Naftali Bennett has no reason to lie: Putin invaded Ukraine to prevent it from joining NATO, and Biden rejected a peace deal that would have prevented Ukraine from joining NATO. This is what the war is really about. It’s a war over NATO expansion. https://t.co/3Wzf7WnVFN

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) February 6, 2023

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Naftali Bennett has no reason to lie: Putin invaded Ukraine to prevent it from joining NATO, and Biden rejected a peace deal that would have prevented Ukraine from joining NATO. This is what the war is really about. It’s a war over NATO expansion. https://t.co/3Wzf7WnVFN

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) February 6, 2023

---

And the people wanting to join NATO have no say in joining? Finland, Sweden, Ukraine should all not be allowed to join NATO or the EU to create a better, safer quality of life for the millions that live in those nations?

This is the WORST apologist statement on the war. It is up to the Nations whether they want to belong to a military or economic coalition, NOT RUSSIA or PUTIN. The war is Putin's fault - 100% - he invaded a sovereign nation.

---

Ukraine shouldnt be allowed in Nato. We should at the very least make that concession to avoid a year long war that has done a lot of economic damage to Europe and the USA not to mention destroyed the Ukraine.

muddybrazos said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Naftali Bennett has no reason to lie: Putin invaded Ukraine to prevent it from joining NATO, and Biden rejected a peace deal that would have prevented Ukraine from joining NATO. This is what the war is really about. It’s a war over NATO expansion. https://t.co/3Wzf7WnVFN

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) February 6, 2023

---

And the people wanting to join NATO have no say in joining? Finland, Sweden, Ukraine should all not be allowed to join NATO or the EU to create a better, safer quality of life for the millions that live in those nations?

This is the WORST apologist statement on the war. It is up to the Nations whether they want to belong to a military or economic coalition, NOT RUSSIA or PUTIN. The war is Putin's fault - 100% - he invaded a sovereign nation.

---

Ukraine shouldnt be allowed in Nato. We should at the very least make that concession to avoid a year long war that has done a lot of economic damage to Europe and the USA not to mention destroyed the Ukraine.

---

Why shouldn't Ukraine be allowed to apply and get into NATO? Because Putin invaded, so Ukraine makes a concession? I just do not get that thinking. Reward Putin and punish a Nation trying to move closer to the west?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Bombshell: Former Israeli prime minister says that Western leaders blocked #Ukraine & #Russia peace deal which he negotiated on #Zelensky request in March because they wanted to continue to strike Putin. He says that there was good chance of such deal. https://t.co/WsLfW7uZcF

— Ivan Katchanovski (@I_Katchanovski) February 5, 2023

"Peace deal? No! Let's sacrifice tens of thousands of young Ukrainian men to weaken Russia…even though Russia is weak and losing" - Warhawk logic

---

And all of this is a conspiracy by the Rothchilds, the Gettys, the Pope King of England and Colonel Sanders...

---

there is a reason the stripes on the bucket are red

---

You left out the Rockefellers & Illuminati

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Naftali Bennett has no reason to lie: Putin invaded Ukraine to prevent it from joining NATO, and Biden rejected a peace deal that would have prevented Ukraine from joining NATO. This is what the war is really about. It’s a war over NATO expansion. https://t.co/3Wzf7WnVFN

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) February 6, 2023

---

And the people wanting to join NATO have no say in joining? Finland, Sweden, Ukraine should all not be allowed to join NATO or the EU to create a better, safer quality of life for the millions that live in those nations?

This is the WORST apologist statement on the war. It is up to the Nations whether they want to belong to a military or economic coalition, NOT RUSSIA or PUTIN. The war is Putin's fault - 100% - he invaded a sovereign nation.

---

Ukraine shouldnt be allowed in Nato. We should at the very least make that concession to avoid a year long war that has done a lot of economic damage to Europe and the USA not to mention destroyed the Ukraine.

