Russia's War Against Ukraine

[GDS_Starfury]

Id love to see them try and take Alaska.  >:D

[GDS_Starfury]

I think a pretty succinct take on things.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1589260108537610240.html

[Sir Slash]

Mr. Snyder apparently chooses to ignore the 30+ progressive Democrats that recently sent a letter to the President urging him to use diplomacy to end the conflict. When their fellow party members found out what they had done, the immediate backlash caused them to deny sending the letter and blamed it on a clerical error by their staffers. I wonder why he left that out?

[Pete Dero]

Mr. Snyder apparently chooses to ignore the 30+ progressive Democrats that recently sent a letter to the President urging him to use diplomacy to end the conflict. When their fellow party members found out what they had done, the immediate backlash caused them to deny sending the letter and blamed it on a clerical error by their staffers. I wonder why he left that out?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/senior-white-house-official-involved-in-undisclosed-talks-with-top-putin-aides-11667768988

NSA Jake Sullivan has been having quiet convos, undisclosed until now, with Russian officials over Ukraine in an effort to deescalate amid concerns over nukes.

[JasonPratt]

Uncle Vova (Putin) song.

I saw this Russian propaganda video briefly referred to in an NPR documentary...and I had a masochistic urge to check it out.

If the English translation is correct...all I can say is it is pretty sick...real personality cult stuff. Children in military uniforms singing about the "final battle".

"If the Commander in Chief calls for the last battle, Uncle Vova we are with you"

Oh...and the "Samurai" are never to get Sakhalin back...and Alaska is going back to the "homeland"...sorry Anchorage.

The punchline is that this video was first posted in its untranslated Russian version four years ago...

Pardon me while I go throw-up on my shoes.

Reminds me a lot of the propaganda invasion songs being promoted by Stalin (as "Marshal of the Revolution") several months before Hitler invaded them.

Meanwhile, step x of the Putin Plan: piss off the samurai. Surely this will bring victory! 

[JasonPratt]

Putin tells Macron that Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrate you don't have to nuke a major city to win a war:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/putin-tells-macron-hiroshima-is-proof-you-don-t-have-to-launch-nuclear-strike-on-major-city-to-win-war/ar-AA13NHjj?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=5e528e47e99f457e8e92593246426fa9

It does however help if you already practically nuked 63 other major and similarly sized cities off the face of the entire country over the past year, plus have Stalin declaring war on your enemy.  ::) ::) ::)

[Gusington]

Stories like this make me vomit a little bit:

"The Mail on Sunday reported a French government source as saying the Russian president referenced Hiroshima in a call with Mr Macron which left the French president "distinctly alarmed"."

[FarAway Sooner]

Mr. Snyder apparently chooses to ignore the 30+ progressive Democrats that recently sent a letter to the President urging him to use diplomacy to end the conflict. When their fellow party members found out what they had done, the immediate backlash caused them to deny sending the letter and blamed it on a clerical error by their staffers. I wonder why he left that out?

I think posting links to obviously partisan articles, without any inflammatory comments, still runs afoul of the "let's please keep this out of R&P topic areas". 

Starfury, man, you're peeing in the pool of nonpartisan discourse on Ukraine...

[Jarhead0331]

Mr. Snyder apparently chooses to ignore the 30+ progressive Democrats that recently sent a letter to the President urging him to use diplomacy to end the conflict. When their fellow party members found out what they had done, the immediate backlash caused them to deny sending the letter and blamed it on a clerical error by their staffers. I wonder why he left that out?

I think posting links to obviously partisan articles, without any inflammatory comments, still runs afoul of the "let's please keep this out of R&P topic areas". 

Starfury, man, you're peeing in the pool of nonpartisan discourse on Ukraine...

This is true. There is, of course, some unavoidable cross-over and we will permit some of it so long as it is relevant to the overall strategic picture and discussion. The problem with the article posted is that it suggests that Republicans are the only ones raising questions about the costs to the US of the war in Ukraine. This is false for two reasons. First, it is not just Republicans raising these questions. There are still some democrats who haven't become entirely unhinged who are questioning it, as well. Second, by-in-large, support for the war within the mainstream parties is practically unanimous. It is one of the few things the majority of Republicans and Democrats in government actually agree on. Doesn't this make you scratch your head? If not, it should.

The bigger issue is the shunning anyone receives for simply suggesting that questions should be asked. This should also make you scratch your head.

