Russo-Ukrainian War - 2022 Edition - Part 7

Status
Not open for further replies.

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
16,979
This is from 2015. If really interested in context, and not just emo knee jerk responses, you could also check out Noam Chomsky, Jeffrey Sachs. etc.

Mearsheimer is a stooge. He believes the Great States should be allowed to do what they want, when they want. Invade other countries, annex other countries, simply because they are powerful.

Read through this thread where Mearsheimer's views on Russia are addressed and the errors and fallacies he makes are exposed.

It is clear Mearsheimer is being economical with the truth and purposefully ignores much of Russia's wrong doing to retrofit his theories.

And Chomsky? The guy who repeatedly denies the genocide in Cambodia and Serbia? Why should we take someone like that seriously?

 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
16,979
@Kaapie was correct in his post.

The nation that broke the Nazi's back was the Soviet Union, whose army would have consisted mostly of Russian soldiers, plus from the other Soviet Republics. And the most important battles of the war were on Russian territory. Eg. The Battle of Moscow, the Battle of Stalingrad and The Battle of Kursk. Most reputable historians consider Stalingrad to be the turning point of the Second World War.

The Germans pretty much rolled over the Ukrainian Soviet Republic's territory in the inital invasion of Operation Barbarossa. It is a well known fact that many Ukrainians (Galicians and Banderarites) actually sided with the Nazis against the Soviet Union. (Hence the Nazi symbolism and Bandera worship that continues in modern day Ukraine to this day).

That's not to say there weren't any Ukrainians who fought valiantly against the Germans - I'm sure there must have been. But it's ludicrous to suggest that Ukraine and Ukrainians bore the brunt of fighting the Nazis.
Look at all those American made trucks that the Soviet Union used to transport food, fuel and ammunition to the Soviet forces.

1670500037766.png

What oh what would they have used to support their army without those trucks?
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,118
Mearsheimer is a stooge. He believes the Great States should be allowed to do what they want, when they want. Invade other countries, annex other countries, simply because they are powerful.
Well who is going to stop them? That theory is literally why the UN security council exists with its veto.
 

viper13

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
513
You're a peanut if you think Russian soldiers returning to Russia instead of getting away with stealing Ukrainian land is "capitulating to Ukraine" and worth launching nukes over.

Russia illegally invaded a sovereign country and will soon fck off back home with their tail between their legs, a court summons in one hand and a massive bill of reparations in the other.
You clearly have no idea of what the Russia plan is going forward.

Putin is prepping the Russian citizens for a drawn out conflict. Every time there is a strike on Russian soil it helps Putin to rally the Russian population against the Ukrainians as it gives him more reasons to say that the Ukrainians under the US/NATO leadership are laying the groundwork for invasion. So every strike unites the Russian population a little more against Ukraine.

The Russians are also not planning on withdrawing any time soon from Ukraine. The earlier withdrawals was to strengthen their positions that they could easily hold without over-stretching their supply routes and exposing them to risk from artillery strikes. The Russians are currently fortifying their positions and reinforcing/restocking/refueling their forces. And likely replacing all those paintball armor plates they issued.

They will continue to strike key Ukrainian infrastructure in order to turn the morale of the Ukrainian people against their own units. You will be surprised how a person will turn against their protector if they see themselves as suffering and struggling from day to day but they see their protectors with food, warmth and water. There is only so much foreign aid that can come into Ukraine and be effectively distributed.

Further to this, by drawing it out Putin is relying on war fatigue to exhaust the Ukrainian troops who are out in the field and for the international community to start struggling through their own problems this winter. If the conflict continues for the next year then the next winter will be even worse for Europe. We may even see a couple of governments face extreme unhappiness from their own citizenry, which is already starting to set in.

As per recent intelligence reports, Russia is still producing missiles domestically even with sanctions which is probably the reason for the next tranche of sanctions as announced. It also seem that North Korea is indeed supplying parts for the manufacture of missiles as well. So Russia is just going to keep stocking up over the winter months while capitulating on their current positions.

