Putin's invasion of Ukraine

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Saint, Jan 20, 2022.

  1. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    my bold above.
    No, 'worry' seems to be a feature in most wars. Haven't you noticed?
    New law passed in Russia about anyone broadcasting ''fake news'' from Russia.
    BBC reporters are leaving Russia now, because they can go to jail for 15 years, if they broadcast''fake news'' about Putin's war in Ukraine.
    One of the things is, they mustn't call it a war.
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2022
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    new Ukraine road sign

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    road agency actively changes road signs to confuse occupying forces. This one they created for their online message:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ’Go fuck yourself’,

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ’Go fuck yourself again’,

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ’Go fuck yourself back in Russia’

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    psikeyhackr likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    There's no need for the Ukrainians to be so nasty, because according to Putin and new law , it's not a war.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    It seems that Russian tourists who come driving tanks ain't quite as welcome as they might have hoped for?
  8. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    You mean the hologram tanks. And the hologram shelling of nuclear power plant.
  9. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Nice article. It’s a bullshit theory that completely removes agency from the countries involved though
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    maybe not bullshit
    certainly not a mainstream west opinion
    but it is usually worth looking at other perspectives

    here is a brief biography of John J. Mearsheimer

    Professor Mearsheimer has written extensively about security issues and international politics more generally. He has published six books: Conventional Deterrence (1983), which won the Edgar S. Furniss, Jr., Book Award; Liddell Hart and the Weight of History (1988); The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001, 2014), which won the Joseph Lepgold Book Prize and has been translated into nine different languages; The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (with Stephen M. Walt, 2007), which made the New York Times best seller list and has been translated into twenty-four different languages; Why Leaders Lie: The Truth about Lying in International Politics (2011), which has been translated into twelve different languages; and The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities (2018) which has been translated into five different languages.

    He has also written many articles that have appeared in academic journals like International Security, and popular magazines like Foreign Affairs and the London Review of Books. Furthermore he has written op-ed pieces for newspapers like the New York Times and the Financial Times dealing with topics like Bosnia, nuclear proliferation, US policy towards India, the failure of Arab-Israeli peace efforts, the folly of invading Iraq, the causes of the Ukrainian crisis, and the likelihood of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

    Finally, Professor Mearsheimer holds a number of awards and honors. He received the Clark Award for Distinguished Teaching when he was a graduate student at Cornell in 1977, and he won the Quantrell Award for Distinguished Teaching at the University of Chicago in 1985. He was selected as a Phi Beta Kappa Visiting Scholar for the 1993-1994 academic year. In that capacity, he gave a series of talks at eight colleges and universities. He received honorary doctorates from universities in China, Greece, and Romania; and in 2003, he was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    John Mearsheimer, PhD Cornell 1980

  11. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    nuclear power plant did not blow up

    thats good
    sculptor likes this.
  12. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    amen to that
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    I think it is well understood by many that the title politician is synonymous with lying. However it is in the determining who is lying and to what extent and who is not, when all people lie to some extent just about all the time. You believe Johns words as they make sense to you, they suit your perspective and justifiable cynicism yet you fail to see he is just as much the politician as those who he is criticizing. A liar calling out the lie is no truth. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in between.

    This is why I guess, imagery such as pictures and video present a truth (Assuming they are not doctored) For example: I look at his portrait and attempt to see who he is and what impressions about his integrity I can draw. (assuming it is actually a photo of him which it may very well not be.) and even then his words will be treated with a fair amount of skepticism, which, if he was genuine, would be the most welcomed outcome.
  14. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    There is merit to the article as an explanation of Russian thinking. It's going too far to say that we are responsible rather than Putin.

    It would have been better for the U.S. to have stepped back a bit and let politics in Ukraine unfold naturally rather than being such a force for pro-democracy. It is true that we wouldn't let Mexico or Canada develop into a Russian stronghold, for example and that is the way Russians look at any democracy in their region.

    That doesn't excuse what Putin is doing at the moment however. If he was less paranoid and just concentrated on having neutral countries on Russia's borders that would be more understandable.

    The other problem is that part of the reason he is so paranoid and such a thug (other than just being Russian) is that he knows that he is corrupt and his power base is corrupt and eventually the people will throw him out of power (one way or another).

    It happens to all authoritarian leaders and in the case of the U.S.S.R. and Russia he knows what happens when you become a little less authoritarian...the people rise, want more, speak out more and you lose control.

    So, IMO, it not about blaming the U.S. for some missteps, all politicians and governments make missteps (Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam,etc). Even Obama taunting Trump at that annual National Press Dinner certainly backfired.

    We can try to understand how Putin thinks and what may be the outcome of our actions, that's just the nature of good diplomacy, which we haven't been so good at for years. That doesn't excuse the current mess in Ukraine though.

    The worse it gets, the more likely that Putin loses his power internally and then the issue becomes will the next person be more open or less, more corrupt or less, etc.

    Eventually Ukraine will arm itself defensively to make it harder for Russia to invade while being neutral in all other public regards.

    Probably the best thing that we could get out of all this is to give authoritarian regimes a little space and tone back the confrontational rhetoric a bit. This goes for our approach to China as well.
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2022
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Russia invaded Crimea back in 2014. Although it has de facto control over Crimea, the legitimacy of any "sovereignty" over that territory is disputed. On the other hand, recognising Russian sovereignty over Crimea would not materially change the situation there.

    The term "demilitarization" is slippery. What, exactly, does that mean? Does it mean Ukraine - as an independent sovereign nation - must forego its right to self-defence? Or is the demilitarisation to be limited to certain types of weapons or forces?