Discussion begins at 3:15.

[Pete Dero]

Stories like this make me vomit a little bit:

"The Mail on Sunday reported a French government source as saying the Russian president referenced Hiroshima in a call with Mr Macron which left the French president "distinctly alarmed"."

If I remember this correctly it was in this context : Russia (Soviets) never used a nuclear weapon but the west did so don't blame us, the others did it first.

[Sir Slash]

I am glad to hear somebody is talking to the Russians, or trying at least. Talk is free and can only improve things if done diplomatically and honestly.  :clap:

[Gusington]

^That is true...silver lining for the mushroom cloud?

[JasonPratt]

^That is true...silver lining for the mushroom cloud?

Heh, well put.

The problem of course is that Russia refuses to talk honestly, as previously mentioned by several analysts. We're also still at a point where neither side wants to give up anything (although for somewhat different reasons.)

If the problem is supposed to be fear of NATO using Ukraine as a staging point for invading Russia, then a diplomatic solution could be reached with treaties not to do that, whereupon Russia could position itself as mission accomplished. But (1) that was always nothing more than an excuse for Putin to try finishing out his MUCK plan (Moldova, Ukraine, Crimea, Kazakhstan), so being a lie it would weigh nothing with Putin -- unless and until he's desperate to save himself from a coup; and (2) Putin has quadrupled his bet by annexing those extra four areas as Russian forever, and Ukraine means to take those AND the Crimea back. So until that factor has been solidly resolved, Putin has no room to negotiate anymore. And if the Uks take those areas back, what's Putin going to do: admit the referendum was a sham?? Any negotiation along the line of "We stopped NATO from attacking us through the Ukraine" is going to run into the problem of "even though we sacrificed the Crimea and those other four Russian areas forever to do it!"

Putin remains the problem personally. Once he's gone, his successor COULD have room to maneuver diplomatically on the excuse that Putin screwed up.

[MengJiao]

^That is true...silver lining for the mushroom cloud?

Heh, well put.

The problem of course is that Russia refuses to talk honestly, as previously mentioned by several analysts. We're also still at a point where neither side wants to give up anything (although for somewhat different reasons.)

If the problem is supposed to be fear of NATO using Ukraine as a staging point for invading Russia, then a diplomatic solution could be reached with treaties not to do that, whereupon Russia could position itself as mission accomplished. But (1) that was always nothing more than an excuse for Putin to try finishing out his MUCK plan (Moldova, Ukraine, Crimea, Kazakhstan), so being a lie it would weigh nothing with Putin -- unless and until he's desperate to save himself from a coup; and (2) Putin has quadrupled his bet by annexing those extra four areas as Russian forever, and Ukraine means to take those AND the Crimea back. So until that factor has been solidly resolved, Putin has no room to negotiate anymore. And if the Uks take those areas back, what's Putin going to do: admit the referendum was a sham?? Any negotiation along the line of "We stopped NATO from attacking us through the Ukraine" is going to run into the problem of "even though we sacrificed the Crimea and those other four Russian areas forever to do it!"

Putin remains the problem personally. Once he's gone, his successor COULD have room to maneuver diplomatically on the excuse that Putin screwed up.

  If you look at it more generically from the Ukrainian point of view: if Russia gets some kind of ceasefire, that just means the Russians have an easier time building up for another attack.
After all, Ukraine gave up its nukes with the guarantee (or understanding?) that Russia wasn't going to attack them.  Now nothing guarantees Ukrainian security except continuing its war
with Russia.

[GDS_Starfury]

Mr. Snyder apparently chooses to ignore the 30+ progressive Democrats that recently sent a letter to the President urging him to use diplomacy to end the conflict. When their fellow party members found out what they had done, the immediate backlash caused them to deny sending the letter and blamed it on a clerical error by their staffers. I wonder why he left that out?

I think posting links to obviously partisan articles, without any inflammatory comments, still runs afoul of the "let's please keep this out of R&P topic areas". 

Starfury, man, you're peeing in the pool of nonpartisan discourse on Ukraine...

the article talks about how both US political parties have failed to formulate a cohesive policy about russia for decades.
he then goes on to say the both parties agree about China.  I'll also repeat JH's statement that both parties are pretty united in sending aid to the Ukraine.  just because it leads of with Republican in the first sentence doesnt make whats said partisan or runs afoul of being a r&p topic.