wargames wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:Why are people pretending that we are not a guilty actor as well in what is taking place over there? Both sides have been fighting proxy wars for more than half-a-century. This is just the latest iteration of this.

I don’t think in modern wars America has committed wide spread war crimes. Like tying civilians hands behind their back and slitting their throats is not something the US does.

The war in Iraq is really hard to justify. Afghanistan also went sideways. Abu Gharib, drone strikes on weddings, Trump pardoning that killer over the objections of the military- that isn't anything that Washington and Jefferson fought for. The US has lost the moral high ground. As soon as US restarted lecturing on human rights, a new cold war started. Obama and Xi agreed to stop climate change way back in 2016!

Do you know what US did when Germany and Russia invaded Poland? Nothing- but the private sector and churches provided tons of humanitarian aid with former president Herbert Hoover spearheading the relief.

gradyandrew wrote:
The West had a golden opportunity to help Russia in the 90's but dropped the ball. Jeffrey Sachs pushed overnight liberalization of the economy that led to today's crony capitalism and also wiped out the savings of the older generation when the financial crisis hit in 1997. Putin was a savior when brought in by Yeltsin and was able to provide stability. The first hint should have been when Putin became prime minister when he should have retired. Plenty of ways for the West to have protested then but the 'war on terror' in Iraq sucked all of the oxygen out of the room. But hey, McDonald's somehow got 10% of its revenue out of Russia so I guess there were some benefits to continuing to do business there. I thought the US should have welcomed Russia into NATO sometime in 2002 since everyone was on the same page in fighting radical Islam. Unfortunately, that would have eventually resulted in lower defense spending so better to keep that bogeyman available to justify continued purchases of weapons systems.

What you are saying is all correct, but does not change the fact that the responsibility for Ukrainians being killed, maimed and deprived of their homes and livelihoods rests squarely on Putin's regime and a Russian populace that supports it. We can all say that the US and the West could have done more to prevent Russia from slipping back to being an autocratic and hostile state. But let us also not forget that Russia was always perceived in the West and in Central Europe as a potentially menacing country being run by criminal clans, oligarchs, ex-KGB officers, where people at large never came to renounce the country's history of domestic repression or military subjugation of neighboring countries. How comfortable could Western countries had been in embracing such a state as a potential partner and ally? Just look at how difficult the West's relations with Turkey are.

It was on Russia to prove that it was capable of becoming an orderly, fair and free democracy, Russians owed this first and foremost to themselves, the West was not supposed to babysit or accomodate Russia. But we in Russia failed miserably at that, and now it is our Ukrainian neighbors paying dearly for this.

ESOMKnicks wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:
The West had a golden opportunity to help Russia in the 90's but dropped the ball. Jeffrey Sachs pushed overnight liberalization of the economy that led to today's crony capitalism and also wiped out the savings of the older generation when the financial crisis hit in 1997. Putin was a savior when brought in by Yeltsin and was able to provide stability. The first hint should have been when Putin became prime minister when he should have retired. Plenty of ways for the West to have protested then but the 'war on terror' in Iraq sucked all of the oxygen out of the room. But hey, McDonald's somehow got 10% of its revenue out of Russia so I guess there were some benefits to continuing to do business there. I thought the US should have welcomed Russia into NATO sometime in 2002 since everyone was on the same page in fighting radical Islam. Unfortunately, that would have eventually resulted in lower defense spending so better to keep that bogeyman available to justify continued purchases of weapons systems.

What you are saying is all correct, but does not change the fact that the responsibility for Ukrainians being killed, maimed and deprived of their homes and livelihoods rests squarely on Putin's regime and a Russian populace that supports it. We can all say that the US and the West could have done more to prevent Russia from slipping back to being an autocratic and hostile state. But let us also not forget that Russia was always perceived in the West and in Central Europe as a potentially menacing country being run by criminal clans, oligarchs, ex-KGB officers, where people at large never came to renounce the country's history of domestic repression or military subjugation of neighboring countries. How comfortable could Western countries had been in embracing such a state as a potential partner and ally? Just look at how difficult the West's relations with Turkey are.

It was on Russia to prove that it was capable of becoming an orderly, fair and free democracy, Russians owed this first and foremost to themselves, the West was not supposed to babysit or accomodate Russia. But we in Russia failed miserably at that, and now it is our Ukrainian neighbors paying dearly for this.

Good point about Turkey and Russia never coming to grips with its past. No Truth Commission for the Russians. And yes, the destruction and death in Ukraine is squarely on Putin. I'm reminded of the Henry iv fireside chat "And if all those limbs demand demand justice on judgement day" or something like that. I'm not sure if Putin even knows what he's doing- if fresh water in Crimea was a problem, why not just build desalination plants or pipe in water from elsewhere.

My main issue is that I really see the war as being preventable, and the main stumbling block besides Putin's aggression has been the US's desire to build Russia up as an adversary. Outside of its nuclear weapons Russia is a rapidly aging corrupt oil economy. I don't mean that as an insult. But this talk you see sometimes that any appeasement of Putin will be another Munich and Sudetenland situation seems ridiculous to me. Any attack on NATO and Russia would have to go nuclear within the week. Now Putin has no choice except to rely on China.

Sadly US politics has boiled down to a popularity contest and box ticking. Could you imagine Biden or Trump or Kamala or Mike Pence trying to negotiate with Putin? Not exactly Nixon or Bush I. The US foreign policy community has largely failed to have any new ideas since the Berlin Wall fell.

The attempt to make us look unstable did not work as they were unable to exact leadership given their internal issues.
The notion of pushback and sanctions that Russia is experiencing does perhaps take the motivation out of invading Tawain. China will do it another way in time.