Come late winter or early spring that is likely when Russia will go on the offensive. Expect much larger missile/drone strikes. We will likely also start seeing the introduction of other weapons such as the SU-57 as well as the kh-69. Likely there will be more hypersonics used as well but for critical targets since they are virtually unstoppable and are rumoured to have been used early in the conflict/war to hit an underground armory.

This thing is long from done and with the support among common citizens in a lot of the countries starting to dwindle I cannot see how this will end favourably for Ukraine. The only few scenarios that can change the course of these things would be, Putin meeting a "tragic end", Putin being overthrown (although there is no guarantee that this would lead to hostilities stopping as whoever replaces him may like the look of the big red button), an unprecedented turn on Putin by the Duma (this will likely cause the previous point) or a massive military offensive by Ukraine (but this will likely need to involve virtually every Ukrainian/international legion soldier to move to the South and East of Ukraine and leave Ukraine vulnerable in the North).

If Ukraine sit back and wait they are signing their own fate since the sanctions against Russia will weaken over time as alternatives are found/developed and other countries/parties will pick up the spare capacity for Russian gas and oil sales. Don't be surprised if there isn't new interest in ESPO being expanded.
 

tetrasect

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
9,097
This is from 2015. If really interested in context, and not just emo knee jerk responses, you could also check out Noam Chomsky, Jeffrey Sachs. etc.
Mearsheimer, Noam Chomsky and Jeffrey Sachs are dishonest shills.

Nobody should listen to a word those liars say.

You can literally google the things they are saying sentence by sentence and you'll see how most of what they say is absolute BS.
 

Blu82

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
6,272
@Kaapie was correct in his post.

The nation that broke the Nazi's back was the Soviet Union, whose army would have consisted mostly of Russian soldiers, plus from the other Soviet Republics. And the most important battles of the war were on Russian territory. Eg. The Battle of Moscow, the Battle of Stalingrad and The Battle of Kursk. Most reputable historians consider Stalingrad to be the turning point of the Second World War.

The Germans pretty much rolled over the Ukrainian Soviet Republic's territory in the inital invasion of Operation Barbarossa. It is a well known fact that many Ukrainians (Galicians and Banderarites) actually sided with the Nazis against the Soviet Union. (Hence the Nazi symbolism and Bandera worship that continues in modern day Ukraine to this day).

That's not to say there weren't any Ukrainians who fought valiantly against the Germans - I'm sure there must have been. But it's ludicrous to suggest that Ukraine and Ukrainians bore the brunt of fighting the Nazis.
I have a bridge to sell you.... So for the fourth time 55% of the explosives used by Russia during World War 2 was provided by Western Allies. Now rewrite Russia's World War 2 fortunes with 55% less bullets and bombs.

Russian Source
 

TEXTILE GUY

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 4, 2012
Messages
16,292
This is now a war of attrition, funded by Nato money, Ukraine lives and infrastructure, against a Soviet army that may or may not be able to keep up with the expenditure of usual armaments. (I wouldn't believe anything the usual mainstream media propagates as facts re Russian army or armory status).

What we do know is that they have among the largest stockpiles of nukes. Old and young ( hypersonic ).

You have to be a special kind of stupid thinking the nation that broke the Nazi back in WW2 is going to capitulate to Ukraine/ Nato, before saying ''**** it, lets all go to hell together''

I blame 3 parties for this so called 'military operation'. Nato, Zelensky, Putin. In that order.

my peanut gallery contribution
At least there is something I have that is special then ...............

Considering, while the Russians were breaking the Nazis back in WW2, both the US and its allies were bombing the shidt out of Germany, considering the US were supplying a few billion bucks worth of arms to the Russians in the 1940s, considering Russia invaded Finland in 1939 and got their Soviet asses handed to them on a plate and considering that 143 countries, 113 of them being NON NATO countries are in favor of Ukrainian sovereignty as opposed to 5 against and 35 fence sitters .................

Yeah, I respect your opinion, but respectfully disagree with you bud.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
16,979
Well who is going to stop them? That theory is literally why the UN security council exists with its veto.
Ukraine is currently stopping Russia.

This is why realists like him lose their minds. They assumed and now wish that Ukraine just give up, so they can be proven right.

Speaking in your ideological language, The Ayan Rand Institute explains why Mearsheimer and other realists are wrong.

