Hello, Any Forums. I spent the last several days contemplating the Russo-Ukrainian conflict and have come to a number of conclusions. Much of the information that has been scattered about the R/U conflict is incorrect or misleading, or later corrected, so forgive me if any of my facts are wrong.
Substantively, I suggest there are three actions on the part of the US govt. that made the invasion of Ukraine a rational act, and to a degree, a necessary one in the eyes of V. Putin.
1. The threat of Ukraine joining NATO. Vox, despite their typical yellow journalism and abominable dishonesty, particularly from their contemptible editor-at-large who goes around selling himself as a moderate while condoning communist garbage being published with his rubber stamp, have published a very good article on this history of NATO expansion. [1] In effect, the TLDR is this: The US tried to support a Ukrainian bid to join NATO before, and everyone backed off because, in the words of the Clinton administration, "It drove Russia nuts." However, the Biden administration has been bulish on supporting Ukraine's "right" to join NATO. [2] Putin even gave the Biden administration a *direct ultimatum* that their troops would withdraw only under the condition that he be assured that the Ukraine was not joining NATO. The whole "Ukraine joins NATO" was perceived as an empty threat by the US public (I intend to elaborate on this in a bit), but Biden's unwillingness to retract this ambition publicly (despite prior presidents' willingness to do so) for him, suggests Biden is serious. In my opinion, it is simply a sign of incompetence. (cont...)
Continuing on the incompetence idea: The Biden administration was unaware that Ukraine joining NATO was such a "doomsday" event to the Russians, and did not realize that it does not have the structure of a good threat: Once Ukraine joins NATO, Russia looses all leverage. And the US has no leverage until it realizes this event. So, threatening that it will come to pass imminently does not yield the US any advantage, and in fact suggests to the Russians that their will will not be respected (after all, a threat is being used to pacify them, like a petulant child), and thus, leaving the US to its own devices in the east could prove disastrous.
The reason the Ukraine joining NATO would be disastrous from the perspective of Putin is in part strategic and in part ideological. a) Putin perceives the Ukraine as fundamentally Russian, as part of Russian history. Imagine something like a part of the anglosphere falling into the sphere of influence of a foreign nation. (e.g., Australia to China) Of course, this is not perfectly analogous, since the eastern half or two-thirds of Ukraine have a reasonably distinct language and culture. But many of their claims to nationalism are recent, and based on grievances with the Soviet government, alongside the illegitimate hypothesis that Putin is simply an agent of a crypto-necro-USSR. Ukraine falling into NATO's hands means i) it will never be able to be taken into Russian hegemony by means of election manipulation or invasion or threat of force. Russia looses a huge amount of leverage over Ukraine, and cannot use such leverage to attempt to steer it into its sphere of influence, or obtain good relations with it. ii) Ukraine will become beholden to its protectors. Just as Ukraine, despite the core of Zelensky's support coming from Nazi-sympathizing wignats, was willing to nevertheless signal feminism and LGBT+ support, Ukraine will effectively bow to whatever ethics are dominant within NATO countries, falling in a new SoI
Austin Foster
2. The "play-by-play" of the Biden administration. This constant screaming of, "They're going to invade... tomorrow!" "Uhh... no, uh... tomorrow!" etc. effectively makes Putin pay the political cost of invasion without doing it. In his mind, he thinks, "If I am going to be conceived of after this of having attempted an invasion, will they not sanction me? And, will I not look weak after 'backing down?'"
Even if Putin was legitimately determined to invade (he wasn't, see the earlier mention of an ultimatum: he was saber rattling), then it is still advantageous to give him an easy political out. By calling it an "invasion in the making," any retreat calls into question Putin's resolve, and further, he gains no rapport with the US by taking the dovish path and not invading. He gets beat with the stick and refused the carrot on either path.
The media praised Biden for his "play-by-play" [1] but it was disastrous and stupid, as the media are now beginning to acknowledge [2].
