Gulf of Tonkin...
Medical students in Grenada...
Yellow Cake...
Nope, no pattern here, let's continue to believe the war drums
Russia is at Russia's border? US is on whose border?Dude, who is at whose Border?
The Australian press today have been reporting about offers of Australian gas to the Europeans. And we have a shit tonne. Maybe not enough ships though.Yes, Russia has a long term problem. But as a strategy, an energy price offensive driven by the threat of military interventionism could backfire in a way that could severely damage Russia by turning off the EU countries to reliance on Russian energy, by at least second sourcing their natural gas as they are doing already.
Russia is at Russia's border? US is on whose border?
It's their country, they can put troops where they want. US has troops in the Baltics, closer to Russia than most of these Russian troops are to Ukraine, which is not even that close. Why would they build troops up in Bryansk half way up the Belarus border to invade Ukraine 300+ miles away? This whole invasion hysteria was silly from the beginning, it's kind of sad that so many gullible people fell for it.Russia has Troops amassed recently on every side of Ukraine. The US does not have any Troops on Russia's border.Pull your head out of your ass.
I wonder if senseamp forgot to update his Password.
It’s funny that you think the idea that Putin would invade Ukraine is silly, considering Putin is still engaged in an ongoing invasion of Ukraine that started back in 2014.It's their country, they can put troops where they want. US has troops in the Baltics, closer to Russia than most of these Russian troops are to Ukraine, which is not even that close. Why would they build troops up in Bryansk half way up the Belarus border to invade Ukraine 300+ miles away? This whole invasion hysteria was silly from the beginning, it's kind of sad that so many gullible people fell for it.
I made my prediction, which is that this war will not happen, and that you are going to rationalize it by saying it's because of western deterrence. If Russia wanted to invade all of Ukraine, it would have done it in 2014, when the country was in total disarray and was easy pickings. The goals were far more limited, take Crimea, because of the Black Sea fleet and create a separatist pocket of instability to deter NATO from coming in, just like they created in Georgia. Both of those had populations that basically considered themselves Russian and who Ukraine either neglected or went out of its way to piss off. Invading hostile rest of the country of 40 million with 130K troops is nonsense and was from the very beginning. Much better equipped US coalition invaded Iraq, country of 25M at the time with 180K troops.It’s funny that you think the idea that Putin would invade Ukraine is silly, considering Putin is still engaged in an ongoing invasion of Ukraine that started back in 2014.
As someone else said yeah I kind of wonder if he forgot to update his password, haha. You’re repeating Russian propaganda almost line for line.
No, I’m not.I made my prediction, which is that this war will not happen, and that you are going to rationalize it by saying it's because of western deterrence.
This is a pretty transparent attempt to blame Ukraine and Georgia for Russian aggression against them. I guess Iraq shouldn’t have tried to piss the US off by your logic?If Russia wanted to invade all of Ukraine, it would have done it in 2014, when the country was in total disarray and was easy pickings. The goals were far more limited, take Crimea, because of the Black Sea fleet and create a separatist pocket of instability to deter NATO from coming in, just like they created in Georgia. Both of those had populations that basically considered themselves Russian and who Ukraine either neglected or went out of its way to piss off. Invading hostile rest of the country of 40 million with 130K troops is nonsense and was from the very beginning.
Yes, KGB paid people on AnandTech of all places to engage in completely unrelated discussions while waiting for decades to chime in on a Russian related thread. Believing that and believing the invasion nonsense go well together.If one checks the original Crimea thread, I suspect the same actors to be arguing in favor of Russian propaganda.
Though it may simply be the interest of telling America to !@#$ off just happens to coincide with Putin's gameplan here.
Perhaps the real interest is not for Russia, rather, it may be just to clear America off the world stage.
It's not blame, I am explaining what their rationale is. Countries act in their own perceived interests. No need to be emo about it. Russia doesn't want NATO in nearby countries. If there was no NATO expansion, there would be no problem between Russia and those countries. But because there is, they put these poison pills in the form of pre-existing conflicts into the equation. Then NATO has to think hard about expanding into those countries, because it would be obligated to militarily help them resolve those conflicts and risk war with Russia.No, I’m not.
This is a pretty transparent attempt to blame Ukraine and Georgia for Russian aggression against them. I guess Iraq shouldn’t have tried to piss the US off by your logic?
Lolwut. I guess if we were only the objective, worldly travelers that you are that we would then understand that Russian propaganda is really the right way.It's not blame, I am explaining what their rationale is. Countries act in their own perceived interests. No need to be emo about it.
This is almost laughably naive. Russia considers those countries as satellites at best and ones they are entitled to keep in their sphere of influence. These countries want to join NATO BECAUSE of ongoing threats to their security from Russia, not the other way around.Russia doesn't want NATO in nearby countries. If there was no NATO expansion, there would be no problem between Russia and those countries.
