke all the agreements signed between the USSR collapse and accession of former SSRs to the UN. We didn’t intervene when we should’ve.

The U.S. was and is under no obligation to assist former SSRs. Most of the former SSRs are on good terms with the mother country anyway. Ukraine is an exception. And why get involved in inter-Slavic squabbles? That makes no sense.

Minsk 3 would be a waste of time. Ukraine would only have to fart in Russia’s general direction and Russia would break it.

And if we return to pre-2014 borders with full voting rights across the country, the Ukrainians will overthrow their own government again if a pro-Russian president is elected again.

That’s the way it is with some people on this subject. Either you must fully agree with their narrative or the name calling starts. Putin Shill, Putard, Putin Puffer. It’s no different than the Left calling people racist, white nationalist or insisting for years that Trump is a Russian asset.

I’ve never seen any pro Putin freepers but merely pointing out the fact that Ukraine is a screwed up place full of corruption or might have a nazi problem makes one a Putin Shill. Likewise with pointing out that Ukraine is and has been a puppet of the globalist left, Obiden admin and NATO that took over Ukraine in 2014 in a coup, much like the one we’re going through.

The pro jab people act similarly and I also notice there’s some overlap between the pro Ukraine people and the pro jab people. Some of the same screen names. Say anything bad about either one and the name calling starts.

That’s ok though. Comes with the territory of being an ultra maga deplorable pureblood realist.

That’s the way it is with some people on this subject. Either you must fully agree with their narrative or the name calling starts. Putin Shill, Putard, Putin Puffer.

The only disparaging expression I have used is "Russian shill." As far as it being "verbal abuse," I would categorize it as being merely "on the line." I have used it sparingly, and only after first being myself the target of offensive language.

I’ve never seen any pro Putin freepers but merely pointing out the fact that Ukraine is a screwed up place full of corruption or might have a nazi problem makes one a Putin Shill.

Do your homework and review the posting history of some of these apologists of the Russian invasion: You will see that, besides inevitably (when their arguments run thin) indulging in some of the worst invective and obscenities still just barely allowable here on Free Republic, they have even occasionally expressed some sentiment such as "looking forward to Putin completing the job" or "the Ukes are only getting what they deserve." In my opinion, that justifies labelling them as "shills."

The pro jab people act similarly and I also notice there’s some overlap between the pro Ukraine people and the pro jab people.

For the record, you can count me as a pro-Ukrainian and anti-Vaxxer!

Regards,

Your entire post can be basically summed up as follows: "don't bother speculating, it's a waste of time unless you have statistics and provide every single aspect of data, or else it's worthless. Don't even bother trying to guess at what will happen in the future!"

This would disqualify almost every single Anerican from participating in political and economic discussions, because water cooler conversations (or talks around the dinner table, at the bar, etc) are going to lack the kind of a rigor you're demanding.

The author is offering their opinion on how things are going and what might happen with regards to Russia v. Ukraine. You can take it or leave it. To call it "pathogical", however, is simply knee-jerk derangement.

Its goal is obviously only to spread worry and propagate defeatism.

That depends entirely on who you support (or don't support) in the conflict.

Implies that something like "denazification" even exists - and that Ukraine is in need of it.

Like it or not, that is what was one of the stated goals by Putin. Even if it's hypocritical on his part (given other far-right parties in Russia), the presence of neo-Nazis in various Ukrainian militias is a documented fact. Why would the author pretend it doesn't exist as a goal? (Hint: you can dispute the rationale or motives for why people do things; that doesnt mean they're not happening.)

Characterizes this alleged "denazification" as a "minimal war goal" - which makes it sound prudent and modest.

This is only your subjective characterization. Next.

Refers to "eight years of humiliation and terror in the breakaway regions of Donbass" - implying that Ukraine was not acting entirely within its rights, using appropriate means, to suppress a foreign-backed separatist movement.

Yes, Ukraine did violate ceasefire terms of Minsk I and Minsk II numerous times, what's your point? Neither they nor Russia are sinless with regards to what amounts to yet another messy inter-Slavic ethnic/territorial dispute.

Refers to "Donbass's exuberance" in seizing additional Ukrainian territory, as though the Separatists were merely overzealous schoolboys.

That you think of overzealous schoolboys when you hear the word 'exuberance' is your problem. Once again, this is entirely subjective.

The article is saturated with a pious air of "concern," but is in fact a shameless piece of hackwork in support of the unprovoked Russian invasion and land-grab.

And that's a fair enough opinion to hold.

It doesn't make anyone who happens to think otherwise a "Russian shill", as you claimed earlier.

Most of the former SSRs are on good terms with the mother country anyway. Ukraine is an exception.

Factually untrue!

The following former SSRs voted to condemn Russia for the invasion of Ukraine:

Ukraine;

Estonia;

Latvia;

Lithuania;

Moldova;

Georgia.

All of the other post-Soviet republics with the exception of Russia (natch!) and Belarus (natch!) abstained.

That's a real vote of confidence, isn't it?

But don't worry! A couple of countries are in Russia's corner!

Of the 193 member states of the U.N., a grand total of FIVE voted against the resolution condemning Russia for the invasion of Ukraine:

Russia (natch!);

North Korea;

Syria;

Belarus (natch!);

Eritrea.

So the Russians have got those beacons of liberty and economic powerhouses behind them!

Regards,

The Budapest Memorandum explicitly said that the USA and UK and Russia should all refrain from meddling in the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, but additionally had undertakings to respond if Ukraine was threatened by military OR political/economic coercion.

Russia had additional undertakings under the agreement signed at the dissolution of USSR.

Way I see it? USA was meddling in Ukraine in 2013 but its meddling was not violating Budapest. It was offending Russia but hey ho, EVERYTHING offends Russia if it’s not Russia’s idea, so boo hoo.

EU FTA could be construed as meddling but only in the absence of self-determination meant that as long as the Rada and Presidency carried on with the consent of the Ukrainian oblasts (backed up perhaps by a referendum) it would’ve been legit.

At thd same time, Russia was meddling directly in the government in Kyiv - by bribing Yanukovych and Azarov - and both guys sealed the deal with Putin without taking it to Rada or the oblasts. So Russian interference DID violate Budapest. And that violation should’ve triggered a forceful response. Even if if just meant USA and UK presented a challenge at the UN.

It is entirely possible that Russia was doing very bad things in Ukraine the same time USA was. It’s not a case of one country being the aggressor and the other being a saint.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.