---

Why shouldn't Ukraine be allowed to apply and get into NATO? Because Putin invaded, so Ukraine makes a concession? I just do not get that thinking. Reward Putin and punish a Nation trying to move closer to the west?

---

Because they're just as corrupt as Russia.

muddybrazos said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Naftali Bennett has no reason to lie: Putin invaded Ukraine to prevent it from joining NATO, and Biden rejected a peace deal that would have prevented Ukraine from joining NATO. This is what the war is really about. It’s a war over NATO expansion. https://t.co/3Wzf7WnVFN

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) February 6, 2023

---

And the people wanting to join NATO have no say in joining? Finland, Sweden, Ukraine should all not be allowed to join NATO or the EU to create a better, safer quality of life for the millions that live in those nations?

This is the WORST apologist statement on the war. It is up to the Nations whether they want to belong to a military or economic coalition, NOT RUSSIA or PUTIN. The war is Putin's fault - 100% - he invaded a sovereign nation.

---

Ukraine shouldnt be allowed in Nato. We should at the very least make that concession to avoid a year long war that has done a lot of economic damage to Europe and the USA not to mention destroyed the Ukraine.

---

Why shouldn't Ukraine be allowed to apply and get into NATO? Because Putin invaded, so Ukraine makes a concession? I just do not get that thinking. Reward Putin and punish a Nation trying to move closer to the west?

---

I'm talking more so in retrospect we should've done this a year ago but it seems the goal of the Biden regime and the other unipartyists was never to make any concessions and to force a war at any costs. It hasnt done any good for ayone in the world except for those making money off the money laundering and the defense contractors. IT just seems stupid to me to allow Ukraine to join Nato when a little border skirmish could trigger WW3. Personally, I would prefer Ukraine to remain a buffer like it has since 1990.

---

Well said

muddybrazos said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Naftali Bennett has no reason to lie: Putin invaded Ukraine to prevent it from joining NATO, and Biden rejected a peace deal that would have prevented Ukraine from joining NATO. This is what the war is really about. It’s a war over NATO expansion. https://t.co/3Wzf7WnVFN

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) February 6, 2023

---

And the people wanting to join NATO have no say in joining? Finland, Sweden, Ukraine should all not be allowed to join NATO or the EU to create a better, safer quality of life for the millions that live in those nations?

This is the WORST apologist statement on the war. It is up to the Nations whether they want to belong to a military or economic coalition, NOT RUSSIA or PUTIN. The war is Putin's fault - 100% - he invaded a sovereign nation.

---

Ukraine shouldnt be allowed in Nato. We should at the very least make that concession to avoid a year long war that has done a lot of economic damage to Europe and the USA not to mention destroyed the Ukraine.

---

So we should do what Putin demands, because he can kill people ... Nah.

Think that is up to Ukraine, not you or me.

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Naftali Bennett has no reason to lie: Putin invaded Ukraine to prevent it from joining NATO, and Biden rejected a peace deal that would have prevented Ukraine from joining NATO. This is what the war is really about. It’s a war over NATO expansion. https://t.co/3Wzf7WnVFN

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) February 6, 2023

---

And the people wanting to join NATO have no say in joining? Finland, Sweden, Ukraine should all not be allowed to join NATO or the EU to create a better, safer quality of life for the millions that live in those nations?

This is the WORST apologist statement on the war. It is up to the Nations whether they want to belong to a military or economic coalition, NOT RUSSIA or PUTIN. The war is Putin's fault - 100% - he invaded a sovereign nation.

---

Ukraine shouldnt be allowed in Nato. We should at the very least make that concession to avoid a year long war that has done a lot of economic damage to Europe and the USA not to mention destroyed the Ukraine.

---

Why shouldn't Ukraine be allowed to apply and get into NATO? Because Putin invaded, so Ukraine makes a concession? I just do not get that thinking. Reward Putin and punish a Nation trying to move closer to the west?