Putin depicted here as a James Bond villain is overly simplistic. No doubt he needs to find a way to win but we are mistaken to think internally Russia will vote him out. No doubt a wounded animal is a dangerous one and the west needs to give him a way out.
His talk of a nuclear option is viable but also his leverage to use. Im uncomfortable with him even using this as a bluff tactic.
years of sanctions against Putin got us here. Putin digs in further and further.

Bottom line, they are a corrupt inefficient economy with failed policies that relied too much on energy natural resources. They are not good at manufacturing or Technology. They have a large uneducated population and like the US they buy his bullshyt like many do with Trumpers. Add that to a supressed media and information stream they being told “The West is doing this to you”…………

ESOMKnicks wrote:

Nalod wrote:Putin depicted here as a James Bond villain is overly simplistic.

When I think of Putin and his surrounding clans that rule Russia today, this passage from "Goodfellas" (the book) where the author describes who gangsters are by nature, is what most vividly comes to my mind:

By birth, certainly, they were not prepared in any way to achieve their desires. They were not the smartest kids in the neighborhood. They were not born the richest. They weren't even the toughest. In fact, they lacked almost all the necessary talents that might have helped them satisfy the appetites of their dreams, except one—their talent for violence. Snapping a man's arm, cracking his ribs with an inch-and-a-half diameter lead pipe, slamming his fingers in the door of a car, or casually taking his life was entirely acceptable. It was routine. A familiar exercise. Their eagerness to attack and the fact that people were aware of their strutting brutality were the key to their power; the common knowledge that they would unquestionably take a life ironically gave them life. It distinguished them from everyone else. They would do it. They would put a gun in a victim's mouth and watch his eyes while they pulled the trigger. If they were crossed, denied, offended, thwarted in any way, or even mildly annoyed, retribution was demanded, and violence was their answer.

To that I would add that Putin and his ruling elites have an unbridled greed for wealth and luxury. For them it is not just about money, it is about stoking their egos by stuffing themselves on palaces, yachts, jets, bodyguards, lavish parties, even exclusive access to places of religious worship!!!! Anything to make them feel that they are high above everyone else - the stupid and detestable common folk from whose ranks they originally rose. Their hunger for ever greater material wealth and non-tangible privileges is almost like junkies permanently craving for a fix, they would stop at nothing to get it. And the poorer the regular folks around them are, the better they feel, because it further underscores their sense of exceptionalism.

I have not read up on Putin as I have the 3 or so books I read about Stalin. Im hardly an expert on Narcissistic Sociopaths. I have studied Hitler and Mao and found the common trait was they were very average in many ways. The sociopath does not care about others. I won't lump in all the oligarchs in one but Im sure you speak more truth than not.
Can't say they are on the same levels as a good Narco's type cartel type but at some point you have to defend whats yours and to what price has to be paid.
Thanks for sharing the Goodfella's quote. Good reading!

At the start of the war I also felt sorry for the Russian military that lost their lives due to this needless war but after watching how they have gone out of their way to kill innocent civilians I no longer feel sorry for them. No matter how this war finally ends Russia has taken a huge hit to their military through the loss of many infantry, commanders, equipment and their mystique. If not for their Nukes they would not be nearly as feared as they have been. Sadly nukes are the great equalizer.

dodger78 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

NYKBocker wrote:Anybody ask Ukrainians yet if they are OK giving half of their country to Russia?

We gotta slunk out. Part of ukraine is the price. The next level price is way above that. Play a long game here. Lose the battle here--win the war. Let young Russians and Americans decide 20-40 years from now

Briggs seriously - this is one of the worst examples of American arrogance Ive seen for years!
How can you even think that you are even remotely in position to "negotiate" or decide what happens to Ukraine territory or ppl?!
You stand up of a democratic country or you dont... As a NATO member obviously its crucial to support Ukraine and strenghten the eastern NATO nations in the region.
But how you deduct from this strategic necessity that you could DECIDE what happens with another souveraine country is just ****ed up! Sorry man this is picture perfect of the arrogance that many ppl around the world kinda see as "classic american behaviour" and which makes some even hate you.

Aside of this... how can you think that somebody you actually believe capable of starting a nuclear war to get what he wants would yield to his "word" and stop being a bully?

No my friend... I am sorry you are so god damn wrong on that take!!!
Unfortunately nobody can tell what Putin does or does not see as options in terms of continuous war. And yes there is a real threat of this becoming a WWIII/nuclear war situation... but you have to try and pressure him into submission by making this as costly for him as possible (pushing for internal change). Ukraine is doing their part (and more) on the battle field ... the world has to do it via sanctions and of course ideally keep looking for a acceptable way out for Putin.

I don’t like my own concepts either. But if Russia does what we did to Japan at some point we will have wished to have found a path to peace

Clean wrote:Little Ukraine sinking a Russian warship.

Last time Russia won a major war it had Ukrainians fighting in its ranks and the US supplying much of its materiel. Without either, we are now getting our ***e$ handed to us and look more like a crowd of senseless orcs than a great superpower. Could serve us well longer term, maybe after this we give up dreams of a great superpower nation and just become a normal prosperous nation, live and let live.

ESOMKnicks wrote:

Clean wrote:Little Ukraine sinking a Russian warship.

Last time Russia won a major war it had Ukrainians fighting in its ranks and the US supplying much of its materiel. Without either, we are now getting our ***e$ handed to us and look more like a crowd of senseless orcs than a great superpower. Could serve us well longer term, maybe after this we give up dreams of a great superpower nation and just become a normal prosperous nation, live and let live.

Is there a special reason why you used the word orcs? I have noticed that in the places that cover the war unfiltered they also refer to the invading Russians as orcs. I just found it interesting that I never heard that word used during war before this one.