    As for "denazification", it is a myth cooked up by Putin that neo-Nazi influence or presence in Ukraine is at all significant. This is part of Putin's smokescreen story for trying to legitimise Russian aggression and the unprovoked invasion.
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    No surprise that scorpius is trying to spread misinformation and propaganda here, as usual.
    Zelensky is the democratically elected President of Ukraine.
    The 14,000 figure is a lie. It is based on a third-party estimate of the total number of Ukraine and pro-Russian people killed since 2014.

    Ironic that you talk about enrichment of imperialists. What have you to say about the Russian oligarchs/kleptocracy?
    What you mean, of course, is that you support Putin's war of aggression against Ukraine.

    All wars end, sooner or later. Before that happens, many people will die needlessly, on both sides.
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    No surprises that sculptor is siding with propagandist scorpius here.
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    I'm not sure what US actions you're referring to. Perhaps you can explain.
    Putin explained his rationale for the invasion in a speech. He believes that Russia "owns" Ukraine. Essentially, his long-term vision seems to be to resurrect the Soviet Union by bringing "rebel" states back under Russian control. Depending on how Ukraine goes, countries like Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania will be next on his list.
    Putin's approach is to try to distract his own people by promising to "make Russia great again". The segment of the Russian population that still gets its information from "old media" probably believes the lies to an extent. The younger generation, in particular, isn't being fooled by Putin's propaganda.
    At this stage, it seems that the only way to remove Putin would be a revolution by the Russian people. State institutions are riddled with corruption and cronyism, such that they no longer operate for the people.

    This is what happens when you allow an authoritarian dictator to remove checks and balances. There's an important lesson for the US here, too. If America votes for Trump again in 2024, you'll be on a similar trajectory.
    You seem to be assuming that Ukraine will repel the current invasion and avoid having a puppet regime imposed on it by Russia. I'd say that outcome is very far from likely at this point in time.
    Where do you propose to draw a line?

    This invasion of a sovereign European nation by a neighbouring aggressor is unprecedented since World War II.

    Are you saying that giving Putin's regime a little space justifies handing Ukraine to him? That's what it sounds like.
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Where online did you read this?
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I think that China wants to sit back and evaluate what happens as Russia tries to annex a neighbour. China has its eyes on Taiwan, for instance. China will make a cost-benefit decision, informed by the Russian experience.
    Did China abstain from the Security Council vote, or vote against Russia? Abstaining may technically be a "failure to support", but it is hardly a condemnation either.
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Again, without a reference to any source. This looks photoshopped.
  22. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    No, I'm not saying giving Putin a little space justifies handing Ukraine to him. I've said that trying to understand where he is coming from still doesn't justify anything he is currently doing.

    It does no good, IMO, to not try to understand the enemy (or just any other country and their motivations). Putin sees everything as East vs West or as democracy vs a "strong" leader.

    The U.S.S.R. fell apart and that's still on his mind, the countries that were apart of the old Soviet empire are one by one falling in with the West (NATO and EU). That's what I would expect but he sees Russia's influence being nibbled away by the U.S.

    He is drawing the line at the Ukraine. I think we should be doing everything that we are doing at this point (and more). If Russia takes over Ukraine and installs a puppet government I don't think it can last long. We've seen how strongly the Ukrainian people feel about their current government and how strongly they are against Russia so I think it's comparable to the U.S. trying to control Afghanistan.

    Ultimately we knew that Afghanistan was never going to be another little America. Ukraine is not going to revert back to being another little Russia.

    When I talk about how we should have given Putin a little space, I'm (obviously) not talking about now. An example though would be Lindsay Graham's comments that someone should assassinate Putin. That's not something a politician should say in public.

    Putin will use that as justification on Russian TV. He will make the situation in Ukraine about Russian vs the U.S. and see how they are trying to "kill me"...bla, bla, bla. It's just a stupid comment diplomatically.

    When the last Russian puppet government was in the process of being overthrown in Ukraine the Russian perspective (publicly) was that a legitimately elected leader was overthrown due to the Americans and now they are coming for Russia and even want "me" killed.

    In Russian there is no concept among people his age of natural organic protesting. The KGB paid people to protest and they believe that protestors on the other side are paid as well so when there is unrest, protests in Ukraine or in Moscow it must just be because they are being paid by the U.S.

    Of course that's BS, for the most part, but that's still where Putin is coming from.

    Beyond all that, realistically speaking, he knows that corrupt leaders (and he is corrupt but he knows that all Russian leaders past and present are corrupt) eventually fall and he doesn't want to fall.

    He was a nobody as an assistant to Yellsin but he promised (and kept that promise) to not go after Yellsin and family for corruption after he became President. I don't know if he has anyone that he can trust to make that same promise to him when it's time for him to leave.

    These are the things, realistically speaking, that he has to consider. He has seen no positive cases of moderation, flexibility, turning out well for a Russian leader. Russians value stability among all else. Revolution, protests, just don't have the same positive results that we have experienced here in the U.S.

    Ultimately things change and (hopefully) Russia does fully modernize and get rid of much of their corruption but it has a strong historical past there.

    The same could be said for Mexico, Central and South America. We don't like the way that things have turned out there either but a scholarly approach would still attempt to understand why things have turned out as they have. Russia is no different.

    I hope there is no nuclear conflict but the best we could hope for there is that their systems haven't been upgraded and maintained and that they aren't as strong as we had thought. I have no idea if that is really the case however.
  23. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Yeah I'm so sure you didn't really want it to blow up and irradiate those pesky Ukrainian rebels, you're such a charitable and thoughtful soul and I'm glad you had a chance to signal your virtue. There's a certain irony in the way you want to have guns so you can rise up against your guvamint any time you please, but Ukrainians aren't entitled to the privilege of rising up against foreign tyrants who've repeatedly massacred them and destroyed their lives for centuries.

Share This Page