The general thrust of your argument that will lead to de-escalation.
War propaganda, 'Realists' and neocons, and the denigration of the war sceptics
- Thread starter RD2003
- Start date
The general thrust of your argument that will lead to de-escalation.
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
The general thrust of my argument will lead to de-escalation? If only.
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
The Pentagon presents a fairly sober assessment, which ties in with US intelligence claims yesterday, highlighted in posts above, about the potential for escalation.
www.theguardian.com
Despite an announcement from Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, that Ukrainian counter-offensives around the city of Kharkiv were pushing invading Russian forces back, Ukrainian successes appeared to be confined for now to the far north-eastern and south-western flanks of the 300-mile frontline.
Further south-east, along the frontline in the Donbas region, Russian forces have deployed a relentless artillery barrage and managed to take some territory.
Ukrainian forces announced their retreat from the city of Popasna at the weekend. Severodonetsk, the easternmost city still held by Ukrainian forces, is virtually surrounded and the last parts of Luhansk region not under Russian control are within range of its heavy artillery.
“The Russians aren’t winning, and the Ukrainians aren’t winning, and we’re at a bit of a stalemate here,” said Lt Gen Scott Berrier, director of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, who gave evidence on Tuesday alongside Avril Haines, the US national intelligence director, to the Senate armed forces committee.
Russia and Ukraine have made inflated claims about their successes, with assessments from western defence and intelligence officials in recent weeks often painting a more subdued picture.
Warnings of a “prolonged war” not least from Haines in her testimony to Senate members, has come amid a mounting recognition in western capitals that both Moscow and Kyiv are increasingly bound by more maximalist war aims, making a negotiated end to the fighting complicated.
With many analysts viewing any backing down by the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, over the refocused Russian campaign in the south and east of the country as political suicide, Kyiv appeared to be insisting that its war aims now included regaining territory lost in 2014.
Russian invasion in eastern Ukraine reaching stalemate, says US official
Pentagon intelligence chief suggests neither side winning despite claim by Kyiv that its forces are pushing Russian troops back
Russian invasion in eastern Ukraine reaching stalemate, says US official
Pentagon intelligence chief suggests neither side winning despite claim by Kyiv that its forces are pushing Russian troops backDespite an announcement from Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, that Ukrainian counter-offensives around the city of Kharkiv were pushing invading Russian forces back, Ukrainian successes appeared to be confined for now to the far north-eastern and south-western flanks of the 300-mile frontline.
Further south-east, along the frontline in the Donbas region, Russian forces have deployed a relentless artillery barrage and managed to take some territory.
Ukrainian forces announced their retreat from the city of Popasna at the weekend. Severodonetsk, the easternmost city still held by Ukrainian forces, is virtually surrounded and the last parts of Luhansk region not under Russian control are within range of its heavy artillery.
“The Russians aren’t winning, and the Ukrainians aren’t winning, and we’re at a bit of a stalemate here,” said Lt Gen Scott Berrier, director of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, who gave evidence on Tuesday alongside Avril Haines, the US national intelligence director, to the Senate armed forces committee.
Russia and Ukraine have made inflated claims about their successes, with assessments from western defence and intelligence officials in recent weeks often painting a more subdued picture.
Warnings of a “prolonged war” not least from Haines in her testimony to Senate members, has come amid a mounting recognition in western capitals that both Moscow and Kyiv are increasingly bound by more maximalist war aims, making a negotiated end to the fighting complicated.
With many analysts viewing any backing down by the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, over the refocused Russian campaign in the south and east of the country as political suicide, Kyiv appeared to be insisting that its war aims now included regaining territory lost in 2014.
ska invita
back on the other side
im sure this is accurate..but i dont think the prediction that it will lead to an escalation is necessarily true...id expect a less intense but long running grind...not that making predictions is particularly worth doingThe Pentagon presents a fairly sober assessment, which ties in with US intelligence claims yesterday, highlighted in posts above, about the potential for escalation.
Russian invasion in eastern Ukraine reaching stalemate, says US official
Pentagon intelligence chief suggests neither side winning despite claim by Kyiv that its forces are pushing Russian troops back
Russian invasion in eastern Ukraine reaching stalemate, says US official
Pentagon intelligence chief suggests neither side winning despite claim by Kyiv that its forces are pushing Russian troops back
Despite an announcement from Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, that Ukrainian counter-offensives around the city of Kharkiv were pushing invading Russian forces back, Ukrainian successes appeared to be confined for now to the far north-eastern and south-western flanks of the 300-mile frontline.
Further south-east, along the frontline in the Donbas region, Russian forces have deployed a relentless artillery barrage and managed to take some territory.
Ukrainian forces announced their retreat from the city of Popasna at the weekend. Severodonetsk, the easternmost city still held by Ukrainian forces, is virtually surrounded and the last parts of Luhansk region not under Russian control are within range of its heavy artillery.