3. An inappropriate treatment of the Donbas invasion. The Donbas, for those of you who do not know, is a region in the easternmost part of Ukraine that is predominantly Russian. It consists of two Oblasts (provinces): Luhansk, and Donetsk. Both seceded in 2014, when a popular uprising in Kiev overthrew a pro-Russian govt. and installed an anti-russian one, presumably because they were unhappy with the new govt. The aforementioned popular uprising was rumored to be backed by the CIA (which, going by the "iceberg theory," can be presumed by a cynical person or adversary to have been orchestrated by them, so we can imagine Putin believes the Ukrainian state is a CIA outpost, even if this is only mildly true), and the Luhansk/Donetsk secession is rumored to be Russian intelligence (again, the US will assume this is all astroturfed by Russia, even if that's not true). Those two regions making up the Donbas have been independent of Ukraine since 2014, though one of them (the northern one, IIRC Luhansk) was apparently administered by Kiev.
When Putin began invasion of Ukraine, he began by invading through the Donbas. The Biden administration (through Biden himself, in an address) responded by a) claiming that this was an invasion of Ukraine proper, even though this is akin to Mexico considering US annexation of long-independent Texas as an invasion of Mexico, and b) reaffirming that the US "doesn't want to fight Russia."
The Donbas is a strategic challenge for the US/Ukraine, because it is an easily-invadable and sympathetic region, and is not really part of Ukraine itself, and so can be used as a means of testing whether the US wants to defend Ukraine for real. It's a way of dipping a toe in the water. You want to make an invasion as difficult as possible, and as ambiguous in its likelihood of success as possible, so the Donbas region has to be considered in US/Ukraine strategy somehow.
Isaac Hughes
They goaded Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait also. It creates a pretext for war.
Colton Collins
With respect to the Donbas, there are three decent tactics: a) Retake the region before Putin invades, taking away his best way of determining whether the US will defend Ukraine, and removing a strategic bulkhead. b) Retake the Donbas after Putin invades, in an attempt to scare him off, but make clear you are only retaking Donbas, and will not fight into Russian territory unless provoked. This is just the procrastinator's version of (a). c) Leave the Donbas as a sacrificial lamb, and when Putin invades it, claim it is an invasion of a semi-independent region, and that the rest of Ukraine is still not invaded. This leaves Putin with spoils, but resets him to the same situation of ambiguity as to whether the US will defend Ukraine, and makes him pay the price of invasion twice. Coupling this with a US military buildup around the black sea, Kiev, and the border between the LPR/DPR and Ukraine would potentially end the conflict with only the Donbas being lost.
The US instead did the worst possible thing, and treated the Donbas as if it were Ukraine, which if we were to consider that as premeditated, then it would be the logical conclusion that Ukraine were already lost, or requiring of US defense, since the Donbas has been ready for Russia's taking for 8 years, being controlled by pro-Russian separatists and all. It is therefore my opinion that the US military brass were *not aware of the Donbas region or its status* or were *not intelligent enough to game the situation out.*
Thomas Stewart
Effectively, actions 1-3 made invasion of Ukraine logical, and in fact, difficult or costly *not to do.* Michael Shellenberger notes also the EU have become dependent on Russian oil due to the efforts of climate activists, which of course makes them, as a substantial actor within NATO, and the US allies necessary to furnish a defense in the region, a liability for US military brass seeking to defend Ukraine.
Finally, I would like to remark that there was an *easy diplomatic resolution to the Ukrainian conflict.* To the north of Ukraine is a nation called Belarus. Like Ukraine, the locals speak Russian, and there exists a local Slavic language closely related to Russian, called Belarusian. However, unlike Ukraine, locals *do not speak this language, and only speak Russian.* This in theory makes Belarus *more Russian* than Ukraine, and thus a prime candidate for annexation.