Russia did not create a pre-existing conflict in Georgia for this purpose, one had long existed and Russia had long been meddling in Georgia’s internal politics and supporting separatists. You don’t know what you’re talking about and are repeating Russian propaganda.But because there is, they put these poison pills in the form of pre-existing conflicts into the equation. Then NATO has to think hard about expanding into those countries, because it would be obligated to militarily help them resolve those conflicts and risk war with Russia.
And, what's your point? Russia didn't have trouble with Ukraine until Ukraine started saying they want to join EU and NATO. It's their front yard, they don't want a foreign military alliance in it, and they are acting to prevent it from happening. Like it or not, that's their foreign policy and they are sticking with it. It doesn't translate that they want to occupy the entirety of those countries, just maintain friendly separatist regions to make it too hot for NATO to handle. There are nuances, not everything has to be black and white and easy for you to understand.Guys, despite spending much of their history attempting to conquer or otherwise dominate these areas when the Soviet Union fell Russia had finally gotten it all out of their system and was ready to treat these nations as sovereign and equal counterparts until NATO forced a reluctant Russia’s hand and made them go back to…uhm…what they had always been doing.
Russia already has two countries in that military alliance in "their front yard": Estonia and Latvia. They've been well-behaved. Why should Ukraine be any different? (Except for the fact that Russia has repeatedly attacked Ukraine.)And, what's your point? Russia didn't have trouble with Ukraine until Ukraine started saying they want to join EU and NATO. It's their front yard, they don't want a foreign military alliance in it, and they are acting to prevent it from happening. Like it or not, that's their foreign policy and they are sticking with it. It doesn't translate that they want to occupy the entirety of those countries, just maintain friendly separatist regions to make it too hot for NATO to handle. There are nuances, not everything has to be black and white and easy for you to understand.
They had a change of heart on the matter after those countries joined.Russia already has two countries in that military alliance in "their front yard": Estonia and Latvia. They've been well-behaved. Why should Ukraine be any different? (Except for the fact that Russia has repeatedly attacked Ukraine.)
Thank you for stating the obvious. Everyone knows what Russia’s view here is - it is just that their view is illegitimate because essentially they are using the response to their past aggression to justify future aggression.And, what's your point? Russia didn't have trouble with Ukraine until Ukraine started saying they want to join EU and NATO. It's their front yard, they don't want a foreign military alliance in it, and they are acting to prevent it from happening. Like it or not, that's their foreign policy and they are sticking with it. It doesn't translate that they want to occupy the entirety of those countries, just maintain friendly separatist regions to make it too hot for NATO to handle. There are nuances, not everything has to be black and white and easy for you to understand.
Russia: [repeatedly attacks, invades, and dominates its neighbors]Russia already has two countries in that military alliance in "their front yard": Estonia and Latvia. They've been well-behaved. Why should Ukraine be any different? (Except for the fact that Russia has repeatedly attacked Ukraine.)
Russia has Troops amassed recently on every side of Ukraine. The US does not have any Troops on Russia's border.Pull your head out of your ass.
I wonder if senseamp forgot to update his Password.
This is whataboutism.I hate the fact that I'm full of doubt and uncertainty about this. It makes for a very weak position.
But I can't help but notice that NATO has invaded multiple countries since the end of the Cold War. It can hardly claim to be a purely defensive alliance any more.
I have no affection for Putin, he's a cheap gangster. But I have no interest in dying for Ukraine, and if the US were concerned about the rights of small nations they wouldn't have spent most of the last century invading so many of them and imposing dictators on them. Your track record gives you zero credibility. How is Russia's attitude to eastern europe any different from the US attitude to Latin America?
And Putin is not an immortal, nor is he an expression of some fundamental Russian nature, he's just the result of a particular history and set of circumstances. I'd rather we just tried to out-last him with as little violence as possible.
Russia: [repeatedly attacks, invades, and dominates its neighbors]
Neighbors: man we would sure like to find a way to stop Russia from attacking us.
Russia: any attempt to protect yourself from future attack by us is an unacceptable provocation that will lead to an attack.
This is whataboutism.
So imperialism is fine when it's a neighboring country? If the target country tries to escape economic imperialism by forming bonds with other countries, in your view, it's okay for the imperialist country to step in and stop that with force.And, what's your point? Russia didn't have trouble with Ukraine until Ukraine started saying they want to join EU and NATO. It's their front yard, they don't want a foreign military alliance in it, and they are acting to prevent it from happening. Like it or not, that's their foreign policy and they are sticking with it. It doesn't translate that they want to occupy the entirety of those countries, just maintain friendly separatist regions to make it too hot for NATO to handle. There are nuances, not everything has to be black and white and easy for you to understand.