The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Lots of bad options. 

Is the present option---watch Ukraine being reduced to rubble, and any number of civilians slaughtered---the best of bad options?

Of course, no one really knows. But in interview after interview, people who have worked with Putin say he only responds to force. 

The pre-invasion Biden declarations of no boots on the ground, of no no fly zone and offers to spirit Zelensky out of Ukraine were escalatory. Biden bungled badly. 

More forceful interdiction by Western powers might actually be de-escalatory. 

Putin, sensing his entire military will be bogged down and ultimately wiped out, might withdraw.

Poland is right there, right on the frontlines, and accepting millions of refugees. They are calling for heavier interdiction. If Poland says so...makes sense to me. 

 

We know that Russian troops mostly don’t want to be fighting a war or risking their lives. We know that the Ukrainian civilians don’t want to be be occupied, killed, have their country reduced to ashes and rubble. But, the key questions here are:

1) What do the Russian leaders want out of this conflict?
 

2) What does NATO/Western powers want from this conflict? 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Sandy,

Look at what [Putin] has already done in response to Ukrainian resistance!

      Who foresaw the mass bombing of entire residential communities in Ukraine -- apartment buildings, hospitals, theaters, and schools?  It has been utterly irrational-- serving no constructive purpose.

 

W.,

But none of what Putin has done in Ukraine will necessarily lead to his death, and I think Putin's life is one thing he really cares about. My analysis above makes the assumption that Putin would be careful not to do anything that would certainly lead to his death.

For example, it seems to me that Putin wouldn't attack a NATO country -- even if provoked -- because he knows that if he did there is no way he could win a war with NATO and come out of it alive. Either he would lose in a conventional war with NATO and then be put to death for war crimes, or he would die along with everyone else in a nuclear exchange .

You say that his bombing of schools, hospitals, etc. is irrational and serves no purpose. I think that from Putin's perspective his indiscriminate bombing is quite rational and serves a useful purpose. I think he does it in order to demoralize and remove all hope from his enemies' thoughts.

 

 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

We know that Russian troops mostly don’t want to be fighting a war or risking their lives. We know that the Ukrainian civilians don’t want to be be occupied, killed, have their country reduced to ashes and rubble. But, the key questions here are:

1) What do the Russian leaders want out of this conflict?
 

2) What does NATO/Western powers want from this conflict? 

Chris-

1. My guess is Russian leaders means Putin and he wants to assemble a Rus empire. 

2. Unfortunately, Nato-Biden-Western powers generally carry water for multinationals.

Multinationals have the money, and the stakes, and hired expertise, in foreign-military-trade issues.

Firstly, globalists want stability and access. A quick win in Ukraine for Putin was fine by the globalist community, as long as there was no expropriations or access to markets was cut off.  We see globalists work with Putin, especially work with the CCP/Beijing. 

Biden all but invited Putin into Ukraine, and also invited Zelensky out. What does that tell you about Biden?  

Now, the Ukraine picture has become muddied, thanks to Ukrainian resistance.

The Biden-Nato-Western powers are now bumbling, on their back foots, without real ideas.

Poland seems to be reacting as a nation, and as a people, not as a representative of multinationals. 

 

 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

If the question is this: "Is Putin irrational enough to initiate what is essentially a murder-suicide situation?", I believe the answer to be, unequivocally, yes.

And it's certainly not one that a responsible leader would ever risk a bet on.

Gonna need a different path.

 

Matt,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. You may be right that Putin is that far irrational in his thinking. Or it could be that he just wants us to think he is.

What I fear is that this war just keeps going and going. If he wanted to, out of spite he could just retreat and continue indiscriminately lobbing cheap dumb-bombs from a safe distance till the whole country is destroyed. I can see his doing that if he gets nothing from the war.

There's gotta be a way to stop this.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Douglas Caddy said:

I agree with him.

 

MSNBC’s Ali Velshi calls for NATO’s ‘direct military involvement’ against Russia | The Hill

 

Is Velshi agreeing with me and Ben? I need to read the article.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

9 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Biden all but invited Putin into Ukraine, and also invited Zelensky out. What does that tell you about Biden? 

 

To be clear, I agree with Ben only on one point... that it may make sense for Poland to engage Russia militarily. I don't agree with most of his other comments, like the one I quote above.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

17 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

1 hour ago, Douglas Caddy said:

MSNBC’s Ali Velshi calls for NATO’s ‘direct military involvement’ against Russia | The Hill

 

Is Velshi agreeing with me and Ben? I need to read the article.

 

I think Velshi's idea goes too far. He basically want's to start WW3. My idea was to limit NATO's involvement and let Putin decide if he wants to start WW3. Once WW3 is started, Putin knows he's a dead man... he might as well launch his nuclear arsenal.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

I agree with him.