Why isn't Belarus the target of annexation? Because Belarus is *friendly with Russia*. That's it. That's the entire reason. In an interview with Belarus's leader, Lukashenko, he says he is building a Slavic coalition, like the US/UK are building an anglosphere. [1]
Russia is willing to accept Belarusian independence, just as it was willing to accept Ukrainian independence in 2014. The US could have resolved Russian grievances by imploring Ukraine to develop better relations with Russia, while at the same time not sacrificing its ties to the west. This was all that needed to be done: is to have a Belarus-lite compromise in Ukraine. But, no! Zelensky/Biden couldn't be assed, and now there is blood. Russia didn't even ask for that much. Just that NATO keep Ukraine at arm's length.
The public may blame Biden for this conflict, and they should. He could have prevented it with obvious diplomatic resolutions (two of them! accede to the NATO ultimatum, or improve ties between Russia and Ukraine), and implemented the above 3 blunders.
Thus, the Biden admin turned what was meant by Putin as saber-rattling into a proper invasion.
They were too dense to hear the message being conveyed by the rattling saber, and made the saber rattler appear a coward should he fail to unsheathe, threatened him with his greatest fear, and engaged in poor swordsmanship. It is no wonder they lost, and in my view, this hints at a complete deficit of competence in the US State Dept. and military brass.
It appears: 1. These people don't know about previous diplomatic talks between the US/Russia about this exact subject. 2. These people don't know that Belarus exists, or its status. Nor about pre-2014 Ukraine and its status. 3. These people don't know about the Donbas region or its status.
And these are the same people that have been calling for blood and war. In a region they don't understand at a basic wikipedia-reading-child's level.
Chase Brown
I'll also elaborate on the idea I alluded to in the first post. In effect, the US changes leaders/advisors every 4-8 years. Thus they have a short memory, and policy changes constantly. It's a short-term cycle of decisionmaking. Putin has been in power for decades, and remembers things Clinton said to him, etc. Thus, he is liable to project his nature on the US and perceive long-term schemes that don't exist, but also see patterns that do exist but that the US doesn't see in itself.
Finally, I highly recommend Putin's address to Russia after he invaded Donbas. He describes essentially why he perceives NATO as a vestigial "anti-russia club." [1] I also recommend an op-ed he wrote about Ukraine. [2] Both are good indications of his headspace. The US govt. does not understand how this man thinks.
>The State Dept. Could Have Prevented the Invasion They needed another disaster to distract everyone from their previous disaster.
Gabriel White
The US State Dept created all this. It was a big expensive project. Why the hell would they prevent it???
Liam Phillips
Bump - why so late at night?
Oliver Johnson
Any Forums wasn't working earlier, I'd try to post this thread, but it would redirect me to a different thread, and my thead wouldn't post. I decided to try later. Sorry m8
Jaxson Brown
plz don't let this slide bros
Mason Parker
I agree with you that this was created by State but how does losing Ukraine benefit them now? Seems a bit odd.
Xavier Garcia
US invited Russia to the table and asked them what they want and the Russians mocked them with 3 non-starters. Now they're getting proxy wared into failed state status by entire civilized world, lmao.
CIA knows exactly WTF is going on and they DO provide strategic suggestions for whoever is in the office. As to why none of it was prevented, I 'm inclined to think it's to mask the pandemic situation so that people would not pay attention to all the crap that's going on in the back scenes such lawsuits and who's supposed to be responsible.
Joshua White
>this hints at a complete deficit of competence in the US State Dept. and military brass. As if putting stupid niggers and tranny nosferatu looking faggots in charge of the mikitary wasnt enough of a clue. Essentially they booted everyone competent out beause of trump and filled the ranks with useles yes men and women of color and bullshit. Of course they cant do their job because they never could do their job and only got promoted for being faggots and niggers. Plus like federal fags they buy their own propaganda wholesale. They dont have a clue about reality either. This is no accident either and wasnt some oops we fucked up but wanted to be diverse. It was by design. Incompetent boomer politicians filled their military with incompetent idiots that wouldnt be able to say no to them or stop their illegal acts.