---

So instead of staying neutral on the geopolitical map…instead Ukraine gets to find out what it's like to become Syria or Afghanistan for the foreseeable future.

You boomer arm chair generals sure are interested in fighting Russia to the death of the last Ukrainian.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It is comparing capabilities relative to the opposing forces. Russia does not hold an advantage over NATO or China to escalate, they are playing the regional card, not a WW as some on here state. Which is the low IQ position, they do not have the capability to go world wide or based on their performance two front.

---

You keeping saying Russia is going to move on to attack Poland and threaten Europe after Ukraine.

Then in the next breath you say Russia is militarily weak and has no hand to play with NATO.

It can't be both.

---

---

False dilemma on several levels.

1) Russia is too militarily weak to defeat Ukraine, yet they invaded anyway. Look what lack of deterrence cost Ukraine. Then imagine what it would cost Europe if Russia made the same miscalculation in the Baltics. Or Finland. Or the Caucasus. etc....

2) A Russian invasion of Europe is not the only serious threat NATO faces from a Russian victory in Ukraine, just the less likely one. A Russian victory strengthens Russia - more oil/gas, more ports, more manufacturing, more minerals, greater control over distribution systems, more population...... Makes rearmament happen faster, makes the end result more potent, and more to the point - moves the threat closer to NATO, doubling the number of NATO countries along which Russian armies can encamp along borders.

3) Russian armies poised on borders greatly strengthens Russian efforts to undermine NATO. There will be cross-border black ops going on, Russian support for separatist movements. See Transnistria. Ukranian war ends today, June 1st, Moldova blows up and we start his whole thing over again. More to the point = gunboat diplomacy. The proximity of armies enhances diplomatic and indirect influence over internal politics. Russia wins in UKR, and we will see their influence over Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, etc....become more effective. Russia doesn't have to actually be a great army capable of seizing a country to be influential. they just have to be big enough and powerful enough to threaten to do a lot of damage (see War, Ukraine, 2022....). That will strengthen any or all of several factions: pacifists, anti-Euro, anti-US, pro-Russian, isolationist. Ensuing dynamics will tend to bog down Nato. Frustration. Increased internal Nato tensions. Possibly causing one ore more members to elect an "-xit" movement that might succeed.

Your argument has two gaping assumed conclusions: 1) that UKR victory is not possible, and 2) that allowing a Russian victory (which peace today would effectively be) benefits anyone other than Russia.

If engaging the Russian army in conflict poses an existential threat to Europe, what is the benefit to accepting conditions which move such conflict closer to Europe?
-answer is: there is none. the battlefield we have now is preferable to the one you advocate.

Shatterzones serve a purpose. They keep great power conflict away from great power borders. To say your argument is strategically unwise is quite an understatement.

---

I agree that Ukraine served a valuable purpose as a shatter zone. Unfortunately that option is no longer on the table, at least in part due to our overreach in pressing for Ukrainian membership in NATO. To call it unwise is indeed an understatement. It's interesting that the wisdom of moving the conflict closer to Europe is never questioned as long as we're the ones doing the moving.

I also agree that a Russian invasion isn't the only threat. But the threat of invasion is too tempting an argument for Ukraine hawks to resist, and therefore it has to be addressed. It's easy to understand why. While your other arguments have varying degrees of validity, they're all much, much weaker in terms of immediate justification for war. Not many Americans would support playing chicken with a nuclear power if they knew it was about controlling Russia's population or limiting their manufacturing capacity. Yes, those things have military implications, but they're not a military threat per se. It's not our business to isolate and impoverish every country that we might potentially come into conflict with.

The same is true of Russian meddling in other countries. Like RMF says, it's who they are. Let's not forget that it's also who we are. If we don't like isolationism or exit movements, we have our own influence to exert against them. That's a debate we should be having in the political arena, not a decision to be imposed by military force. The idea that we should single-handedly determine Polish or Hungarian policy is globalist hubris on stilts.

