Posted on 06/06/2024 4:35:05 AM PDT by hardspunned
MOSCOW, June 6 (Reuters) - The Kremlin said on Thursday that Western nations which supply Ukraine with weapons to directly strike Russian territory will definitely face consequences after President Vladimir Putin said he was considering arming the West's enemies in retaliation. Speaking with senior editors of international news agencies in St Petersburg on Wednesday, the Russian leader said Moscow was thinking about supplying advanced long-range weapons - of a similar nature to those the West is giving Ukraine - to the West's adversaries around the world.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Both you and Biden are both globalists. Let’s start there. Also, what do you think about Hunter’s laptop, the one you stated didn’t contain any evidence of a crime? The FIB offered it at trial as evidence.
What would Yemeni Hamas do with Hyper sonic Missie’s? Maybe sink some USN warships?
What if Russia gave their best stuff to Iran? Or to North Korea? What about Hyper-sonic Missile’s to Serbia? Ot some vacuum bombs? Maybe give some good stuff to Venezuela in their was to take Guyana?
Oh. but the Russians only produce junk that doesn’t work, and North Korean weapons are useless. American stuff is always better—Once, long ago, we thought Japan was a weak power, One American boy can beat ten little Japanese guys, Until Pearl Harbor and Bataan. We may be setting our self up for a rude awakening. Is the F-35 really that good? Our Abrams tanks are not performing up to standard. If Russia is so weak how come they are winning in Ukraine?
Wait-where is all that coming from?
My point is that Russia supplying our enemies is nothing new. My point is NOT that they would or would not give hypersonic missiles to Yemen. I don’t think they would do that because if your ship gets hit with an RPG from a Yemeni boat and sailors are killed, who knows where it came from?
But if you get hit with a hypersonic missile...well, where did THAT come from. There is no “plausible deniability”. It would be one thing if the Ukrainians had been buying NASAMS missile systems and had a bunch of them on hand before the onset of hostilities. It is another thing when, after the hostilities have begun, that you ship weapons like NASAMS to one side which are then used.
That is just one of several reasons that I don’t think we should be supplying Ukraine with arms. You and I may disagree on this, I don’t know your posting history in this respect.
However, if you read my posting history, you will see I am against giving any aid to Ukraine for the simple reasons that we have no strategic interest in that area that overshadows the risk of being dragged into a wider war, but more relevantly, we cannot afford it.
The United States is the poorest country in the word if you factor in our debt, and that isn’t even negotiable at approaching $40 trillion, and going up by $1 trillion dollars every 90 days. We are mortgaging the futures of our children, and probably our great-great grandchildren by borrowing money to send anything to Ukraine, where we cannot even afford to pay the interest on that borrowed money any longer, never mind the principal.
But my point is, Russia has been arming our enemies as long as there has been a Soviet Union, at least once we pulled their fat out of the fire with our lend-lease in WWII.
I didn’t say their stuff was junk and ours is better. Not sure why you appear to be coming at me so hard on that response.
And by the way, I am NOT one of those delusional people who thinks Ukraine is “winning”. I hate what the government of Russia is, led by a former KGB stooge, and as a former Cold Warrior, I like nothing better than seeing the likes of Putin get his nose bloodied. But the reality is, Russia is going to win in the end unless they decide to stop, and I don’t think they are going to do that the same way we did in Afghanistan.
By that reckoning Ireland should be part of England, which ruled Ireland for 800 years (from the 12th to the 20th centuries). But I would bet that that the Irish would not put much stock in Englands historical claims. Perhaps the US should return to British rule because we were historically British colonies.
Ukraine was rules as a part of Russia for only 153 years (1764-1917). That is not long in terms of European history and hardly supports the claim that it is historically a part of Russia. Formerly, yes; historically, no.
The ethnic surveys I've seen show the Donbas is majority ethnic Russian. Its been Russian since before there even was a USA.
You are confusing Russian speaking with ethnic Russian. According to the Soviet census of 1926 Stalin (Donetsk) had a population that was 53% Ukrainian and 34% Russian; Luhansk, 52% Ukrainian and 42% Russian. The 2001 Ukrainian census showed Donetsk as 57% Ukrainian and 38% Russian; Luhansk, 58% Ukrainian and 39% Russian.