 

Cray

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
34,546
Mearsheimer is a stooge. He believes the Great States should be allowed to do what they want, when they want. Invade other countries, annex other countries, simply because they are powerful.

Read through this thread where Mearsheimer's views on Russia are addressed and the errors and fallacies he makes are exposed.

Great thread :love:
 

Kaapie

Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2021
Messages
609
Mearsheimer, Noam Chomsky and Jeffrey Sachs are dishonest shills.

Nobody should listen to a word those liars say.

You can literally google the things they are saying sentence by sentence and you'll see how most of what they say is absolute BS.
So we have, previously, venerated academics and in the case of Sachs, hands on diplomatic experience over decades, who when their thoughts go against the narrative, are now 'debunked', cancelled etc. These are the same folk who were previously lauded as educators, now are 'liars'

Think we can agree that everything can be 'massaged' today, for maximum impact on the masses.
 

Cray

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
34,546
So we have, previously, venerated academics and in the case of Sachs, hands on diplomatic experience over decades, who when their thoughts go against the narrative, are now 'debunked', cancelled etc. These are the same folk who were previously lauded as educators, now are 'liars'
So because they where previously venerated we should just accept everything they say without question?
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,118
Ukraine is currently stopping Russia.

This is why realists like him lose their minds. They assumed and now wish that Ukraine just give up, so they can be proven right.

Speaking in your ideological language, The Ayan Rand Institute explains why Mearsheimer and other realists are wrong.

ARI are dead wrong on Mearsheimer, they strawmanned him completely.

Go through this and tell me where Mearsheimer was wrong:


1) Mearsheimer states very clearly that Putin is authoritarian. That is stating he is taking a moral position on him
In that same 1998 interview, Kennan predicted that NATO expansion would provoke a crisis, after which the proponents of expansion would “say that we always told you that is how the Russians are.” As if on cue, most Western officials have portrayed Putin as the real culprit in the Ukraine predicament. In March, according to The New York Times, German Chancellor Angela Merkel implied that Putin was irrational, telling Obama that he was “in another world.” Although Putin no doubt has autocratic tendencies, no evidence supports the charge that he is mentally unbalanced. On the contrary: he is a first-class strategist who should be feared and respected by anyone challenging him on foreign policy.
2) Mearsheimer said Russia wouldn't be able to really conquer and annex Ukraine
Besides, even if it wanted to, Russia lacks the capability to easily conquer and annex eastern Ukraine, much less the entire country. Roughly 15 million people — one-third of Ukraine’s population — live between the Dnieper River, which bisects the country, and the Russian border. An overwhelming majority of those people want to remain part of Ukraine and would surely resist a Russian occupation. Furthermore, Russia’s mediocre army, which shows few signs of turning into a modern Wehrmacht, would have little chance of pacifying all of Ukraine. Moscow is also poorly positioned to pay for a costly occupation; its weak economy would suffer even more in the face of the resulting sanctions.

But even if Russia did boast a powerful military machine and an impressive economy, it would still probably prove unable to successfully occupy Ukraine. One need only consider the Soviet and U.S. experiences in Afghanistan, the U.S. experiences in Vietnam and Iraq, and the Russian experience in Chechnya to be reminded that military occupations usually end badly. Putin surely understands that trying to subdue Ukraine would be like swallowing a porcupine. His response to events there has been defensive, not offensive.
3) He says sanctions are not going to work:
Such measures will have little effect. Harsh sanctions are likely off the table anyway; western European countries, especially Germany, have resisted imposing them for fear that Russia might retaliate and cause serious economic damage within the EU. But even if the United States could convince its allies to enact tough measures, Putin would probably not alter his decision-making. History shows that countries will absorb enormous amounts of punishment in order to protect their core strategic interests. There is no reason to think Russia represents an exception to this rule.
4) And he literally said the goal should be a stable, sovereign Ukraine that respects the language rights of its Russian speakers.
There is a solution to the crisis in Ukraine, however — although it would require the West to think about the country in a fundamentally new way. The United States and its allies should abandon their plan to westernize Ukraine and instead aim to make it a neutral buffer between NATO and Russia, akin to Austria’s position during the Cold War. Western leaders should acknowledge that Ukraine matters so much to Putin that they cannot support an anti-Russian regime there. This would not mean that a future Ukrainian government would have to be pro-Russian or anti-NATO. On the contrary, the goal should be a sovereign Ukraine that falls in neither the Russian nor the Western camp.

