But Russia is just having a hissy fit ... From pushing for the Minsk agreements to inciting the ongoing conflict between Moscow and Kiev, the West is attempting to exhaust and contain a country which they deem as a rival through protraction efforts, be they explicit or inexplicit. It has never really genuinely regarded Russia as a dialogue partner. In an interview with the German newspaper Die Zeit last week, former German chancellor Angela Merkel revealed the West's real intention behind its negotiation with Russia and Ukraine to promote a ceasefire in 2014. She admitted the Minsk agreements were an "attempt to give Ukraine time" and that Kiev had used it "to become stronger." Real intention behind Minsk agreements further destroys credibility of the West - Global Times
And to this notion of ten months in signaling Russian hypocrisy ... The army the US/NATO built in Ukraine, by the beginning of 2022, had swelled to become the largest and best-armed land force in Europe. By almost every metric, it was more potent than the combinedarmies of Germany, France, and Italy. imetatronink: Destroying the “Mother of All Proxy Armies” in Ukraine
That's a fairly ignorant article, peddled by amateurs, it would appear. First of all, their interpretations of the Civil War are incorrect. The Union army was outclassed in the eastern battlefields (Virginia), but there was also a western battlefield along the Mississippi River. And that is where U.S. Grant got noticed for his successes. So the Union did not exclusively try to capture the Confederate capital. They also tried to prevent trade and supply through the river. And the Army of the Virginia did not collapse because of accurate Union artillery fire, it collapsed because the soldiers were starving--every railroad and road into Richmond was attacked by the Union Army. They were also low on ammunition--Confederate soldiers would climb out of their trenches at night to collect spent lead to re-melt into new bullets. For some juvenile reason, the article mentions the game of Risk showing Russia broken up as multiple territories as "evidence" that the west intends to break up Russia. First of all, it's a game, and probably not one used very often during foreign policy discussions at the White House. Second, the game also shows the U.S. as split up into two territories--we should also be pissed off at the game and Russia's likely influence in supporting the breakup of the United States. Scandinavian and European countries should also be pissed off that they were forced into unholy marriages with their neighbors. Or, it's just a game, and it is more entertaining to have territories of a certain size to make it easier to play the game. The article spouts some nonsense that Russia's goal in the war is merely to "demilitarize" Ukraine. Why would they want to do that? Ukraine did not start any fights with Russia. Russia invaded Ukrainian territory in 2014, not the other way around. Why should Russia be afraid of the size of a neighbor's army if there was never any indication that the army would be used to invade Russia? Russia started the problem in 2014 when it invaded Ukraine, and then made things worse in 2022 when it invaded Ukraine again. No amount of wordplay and shenanigans is going to change those facts. Is it unfair that the west provided weapons to Ukraine to defend itself? Not really. Certainly not compared to invading a country for no reason except to steal territory and create a vassal state, which is where Putin was headed. Russia created this situation. I am sorry you and your comrades are butt-hurt by the west's response to Russia's avarice and greed, but that's too bad. Looks like it is Russia that is getting demilitarized. And that is a worthwhile goal, because Russia uses its military for conquest, not defense. The west has no interest in breaking up Russia--that is an asinine suggestion. It would be a bad idea to let Russia re-take it's former satellite states, as Russia is willing to weaponize global food production (and the people of those states have earned their freedom the hard way), but no one cares if Russia keeps every bit of territory it had in 2013, which is what most of the world recognizes as belonging to Russia. If Russia fractures into smaller countries because of its own foolish decisions in this war, it will be because the people in their outer regions lost faith in Moscow and demanded independence, not because anyone from the west made it happen--Putin is responsible for the results of the war he started. No one gets offended when Germany gave up Poland and Austria and all of the other countries they possessed after their defeat in 1945. I don't expect too many tears shed for Russia in this case either.
Our resident Topknot seeking refuge in minutiae. Civil War analogies and such are not germaine to the observation that Russia confronted a massive, well-armed and dug-in military. There is no warrant for the trope that Russia is struggling against a vastly inferior force, much less being defeated by it. That’s what the US military does.
horseshit. At the time of the invasion Ukraine was relying on a moderate sized and underequipped border defense force once the western weaponry arrived and the new recruits trained along with reservists Ukraine sent a better trained and better equipped force in September and crushed the Russians in two places and caused enormous Russian losses in manpower and equipment. Russia had a chance to win quickly early and botched it. Now they have destroyed their own army in the process. With enough time and through attrition I believe they may still prevail but it will be at great great cost and in the end what they feared most, the fate they were supposedly trying to avoid, will have come to pass. The destruction of the Russian army but it will be without nato firing a single shot. They essentially brought it on themselves.