How long has Ukraine been an independent country at all? Oh.....1991.
Russia recognized Ukraine as an independent country in 1918. It was part of the Soviet Union not as a part of Russia but as a founding constituent republic on an equal footing as Russia.
It turned out Russia offered the deal [Yanukovych] thought better and in truth, there were always many economic ties since Ukraine was part of the Russian empire for centuries.
Again, let's not be naïve. Yanukovych was economically blackmailed by Putin.
Petrosius: Let's not be naïve. Donetsk and Luhansk were seized by Russia through the use of local surrogate militias.
FLT-bird: No they weren't. The locals controlled them. The Russians backed them sure, but it was the locals in control.
We are going to have to agree to disagree. That Putin wasn't controlling the militias I find laughable.
That's funny. All the locals in Lugansk and Donetsk tell a very different story. Kiev broke the deal.
Ukraine Extends Donbas Special Status Law By One Year
Over 10,000 people were killed by Ukrainian shelling in the next 8 years.
That includes combatants as well as civilians, and the casualties were on both sides, not just Russians. Pro-Russian militants were also responsible for civilian casualties on the Ukrainian side. 75% percent of these casualties were in the first two years of the conflict and were the result of the use of unguided Grad rockets used by both sides early in the conflict. Afterwards, civilian casualties fell off drastically and were mostly the result of abandoned minefields and unexploded ordinance, not the deliberate shelling of civilians. But these facts don't match the Russian propaganda that needs an excuse for its invasion. The notion that the Ukrainians had been deliberately shelling civilian populations for eight years is pure myth.
That's [no NATO] not what Zelensky offered.
Exclusive: As war began, Putin rejected a Ukraine peace deal recommended by aide
Why did the West lean on Zelensky to not accept the peace deal that was almost done in Istanbul 2 years ago?
Again, pure myth. 1) There was no agreement at Istanbul. 2) Zelensky stated that he still wanted a deal with Putin after Boris Johnson's visit. 3) The talks broke down not because of pressure from the west but because of the revelations of the Buch massacre. But pro-Russian propagandists like to push the myth that there was a deal that was blocked by western pressure.
“No it is not. The denial of it is a lie. There was not a formal treaty in which NATO undertook not to expand, but Secretary of State James Baker did promise that to Gorbachov in 1989 when it was up to Gobarchov to decide whether to let the wall fall or not.”
No. Gorbachev has admited that conversation was about post-unification Germany and not moving NATO forces “on inch east” into the eastern side of Germany. It was not a “promise” about anything else.
If Putin really wanted Urkraine to stick with neutrality, he would not have created the separatist movements in Eastern Ukraine - Putin;s porxy war inside Ukraine. THAT has helped push Ukraine closer to NATO, which may not have been the case if PUTIN had remained “neutral” and stayed out of ALL of Ukraine.
A strong U.S. President would have told Putin - you want Ukraine to be “nuetral”, get the hell out of Ukraine, all of Ukraine and stay out and quit trying to subvert it to a Russian stooge. Conversely, if you do invade Ukraine, you will be guaranteeing Ukriane will not be neutral.
It’s incredible how Europe is drifting towards war, with no real public discourse about this.
There’s no discussion about the risks here or in Europe. It’s just the opposite in Russia. The reasons for the SMO have been explained to the Russian people and they agree, the West’s purposes in Ukraine are an existential threat to Russia. The Russian people are going into this period eyes wide open. They are aware of the very real threat on nuclear war.
Then they were lied to. An independent Ukraine is no threat to Russia.
“Why would the Soviets/Russians ever have agreed to allow it”
That line is parroting Putin’s Russian empire revivalist thinking in a number of ways and ignores, as I have repeated, and as Gorbachev admitted, Baker’s comments were about post-unified Germany at that time, not some future Eastern Europe after the Warsaw pact nations broke free of the disentegrating Soviet Union.
1. Like Putin it posits that the Soviet Union expansion into controlling so many in Eastern Europe, was as Putin believes, really about “Russian” interests more than the expansion of the Soviet communists realm. Yet, that is contrary to how Eastern European’s, freed from the Soviet Union saw it, until Putin began to ressurect that idea. Putin has, contrary to his desires, helped make Eastern Europe suspicious of his motives.