To achieve this end, the United States and its allies should publicly rule out NATO’s expansion into both Georgia and Ukraine. The West should also help fashion an economic rescue plan for Ukraine funded jointly by the EU, the International Monetary Fund, Russia, and the United States — a proposal that Moscow should welcome, given its interest in having a prosperous and stable Ukraine on its western flank. And the West should considerably limit its social-engineering efforts inside Ukraine. It is time to put an end to Western support for another Orange Revolution. Nevertheless, U.S. and European leaders should encourage Ukraine to respect minority rights, especially the language rights of its Russian speakers.


https://strategic-culture.org/news/...-fault-liberal-delusions-that-provoked-putin/

Lets look at 2022:
Russia had initial success but have been pushed back quite successfully by Ukraine, none of the really harsh sanctions (like turning off gas and oil imports from Russia) are there, and the tough sanctions that are in place have done squat.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,118
What possible reason can you give me as to why opposition parties should not only be banned from participation, but have their assets seized by the state. Suspend elections yes, but abolish all opposition parties? Yeah bruh.

If Ukraine wasn't going to split because of Russia, it will absolutely do so after the conflict is over.
 

Nerfherder

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
29,703
This is now a war of attrition, funded by Nato money, Ukraine lives and infrastructure, against a Soviet army that may or may not be able to keep up with the expenditure of usual armaments. (I wouldn't believe anything the usual mainstream media propagates as facts re Russian army or armory status).

What we do know is that they have among the largest stockpiles of nukes. Old and young ( hypersonic ).
Number of nukes is actually irrelevant as the parties who have nukes have more than enough to end the world several times over.
You have to be a special kind of stupid thinking the nation that broke the Nazi back in WW2 is going to capitulate to Ukraine/ Nato, before saying ''**** it, lets all go to hell together''
I wouldn't say they broke anyone's back. They threw enough people at the Germans to slow them down.... that was after supporting them.

The Russian winter broke the Nazi's, like its done for every other force attacking them.
I blame 3 parties for this so called 'military operation'. Nato, Zelensky, Putin. In that order.

my peanut gallery contribution
Only one person to blame. Putin.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
16,979
ARI are dead wrong on Mearsheimer, they strawmanned him completely.

Go through this and tell me where Mearsheimer was wrong:


1) Mearsheimer states very clearly that Putin is authoritarian. That is stating he is taking a moral position on him

2) Mearsheimer said Russia wouldn't be able to really conquer and annex Ukraine

3) He says sanctions are not going to work:

4) And he literally said the goal should be a stable, sovereign Ukraine that respects the language rights of its Russian speakers.



https://strategic-culture.org/news/...-fault-liberal-delusions-that-provoked-putin/

Lets look at 2022:
Russia had initial success but have been pushed back quite successfully by Ukraine, none of the really harsh sanctions (like turning off gas and oil imports from Russia) are there, and the tough sanctions that are in place have done squat.
ARI based there views on Mearsheimer's recent (as in 2022 statements). Not his 2014 interview.

A synopsis of what he gets wrong here -

 

Blu82

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
6,272

A Russian cargo ship, sanctioned by the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control since the war in Ukraine, docked between 8 and 10pm on Tuesday, while the town was under the cover of rolling blackout darkness. It is unclear what the reason for the docking was, although some claim the vessel had been in distress.

Source
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
16,979
What possible reason can you give me as to why opposition parties should not only be banned from participation, but have their assets seized by the state. Suspend elections yes, but abolish all opposition parties? Yeah bruh.

If Ukraine wasn't going to split because of Russia, it will absolutely do so after the conflict is over.
Parties that had long, extensive and deep connections with the Russians were banned.

Seems fair given Russia is the country that invaded them and Russia had plans to use local Ukrainian politicians in their invasion plans to take hold of the Ukrainian Parliament, once they had captured Kyiv.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top