Air Base Attacks Deep Inside Russia Point to CIA Covert Ops and a Planned War

[squeezer]

Let us

Let us try to have a civilized and friendly discussion, even as we agree on many things.

I am against people getting killed. I have always been. Wars eventually end after large number of innocent people including soldiers having been killed.

Who are "they" ?

So if Nato were to back away, stop aiding Ukraine and let Russia have its way with them. Great the war is over for now. Russia now knows they need to rebuild the army and actually have a plan of attack for when they decide to take over Moldova, do we then stop them or that's ok let it go. He now has Moldova back. He's now better-equipped nuke-wise and conventional weaponry-wise, he now decides, hmm, Poland looks ripe for the taking. Sure it's a Nato country but Nato will back down as they always do.

The reality is, if you give someone with Putin's personality an inch, they go for the entire foot.

 

[jsanchez]

So if Nato were to back away, stop aiding Ukraine and let Russia have its way with them. Great the war is over for now. Russia now knows they need to rebuild the army and actually have a plan of attack for when they decide to take over Moldova, do we then stop them or that's ok let it go. He now has Moldova back. He's now better-equipped nuke-wise and conventional weaponry-wise, he now decides, hmm, Poland looks ripe for the taking. Sure it's a Nato country but Nato will back down as they always do.

The reality is, if you give someone with Putin's personality an inch, they go for the entire foot.

This is what Terb's Chamberlin will never understand or accept.

 

[danmand]

So if Nato were to back away, stop aiding Ukraine and let Russia have its way with them. Great the war is over for now. Russia now knows they need to rebuild the army and actually have a plan of attack for when they decide to take over Moldova, do we then stop them or that's ok let it go. He now has Moldova back. He's now better-equipped nuke-wise and conventional weaponry-wise, he now decides, hmm, Poland looks ripe for the taking. Sure it's a Nato country but Nato will back down as they always do.

The reality is, if you give someone with Putin's personality an inch, they go for the entire foot.

You have reinvented the domino theory.

I don,'t recall the rest of the world fell to communism after the "fall" of Vietnam.

 

[toguy5252]

You have reinvented the domino theory.

I don,'t recall the rest of the world fell to communism after the "fall" of Vietnam.

True but i do recall Russia going into Georgia then Crimea now Ukraine and threatening Moldova, Finland and Poland.

 

[jsanchez]

Ah. There we go then.

So who would they have to attack for you to care?
Is this just pure isolationism or do you have a red line?

Denmark (but I wouldn't bet on it).

 

[Valcazar]

Let us

Let us try to have a civilized and friendly discussion, even as we agree on many things.

I am against people getting killed. I have always been. Wars eventually end after large number of innocent people including soldiers having been killed.

Who are "they" ?

In that sentence, it was Russia, but given your statement, any nuclear power would do.

It's nice that you are against wars, except you seem to be so anti war that you are pro war.
The problem is people resisting an invasion, and if they just let the bigger military do whatever they wanted, there would be less war.

That seems superficially true, but I have a lot of problem with that morality.

 

[Valcazar]

And Russia wants a war, then they get a war. It really is that simple.

The idea that somehow Russia doesn't make strategic decisions about when and where it wants to exert military power is one of the things I find very weird.
They think war works for them - they've engaged in several over the last 20-30 years.

 

[danmand]

Denmark (but I wouldn't bet on it).

I think I may assume you mean Russia when you say "they".

If Russia attacks Denmark or any other NATO country, red lines will be meaningless, as the intercontinental missiles will be flying and most of us will be fried.

 

[Darts]

Denmark (but I wouldn't bet on it).

Actually, Denmark surrendered in 3 days (or was it 3 hours?) in WW2. When the allies liberated the country they found very little damage.

 

[Valcazar]

True but i do recall Russia going into Georgia then Crimea now Ukraine and threatening Moldova, Finland and Poland.

They took territory from Moldova as well, if I remember correctly.

The question is - as always - what are the interests and stake here and where do they end?

To quote the article I linked earlier: " I think we need to hold on to that basic assumption: that this is important for the West, but it’s not all important. It’s all important for Ukraine, absolutely. But this is part of the tragedy here. We have overlapping but at times divergent interests. "

The generous interpretation of danmad's position is that he simply thinks the US/NATO interests in Ukraine are not sufficient and they should have sacrificed Ukraine from the start, or simply refused to supply weapons when Ukraine started to resist more successfully. (And that now they should use their leverage to force Ukraine into whatever settlement they can get from Russia.)

Others of us have a different view of what the balance of interests are here.

I don't think anyone on the board (I could be wrong) thinks the US/NATO interests are primarily about invading Russia and enacting regime change.

 

[danmand]

In that sentence, it was Russia, but given your statement, any nuclear power would do.

It's nice that you are against wars, except you seem to be so anti war that you are pro war.
The problem is people resisting an invasion, and if they just let the bigger military do whatever they wanted, there would be less war.

That seems superficially true, but I have a lot of problem with that morality.

It is not "nice" that I am against war. It is fundamental, you should try it.