2. Nothing ever said or done with the Soviet Union and between the Soviet Union and others,”gauranteed” that the future security interests any of the former Warsaw pact nations would NOT be determined by their own choices and in accord with what they would see as their interest. No one presumed that “Russia” had a hold on those interests.
3. It has been Putin’s decision to maintain a cold war military stance with western Europe, abrogating every military and missle treaty Putin made with the west. It was Putin’s choosing to remain an adversary, and by doing so maintain “red lines” that no non-dictatorship, peaceful and truly democratic Russia would need. Putin’s own positions and actions have made for the conditions he now uses as excuses for his red lines. Russia could have been to western Europe as Canada is to the U.S., with a similar size common land border neither worries about. PUTIN decided that was not to be. Putin decided not to change the Soviet military position vis-a-vis the west - to him it was always a “Rusian” position not a Soviet position. NATO did not cause that. It was Putin’s choice.
The point is its been Russian for a long time. The people there are ethnically Russian and speak Russian. By all accounts, the will of the people there is to be part of Russia. That is not the same with Ireland.
Ukraine was rules as a part of Russia for only 153 years (1764-1917). That is not long in terms of European history and hardly supports the claim that it is historically a part of Russia. Formerly, yes; historically, no.
Ukraine? Sure that's fine. The people in the Western part of the country certainly don't want to be part of Russia. The Donbass however? That's a different story.
You are confusing Russian speaking with ethnic Russian. According to the Soviet census of 1926 Stalin (Donetsk) had a population that was 53% Ukrainian and 34% Russian; Luhansk, 52% Ukrainian and 42% Russian. The 2001 Ukrainian census showed Donetsk as 57% Ukrainian and 38% Russian; Luhansk, 58% Ukrainian and 39% Russian.
I'd like to see what a survey looks like from a neutral 3rd party rather than from one side which has every motivation in the world to put their thumb on the scale. I do note that the Donbas went entirely to Yanukovych and typically votes the opposite of Western Ukraine.
Russia recognized Ukraine as an independent country in 1918. It was part of the Soviet Union not as a part of Russia but as a founding constituent republic on an equal footing as Russia.
It recognized the Ukrainian SSR and it was part of the Soviet Union.
Again, let's not be naïve. Yanukovych was economically blackmailed by Putin.
blackmailed? They were offered a better economic deal. Its not surprising given there were a lot of economic ties between Ukraine and Russia that had grown over centuries which Ukraine would not enjoy if it chose to be part of the EU. That's not "blackmail" anymore than Trump telling the Mexicans to secure the border or face high tariffs is "blackmail". That's just negotiations.
Petrosius: Let's not be naïve. Donetsk and Luhansk were seized by Russia through the use of local surrogate militias.
Let's not be naive. The Deep State overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine and unconstitutionally installed a puppet government.
That includes combatants as well as civilians, and the casualties were on both sides, not just Russians. Pro-Russian militants were also responsible for civilian casualties on the Ukrainian side. 75% percent of these casualties were in the first two years of the conflict and were the result of the use of unguided Grad rockets used by both sides early in the conflict. Afterwards, civilian casualties fell off drastically and were mostly the result of abandoned minefields and unexploded ordinance, not the deliberate shelling of civilians. But these facts don't match the Russian propaganda that needs an excuse for its invasion. The notion that the Ukrainians had been deliberately shelling civilian populations for eight years is pure myth.
Deliberately shelling civilians? No. Indiscriminately raining down rockets and missiles on a wide are that included a lot of civilians? Yes. It wasn't just the first two years either. This kind of thing happened steadily over that whole time.
Again, pure myth. 1) There was no agreement at Istanbul. 2) Zelensky stated that he still wanted a deal with Putin after Boris Johnson's visit. 3) The talks broke down not because of pressure from the west but because of the revelations of the Buch massacre. But pro-Russian propagandists like to push the myth that there was a deal that was blocked by western pressure.
We're going to have to agree to disagree about this.