 

MSNBC’s Ali Velshi calls for NATO’s ‘direct military involvement’ against Russia | The Hill

Better late than never. 

Biden-Nato are late, dithering. Irresolute. 

Without direction from lobbyists, Washington goes into paralysis?  

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 3/31/2022 at 9:50 AM, Kirk Gallaway said:

I'll play devil's advocate. Despite our sometimes exhilarating combat updates.

Bottom line: These are 3 points of contention, 1) Russia giving back Crimea. 2) Russia now giving back the Eastern region. 3)Ukraine agreeing not to join Nato.  It's pretty obvious now, there's no way Russia is going to give back Crimea. That's just lost, and given that Russia now largely controls the Eastern region. Why would they give that up? The agreement for Ukraine not to join Nato is the only demand Zelensky has expressed he's willing to comply with.

The effects of sanctions is somewhat longer term. If Ukraine insists on wanting to keep their Eastern territory. Wouldn't that prolong the war into years, unless the equation is severely altered? Obviously that would be an incredible Ukraine victory, rolling back the gains Putin has made, and would have to involve a great loss of Russian morale over time. But the way it is now. Russia could leave Western Ukraine alone and accomplish their war aims. What is to stop Russia from continuing to shell civilian targets and carpet bomb whole cities until there's no one standing?They obviously don't care.

I think Putin  had more titanic aspirations, but now can slim this down to these 3 goals (above).With these he can declare victory and say he liberated Eastern Ukraine from Nazis. Nato can declare  victory and spin it that  that the 3 day war ending in the capture of the capitol failed and Ukraine remained 80% in tact without even even so much as Nato's direct intervention into Ukraine. Of course where does that leave Ukraine? Any loss of territory outside of finally conceding Crimea will be seen by Ukraine as loss and betrayal by the  West and they'll be very vocal about it.

The ultimate  victory for the West would be the overthrow of Putin by the Russian people and leaving Ukraine's territory before  the war in tact. This is seen as unlikely but the most effective means to that specific  end is the Russian oligarchs and middle classes feeling the pinch of sanctions, though the progress of that will always be unclear. The West also has some hope in invading the iron curtain of communication and informing the everyday Russian people of atrocities and persuading them that this war is not going on as has been portrayed to them, thereby slowly winning a PR war. In the mean time, Nato will continue to provide more of the demonstrably effective weaponry, which they are very able to do. As long as Ukrainians show the will to fight.

Then the question is, with the exposure  of the complete decimation of Ukraine, the misery suffering and displacement, will their be popular support to mess with this equation, and extend this into a regional war including Nato? I think it's generally acknowledged that it's not wise to push Putin in a corner any more than he already is. The prospect however remote is still existent that the Russian people could remove Putin. But they won't if Russia is seen by it's people as being under greater assault. And no one wants to face the prospect of  a Putin  fearing  being prosecuted for war crimes or even a Putin facing the prospect of a humiliating war that he doesn't come to a rational conclusion that it is in his best interests to remove himself from.

 

 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Ron Bulman]

Is it about killing civilians to demoralize the population?  

Russia urged to stop using land mines in its war in Ukraine (msn.com)

Edited April 5, 2022 by Ron Bulman

[Steve Thomas]

Lauren Boebert (R-CO)

Who the hell is Micky Mouse, and why doesn't Lauren Boebert want him to get a trademark?
P.S. Congress doesn't legislate individual company's trademarks.
Steve Thomas
 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

Lauren Boebert (R-CO)

Who the hell is Micky Mouse, and why doesn't Lauren Boebert want him to get a trademark?
P.S. Congress doesn't legislate individual company's trademarks.
Steve Thomas
 

Funny story, but you are wrong on this one. 

US trademark and copyright laws have been extended (time wise) largely due to Disney lobbying, to protect Mickey Mouse. 

That's the funny thing about both the oddball alt-R and alt-L reps in Congress, and Trump himself. 

They are so wacky, that they sometimes defy conventions---and this is one of them. 

(No, this does not make Trump a likable figure.) 

 

[Matt Allison]

Velshi (and everyone else) want further involvement because they see war crimes; a humanitarian crises.

That's a job for the UN.

Expanding a war by involving NATO is not the way to solve a humanitarian crisis, it's a way to cause more death.

No thanks.

[Steve Thomas]

- Sarah Palin;s definition of being a Statesman, "I have nothing to lose." -

"’m going to throw my hat in the ring because we need people that have cajones. We need people like Donald Trump who has nothing to lose like me."

Wait. What?

 

Madison Cawthorn got up on the floor of the House and said women don't have tallywackers.

Sarah Palin says, "Elect me because I have cajones."

I'm confused.

Is this the "inevitable end result of our last 56 years"?

Steve Thomas

[Douglas Caddy]

 

Russian conscripts given 19th century rifles, made to drink from ponds filled with dead frogs | Daily Mail Online