You cannot possibly be unaware that the war in Ukraine is a proxy war between NATO and Russia, with the Ukrainian people (and some Russians considering the thread) bearing the cost in terms of blood, while Russia and NATO supplies the war machinery to kill hundreds of thousands of mostly Ukrainians.

It is very easy and comfortable to be in favour of a war, when you sit in a chair in front of a screen with eggnog.

For the record, I do not believe Russia has any interest in occupying Ukraine (except Donbass), Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Denmark, Hungary or Rumania.

 

[toguy5252]

They took territory from Moldova as well, if I remember correctly.

The question is - as always - what are the interests and stake here and where do they end?

To quote the article I linked earlier: " I think we need to hold on to that basic assumption: that this is important for the West, but it’s not all important. It’s all important for Ukraine, absolutely. But this is part of the tragedy here. We have overlapping but at times divergent interests. "

The generous interpretation of danmad's position is that he simply thinks the US/NATO interests in Ukraine are not sufficient and they should have sacrificed Ukraine from the start, or simply refused to supply weapons when Ukraine started to resist more successfully. (And that now they should use their leverage to force Ukraine into whatever settlement they can get from Russia.)

Others of us have a different view of what the balance of interests are here.

I don't think anyone on the board (I could be wrong) thinks the US/NATO interests are primarily about invading Russia and enacting regime change.

Primarily? I don't think NATO or the US or the Europeans have any interest in invading Russia..

It really comes down to whether one believes that appeasement is an effective strategy. To paraphrase I think Churchill appeasement is like throwing an alligator meat and hoping it won't eat you.

 

[Valcazar]

Primarily? I don't think NATO or the US or the Europeans have any interest in invading Russia..

It really comes down to whether one believes that appeasement is an effective strategy. To paraphrase I think Churchill appeasement is like throwing an alligator meat and hoping it won't eat you.

And one can argue that appeasement and very limited response is what NATO did with all those previous invasions. It just resulted in more invasions, so people changed tactics.
Mind you, if Russia had accomplished its 3-day strike - or even succeeding in getting Kiev in week 2 or 3, NATO would have probably let it slide and just increased arms all along the borders with Russia.

Ukraine doing as well as it did is what convinced NATO to slowly provide more arms.

 

[Frankfooter]

Let us

Let us try to have a civilized and friendly discussion, even as we agree on many things.

I am against people getting killed. I have always been. Wars eventually end after large number of innocent people including soldiers having been killed.

Who are "they" ?

But then why aren't you against Putin's war of aggression?
Why wouldn't you want a warmonger stopped from starting further wars?

 

[Darts]

Ukraine doing as well as it did is what convinced NATO to slowly provide more arms.

I'm not surprised that the Ukes would fight. I lived in Alberta for 3 years and met many Ukes. Tough and hard working.

 

[danmand]

I will stop now. I am thankful for all of you having (reluctantly) accepted that I have quite different views on the war than most of you, and that you have not accused me of being a Russian troll or worse.

 

[squeezer]

You have reinvented the domino theory.

I don,'t recall the rest of the world fell to communism after the "fall" of Vietnam.

Are you saying, Putin if he was able to easily gobble up Ukraine would not set his sights on expanding just a wee little bit more??

 

[Darts]

Putin wants to re-constitute the old Soviet empire. The people he wants to re-constitute disagree.

 

[jsanchez]

I think I may assume you mean Russia when you say "they".

Of course, who else has borders and 1000's of missiles pointing at European cities?

If Russia attacks Denmark or any other NATO country, red lines will be meaningless, as the intercontinental missiles will be flying and most of us will be fried.

So you implicitly agree there are red lines, yes/no? if yes then what are your red lines?

 

[squeezer]

Here Option 4
I beginning to see the big picture of Russia strategy. They Russia will start the winter campaign only after they destroy 100% power grid of Ukraine and when the ground is frozen solid that will allow heavy equipment like truck and tanks to across over to Ukraine int Crimea. Then It will basically over for the Ukraine army and Ukrainian government ( earliest by March 2023 latest by March 2024. The Ukraine army will be totally destroyed and defeated. This may happen sooner when the military urkraine generals see they are losing badly they will perform coup d’état and kill President Zenlensky!

Then Poland will be takeover Western Ukraine it paid back prior to WWII because some part western Ukraine belong to Poland prior WWII . They Poland is acting like a Trojan horse to Ukrainian government now and when Russia defeated Urkaraine army the Poland will annex part of Ukraine. They will come into western Ukraine to help but the long term strategy is to take western Ukraine. Russia won’t care about western Ukraine territory, They will let Poland take over that mess of western Ukraine. Then Urkraine as a country will cease to exist!

When close to 100% of the power infrastructure get totally destroyed by Russian / Iranian drones. The major of the population of Ukraine refugees will all leave the cities go to Europe and that make Russia task more simpler because it minimizes the citizens casualties and they can easily focus on killing the Urkanine army. I think that Russia plan , war of attrition and push all the population away toward Europe.

You should be by Putin's side. Your analysis would be welcomed by the Kremlin. The Russians would chant your name or handle whichever you chose to go by.