Angel Lee
Good posts OP. My only thought that goes against what you've written is in regards to America intentionally goading Putin into attacking Ukraine, because it effectively neutralizes the Russian military for a long time, and potentially in perpetuity. Once they conquer Ukraine, whether or not they annex some or all of it, or just institute a puppet government, there will likely be substantial resistance supported by the deep pockets of the west. Russia, with its quickly declining population, will have to commit substantial resources to maintain their occupation. This means that Russia would have substantial difficulty threatening anyone with their conventional military again. I don't know, I suspect you're right, but this is one potential (stupid) route the US took to dull Russia's claws.
Xavier Ross
bump for A30B
Adam Flores
>I agree with you that this was created by State but how does losing Ukraine benefit them now Another cold war, that was the height of their power. They get to implement new emergency powers that become full time. They can just say national security and arrest anyone critical of them. You know because putin is a despot.
Sebastian Foster
me on the right thx bro
Luke Mitchell
>a) Putin perceives the Ukraine as fundamentally Russian, as part of Russian history. But this is the biggest problem. If he perceives Ukraine as part of Russian history what's stopping them from thinking the same about Poland or the Baltics? We don't want to be part of Russia's history, same with Ukraine.
By the way, should Poland do the same? Western Ukraine was part of Polish history for a long time.
Joshua Cruz
Fortunately, Poland and (IIRC) the Baltics are NATO members. Ukraine being a NATO member was the possibility that prompted, in my view, this sudden invasion. So clearly Putin does not like the prospect of having to declare war on a proper NATO member state. Though I can understand your nervousness at having a militarily enfranchised Russia as a next-door neighbor.
Kevin Taylor
>And these are the same people that have been calling for blood and war. In a region they don't understand at a basic wikipedia-reading-child's level. I have to disagree with you here. I think these people know EXACTLY what they're talking about. To them, this was the easiest excuse to start a war, because that war helps them with multiple problems. They knew how Putin thinks, which is how they provoked him into it. They know Putin better than Putin gives them credit for.
What they didn't understand was the American People. They don't want war with Russia. They automatically assumed that the People would just go gung-ho patriotic and go full WWIII, betting that they were tired after all the Covid bullshit, and would be too tired to resist/desire a return to "normal". Nope. The People told them to go fuck themselves with their war, because the People understood what they were doing. And now that they understand that Covid was total bullshit, and the lockdowns as well, the People don't give a flying fuck about what they think
And now they have a war they can't win, and one they can't officially join in on. Biden and Harris sure planned this well.
Adam Wilson
Thanks for reminding me why I come here op
Lincoln Hall
>how does losing Ukraine benefit them now? Ukraine is just a leverage point. Their ultimate goal was war on Russia. This entire thing is Western oligarchs vs Eastern oligarchs.
Nicholas Edwards
Lmao you forget that the democrats spent everything they had fighting trump and keeping their dirty laundry locked away out of sight. They do not have the money or the support to do anything against russia. Our military has become a joke of retarded niggers promoted only because they are retarded niggers. We lost to afghanistan. Now they want us to fight russia? You will get backstabbed by nato as nato always has and be used as the excuse and scapegoat why russia attacked. Lmao you think any of the neocommunists in the west WANT to stop russia?
Ian Cooper
It's quite possible they want war, or just want Russophobia, and thus are fine with war breaking out. But I am approaching this from a "steelman" of their position, and if their position appears implausible as a consequence, so be it. Of course, as always, stupidity/incompetence and malice are both possible explanations, but I err on the side of incompetence in this case.
David Nelson
>It appears: >1. These people don't know about previous diplomatic talks between the US/Russia about this exact subject. >2. These people don't know that Belarus exists, or its status. Nor about pre-2014 Ukraine and its status. >3. These people don't know about the Donbas region or its status. The US knew exactly what it was doing and they are getting what they wanted
Leo Peterson
np fren high IQ posting is my specialty
Lincoln Martin
Russia is a beastly threat to western civilization. Putin has made it clear that he thinks of Russia outside of Europe and he has no probably shelling a major European city.