We benefit the most from all of the free trade with the free world. Only makes sense that have a military prepared to defend the free world if we want to continue the free trade. Besides, if we neglect our responsibilities to the rest of the world, other large countries will take advantage of the smaller countries and pretty soon one of them will be more powerful than the U.S. and may decide to invade. We should probably try to avoid that situation. We support the United Nations and the decisions that are made there more often than not, so we do respond to international interests and not just our own.
The point is that Russia started the war! And they didn't have to. Ukraine was not planning to invade Russia (duh! why would they "dig in" if they were going to invade?). Russia was planning to invade Ukraine, for no justifiable reason. Ukraine could see the writing on the wall, and prepared defenses. What is so shocking about that? They would be irresponsible not to prepare defenses and make sure they were well-armed. Would you wait until the wolf is in the house before you lock your door? Russia has a history of invading other countries for conquest, material gain, and subjugation, something that no other country can claim since WWII. What is it about you that feels a need to justify this behavior? Neither the U.S. nor NATO has EVER launched an attack on Russian soil. Until recently, we've done little or nothing to prevent Russia from participating in free trade with the rest of the world. Russia was not threatened by Nazis in the last decade, or by Ukraine, or by NATO. Putin was greedy, pure and simple. Whining about tropes and narratives does not change any of the FACTS that are presented above. Are you planning an attack on your local police station? They are a massive organization, well-armed, and seem to be dug-in, drinking coffee, shuffling papers, and what not. Using your logic, you would be justified in confronting them militarily. You will get to talk about all the tropes and narratives at the trial, I'm sure.
Yesterday it looked like the whole sheriffs office was at a local barbecue place(8 cars). Do you think they were doing a big investigation or having lunch?
Uh-oh, he’s brought out the colored font. This may be the endgame. Guess which country has engineered more than 200 military interventions since the end of the Cold War ? Guess which country has 750 military installations in 80 countries ? Guess which country was behind NATO adding 16 countries and pushing 1,000 km East since 1990 ? Guess which country engineered Ukrainian coups in 2004 and 2014 ? Guess which country was most instrumental in building Ukraine into Europe’s second largest army ? Guess which country let slip it’s long-standing goal of deposing Putin and weakening Russia ? But Putin started the war.
Mostly a correct post, well stated. Only take a small exception to the above portion. North Korea did the same for the same reasons in 1950. Iraq invaded two of its neighbors for no more noble a cause in 1980 and 1990. There are probably some other examples that could be argued either way, such as North Vietnam or Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus. So while Russia might not be in great company, at least they have some company since WW2.
"Proxy wars represent a most dangerous game in great power competition. Danger here has two dimensions. First, easy and early success can trigger strategic euphoria in the proxy-master. The empire can be swept up by the tantalizing prospect of a great strategic victory, paying a small price in treasure and nothing of its own blood. This leads directly to occluded judgment. Victory, so desired, is suddenly believed to be almost at hand, so why not pile on, and bring a hated rival quickly to defeat? This dynamic leads to“opportunistic escalation”. The second strategic danger emerges when early success turns into a proxy enterprise at risk of failure, when reality breaks through and victory can no longer necessarily be achieved by proxy efforts alone. Easy and early victory is replaced by the prospect of possible failure, unless the great power “goes all in.” The prospect of losing the proxy war becomes as loathsome as seeing one’s own battalions beaten in battle. Here, the collective ecstasy of victory through proxy makes proxy abandonment and defeat unacceptable, leading to ever-intensifying, “double down escalation” that could invite direct war. In light of Washington’s ongoing proxy war with Russia in Ukraine, these two dangers now threaten the American nation. Once Vladimir Putin decided to invade Ukraine, NATO enthusiastically embraced proxy war against Russia." Military Historian Michael Vlahos on how proxy war signals US decline ...
FYI: About the source of the article: The Global Times is a daily tabloid newspaper under the auspices of the Chinese Communist Party's flagship newspaper, the People's Daily, commenting on international issues from a Chinese ultra-nationalistic perspective. Global Times - Wikipedia
Russia is the only country that invaded another country for conquest/profit almost every decade since 1945, so in that sense they in a class of their own as a repeat offender. Kind of like comparing a killer to a serial killer. And Russia is also the only large, industrialized nation (or superpower) in that list (although Turkey is probably approaching that status), so they have many options besides war at their disposal to resolve disputes.
Agree although Russia's invasion of Ukraine was the first time it happened on the European continent since Germany and along with the Soviet Union (essentially Russia) simultaneously invaded Poland in 1939.