“The Russians aren’t winning, and the Ukrainians aren’t winning, and we’re at a bit of a stalemate here,” said Lt Gen Scott Berrier, director of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, who gave evidence on Tuesday alongside Avril Haines, the US national intelligence director, to the Senate armed forces committee.
Russia and Ukraine have made inflated claims about their successes, with assessments from western defence and intelligence officials in recent weeks often painting a more subdued picture.
Warnings of a “prolonged war” not least from Haines in her testimony to Senate members, has come amid a mounting recognition in western capitals that both Moscow and Kyiv are increasingly bound by more maximalist war aims, making a negotiated end to the fighting complicated.
With many analysts viewing any backing down by the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, over the refocused Russian campaign in the south and east of the country as political suicide, Kyiv appeared to be insisting that its war aims now included regaining territory lost in 2014.
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
Id argue that western military support has already helped save many thousands of lives - Kiev and Kharkiv are now unlikely to face the destruction and bloodbath of being under Russian siege -which would have been many times worse than Mariupol. The Russian advance is now stalled in the east and some Ukrainians are able to return to their homes - rather then fleeing from brutal invaders.
nogojones
spelling is overrated
Well that's bollocks right the way through.At last, a liberal view that makes sense:
The horrible dangers of pushing a US proxy war in Ukraine
If there is indeed a shift in strategy to another level of confrontation with Russia, we need to know what we're getting into.responsiblestatecraft.org
'Two of Lloyd Austin’s remarks are especially worth examining in some detail. The first is that weakening Russia is necessary in order to prevent it repeating its invasion of Ukraine elsewhere. This statement is either meaningless, hypocritical, or both. There is no sign that Russia wants to or indeed could invade any other countries. As far as an attack on NATO is concerned, the miserable performance of the Russian military in Ukraine should have made absolutely clear that this is a fatuous chimera. If Russia cannot capture cities less than 20 miles from Russia’s own border, the idea of an attack on NATO is ludicrous.'
'During the Cold War, no U.S. president ever forgot that Washington and Moscow between them have the ability to destroy human civilization and even put an end to the human race. For this reason, first the Truman and then the Eisenhower administration adopted the strategy of “containing” the Soviet Union in Europe, and not trying to “roll back” Soviet power through armed support for anti-Soviet insurgencies in eastern Europe.
Our leaders of today should remember this. They should also remember that where both sides engaged in proxy warfare outside Europe, the consequences were disastrous for themselves and still more disastrous for the wretched people on the ground who became the pawns of these great power agendas. Have we really learned nothing from history?'
In the last couple of months Putin has singled out Moldova, the Baltic's, Finland and Sweden as targets of possible military action.
And yeah, America did actively stir, train and arm insurgencies inside the USSR. e.g. Dropping ex Ukrainian SS men into Western Ukraine to support the UPA's guerilla campaign during the 50's
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Can't see the abysmal rd2003 learning anything from history when he's so manifestly ignorant of the past
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
While veiled threats have been uttered, no mention of military action against any of those states has been made yet, as far as I'm aware, and the point remains that if Russia can't successfully take Ukraine and will have a depleted army and economy afterwards, then there's little chance of it overrunning more countries. Funny how the very same people simultaneously claim that the Russian armed forces are inefficient and outdated yet somehow invincible and a threat to the whole of Europe...
I didn't actually know about the Ukrainian former SS men, but it's still the case that the general rule was no direct engagement between nuclear-armed powers.
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
True, but I'm constantly doing my best to model myself on you, the Oracle.
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
Their army is shit at fighting other armies - but a world leader in massacring civilians and flattening towns and cities. So yeah - still a threat. Oh - and has the worlds largest nuclear arsenal. And its lurching into extreme fascistic nationalism. Apart from that its no threat at all.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
You're not doing very well
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
But how, when we're constantly told that Russia is going to end up severely weakened militarily and economically crippled?
Take you're time answering, as I'm off out for a quick bevvy.
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
Nothing compares to you...
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
I dunno - you work it out? I thought i was pretty clear. But - i will repeat in big letters and without too many long words : Despite being weakened militarily and economically - its still able and willing to inflict death and destruction on weaker opponents in - and likes to wave its nukes about to get its way.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Lots of things compare to me, just few of them well
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
Once again-if this war is such a disaster for Russia, which, as the common narrative goes, will weaken the military and the economy for years if not decades to come, possibly taking the Putin regime down and leaving political turmoil in its wake as well, how will Russia be in a position to overrun NATO members/future NATO members like the Baltic states, Sweden and Finland, and, as it is constantly implied to us, Poland and other former Warsaw Pact countries? Even the Soviet army at its most fearsome wouldn't have pulled that off.
And you can't do it by nuclear threat either, although the war evangelists tell us we have nothing to fear from Russian nukes as they're 'probably' as decrepit as the army seems to be.
It seems that hysteria has won the day.
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
Overrun? Who said overrrun? Perhaps someone did. But Russia can do a hell of a lot of damage to a state without overrunning it. And having done the damage they can move in their satraps - or not, if the damage is bad enough.