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/official-johnson-forced-kyiv-to-refuse-russian-peace-deal/
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-62998067
False
"The fact that the leaders of Western countries promised not to expand NATO eastward in the early 1990s was written in his book “How It Was” (published in 1999) by the former president of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev. In the book, Gorbachev recalled a meeting with US Secretary of State James Baker (held office from 1989 to 1992)."
https://europeantimes.news/2021/12/state-department-spokesman-price-us-is-pursuing-an-open-door-policy-expanding-nato/
You're putting the cart before the horse. It was NATO expansion and repeated statements by US and NATO officials that Ukraine would join NATO as well as the Deep State orchestrated color revolution that caused Russia to back the ethnic Russians in Ukraine. They weren't even separatist at first. All they demanded was local autonomy.
A strong U.S. President would have told Putin - you want Ukraine to be “nuetral”, get the hell out of Ukraine, all of Ukraine and stay out and quit trying to subvert it to a Russian stooge. Conversely, if you do invade Ukraine, you will be guaranteeing Ukriane will not be neutral.
To which Putin would have responded - you want us to stay out of Ukraine then you get the hell out of Ukraine and stop trying to subvert it to a US stooge and stop trying to bring it in to NATO. Conversely, if you do move ahead with plans to bring Ukraine into NATO and bring your weapons that much closer to our heartland, you will be guaranteeing we will bite off a huge chunk of it - namely the historic and ethnically Russian part of it which is the Donbas and Crimea.
I have already shown your claim here to be false. Gorbachev said the exact opposite.
1. Like Putin it posits that the Soviet Union expansion into controlling so many in Eastern Europe, was as Putin believes, really about “Russian” interests more than the expansion of the Soviet communists realm. Yet, that is contrary to how Eastern European’s, freed from the Soviet Union saw it, until Putin began to ressurect that idea. Putin has, contrary to his desires, helped make Eastern Europe suspicious of his motives.
Having studied a lot of history and lived in Eastern/Central Europe twice I know a lot of the countries/people in that region are suspicious of Russia and they have a lot of historical reasons to feel that way. In that part of the world you got a binary choice for centuries. You either aligned with the Germans or with the Russians. If you tried to be separate and apart - like Poland - you simply got crushed by both.
How much/to what extend Soviet imperialism was really Russian imperialism and how much the Soviet Union was something different from the Russian Empire vs how much it was really just the Russians still in charge operating under the fig leaf that all the Soviet Republics were equal is something people can argue until the end of time. There is no definitive answer one way or the other.
2. Nothing ever said or done with the Soviet Union and between the Soviet Union and others,”gauranteed” that the future security interests any of the former Warsaw pact nations would NOT be determined by their own choices and in accord with what they would see as their interest. No one presumed that “Russia” had a hold on those interests.
According to Gorbachev, that's exactly what the US promised in 1990. You can stand on a soap box and talk about how they're independent countries and yada yada yada. So is Cuba. Yet the US was not willing to allow Soviet missiles there. Would the US allow say, the Chinese to set up military bases in Northern Mexico even if the Mexicans agreed to it? Hell no it wouldn't allow that. The Mexicans could grandstand and talk about their sacred national sovereignty all they wanted. The US would never allow that. Major powers get extremely touchy about other major powers encroaching on what they perceive as their back yard. It has always been this way. It always will be this way.
3. It has been Putin’s decision to maintain a cold war military stance with western Europe, abrogating every military and missle treaty Putin made with the west. It was Putin’s choosing to remain an adversary, and by doing so maintain “red lines” that no non-dictatorship, peaceful and truly democratic Russia would need. Putin’s own positions and actions have made for the conditions he now uses as excuses for his red lines. Russia could have been to western Europe as Canada is to the U.S., with a similar size common land border neither worries about. PUTIN decided that was not to be. Putin decided not to change the Soviet military position vis-a-vis the west - to him it was always a “Rusian” position not a Soviet position. NATO did not cause that. It was Putin’s choice.
The Russians (not just Putin) say the exact opposite. They do have some solid facts to back them up. Russia asked to join NATO. Russia dramatically cut its military budget after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia tried to and did cultivate economic ties with Western Europe. They wanted the Cold War to end. As numerous US diplomats in the 1990s said expanding NATO was a big mistake and would cause Russia to be hostile. That included George Kennan, (Nixon had previously warned against treating Russia as hostile), Sam Nunn, Bill Bradley, Pat Buchanan, Stansfield Turner, Robert McNamara, and many more.
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.