Are you suggesting that Russia, having invaded Ukraine and bombarding Mariupol to death, moving along the eastern border and the coast, represents no threat whatsoever to any other state over which Putin has cast covetous eyes? Let's just Ukraine do what he wants, why don't they, and then everyone can go home?
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
Ever since the start of the invasion, we've had it implied, and often openly stated to us that 'Putin will not stop here,' and that Russia represents a threat to the whole of Europe. At the same time, the very same people emphasise that Russia is incapable of even taking Ukraine.
I don't know about states on Russia's eastern periphery, but those who say that Russia, which hasn't, as we are seeing, really recovered from the end of the USSR, could possibly take swathes of countries to its west are having a laugh.
And the idea that it's all about 'Putin's covetous eyes,' is wide of the mark as well. Russia under any regime has rarely if ever tolerated what its rulers see as threats to its borders, rightly or wrongly. (Note to the idealists among us in case the bolded bit wasn't enough: it isn't a matter of right or wrong, good or evil etc etc, but merely what is.) What we are seeing is only the latest manifestation of this unwillingness to tolerate it.
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
Talk of ''threats to its borders' are a convenient excuse. No one, not even Putin, thinks Ukraine or Finland is going to invade. The idea is ridiculous. You seem to be ignoring what Putin has said about Russia's historic borders which he seeks to restore.
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
I don't think they believe that Finland or Ukraine is going to invade Russia. It's a matter of what those countries represent in terms of a rival power block. When you have a history of devastating invasions, you get paranoid.
What Putin says about Russia's historic borders is one interpretation of a view that has been widespread among Russia's elites, and hence widespread among the population, for centuries. And he didn't think of it himself. And what he says about Ukraine being mostly indistinguishable from Russia isn't just his own view either. It is widespread in Russia and was, at least until recently, in Ukraine as well.
Again, it isn't a matter of what should be but what is.
maomao
普費斯
You keep pretending these two are somehow mutually exclusive and they're not. Giving Russia Ukraine would make Russia a danger to the rest of Europe.
I do basically agree with the proposition that a negotiated peace would be the best thing and if Ukraine doesn't get its pre-2014 territory back but the killing stops then that would be a better option. But I'm not sure what you want to happen; people are going to fight for their families and homes. If the Russians put a shell through your bungalow you wouldn't fight back?
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
So to get this clear, your view is that Russia, with its own view of its history and destiny, is like some force of nature that can't be resisted. Not if anyone knows what's good for them.
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
Who has suggested 'giving' Russia Ukraine (as if this could somehow be done)?
I've been saying for weeks what I would prefer to happen. Unlike the war evangelists, I would like the slaughter to stop right now. The rest should be a matter of negotiation, preferably resulting in an independent but, to prevent further conflict, neutral Ukraine-and for Russia to be held to a commitment to no further aggression.
If the Russians shelled my house I doubt if I'd do anything as I'd likely be dead. But the main thret here is not Russian shelling of anybody's house but the escalation to a civilisation-ending conflagration.
maomao
普費斯
But you're putting the ball entirely in Ukraine's court. Russia needs to stop fighting.
Cause it's not your house.
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
No, as I keep saying (and in the currently fashionable way of putting it) it merely is what it is.
In other words, if Russia's rulers see their country in a certain way, there is nothing anybody else can do about it. As for resistance to that view, they are, as in the past, being resisted right now.
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
Never said Russia doesn't.
If I was born and bred in Ukraine, I don't know what I'd do, but then again, if I'd been born in Ukraine, I wouldn't be me anyway.
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
Sorry, it isn't good enough to say 'it is what it is'. We all know what it is. We all know that Putin has a weird religio-historic view of Russia and where its borders should be. We all know he's not alone in that view, and that he's not going to stop until he either gets what he wants or he realises that he can't. (His objective insight on the latter is questionable.) In what universe do you imagine that Russia will agree to any peace deal that respects anything at all about Ukraine, or will abide by that agreement any more faithfully than they have abided by the Budapest memorandum?
Humberto
Well-Known Member
'Holier than thou', truly. All of us here would agree, I believe. It goes without saying really.
This is where your 'argument' falls down a mine shaft. Russia's government may be brought to that point (negotiation and accepting Ukrainian independence) but it wasn't the path they chose when they invaded. In fact, they invented the pretext as it suited their aims. i.e. To expand Russian borders. Otherwise what use is a war in this context? This is how to go about securing an independent and neutral Ukraine? That's horseshit. Russia has acted aggressively. Ukraine is defending itself.
Last edited:
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
I'm glad you are sorry, but struggle to understand in which court's opinion it is not good enough.
As if you or I know what could be done by negotiation if the fighting stopped. It is as likely as not that, as in waking up from a drinking binge, the hangover would bite and reality would kick in.
As with many others on here, however, you're indignant about nothing really-you are getting your way already. The path towards a possible devastating escalation is already laid out and those who call for a halt to it marginalised.
Similar threads
- Poll