All of which brings us to the unspoken assumption on which our foreign policy has rested for decades--that inside every Russian (or Iraqi, Afghan, etc.) is a suburban soccer mom ready to come out and join the fight for diversity, equity, and inclusion. The establishment has been so caught up in that fantasy for so long that they're probably surprised Putin is still in power. Whenever the Blob starts swallowing up new enemies and gurgling with "patriotic" gusto, it's best to give it a good poke and see what's lurking underneath. The same ugly agenda--regime change--turns up almost every time. It never works, and we never learn. Even if Putin is replaced, which is unlikely, there's no reason to think his successor will be anything but more hostile and more determined to prove his resolve against the West.

---

Para 1: Again, you argue to Russian faulty premise. The US is not pressing for UKR membership in NATO. The US is refusing to rule it out as Russia demands. That may seem to the uninitiated to be be a narrow distinction, but it does create desirable strategic ambiguity. It is Russia's demand for unequivocal appeasement on that point which is the proximate cause for war. And it is plainly a pretext. Russia knows Nato membership must be approved unanimously, and that Ukr is not likely to get in. Turkey is balking at letting in Sweden (and Finland). Can we not expect them (and others) to have even more reservations about admitting Ukraine? As hawkish as I am on this war, I'm not prepared to support UKR membership at this time......

Para 2-3: Weak man argument against the importance of proximity. We can deal with Russia A) where they are, right now, or B) in control over all of Ukraine (ala current Belarus). The risk of dealing with them in scenario A is quite less risky in all aspects to Scenario B. Literally, there is not one serious, material argument where B is safer than A. Virtually all risks of option A accompany option B, and no risks of option B apply to A.

Para 4: I am somewhat more sanguine about regime change than you, but agree Putin's tenure is moderately more likely tied to his age and health than other measures of regime stability. That does not mean there is no Pavlovian lesson to be learned by this Russian regime or the next. Russia must be shown not only that it is impossible to accomplish its foreign policy objectives in Europe by force. It must understand that attempting to do so will seriously degrade the Russian position.

This war should not end until, at minimum, Russia has been pushed back to the status quo ante 2021. In reality, even that would fail LIddell-Hart's "perception" test. Russia might perceive a scoresheet draw to have derived to Russia a net advantage, by inflicting so much damage on Ukr that Ukr could not summon the will and resources (domestically an internationally) to survive another go-round. All Russia would have to do is wait for a few elections to bring more dovish parties to power in Nato, and UKR might find its lines of military aid sharply curtailed.

Our position should be that Crimean and the Donbas will fall to Kiev by August. And we should fund that effort sufficiently to make good the threat. THAT is your best chance of forcing Russia to the table.

The can of whoop-ass is open. Makes absolutely no sense to close it until Russian will and/or ability for expeditionary military operations is incapacitated.

---

NATO has admitted 14 new members since the Cold War ended. It isn't the only issue, but it's more than a pretext. American leadership matters. We've been a staunch advocate of expansion, even if our allies' reservations restrained us from setting a timeline. Our promises to Georgia and Ukraine signaled our commitment to that policy despite any red lines drawn by Russia. As the wars in Georgia and Ukraine have demonstrated, they are especially protective of the former Soviet republics.

I won't be surprised if Ukraine attacks Crimea in the next few months in order to set the stage for negotiations. But they'll do so knowing their chances of success are slim and none. We should all be equally realistic.

muddybrazos said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Naftali Bennett has no reason to lie: Putin invaded Ukraine to prevent it from joining NATO, and Biden rejected a peace deal that would have prevented Ukraine from joining NATO. This is what the war is really about. It’s a war over NATO expansion. https://t.co/3Wzf7WnVFN

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) February 6, 2023

---

And the people wanting to join NATO have no say in joining? Finland, Sweden, Ukraine should all not be allowed to join NATO or the EU to create a better, safer quality of life for the millions that live in those nations?

This is the WORST apologist statement on the war. It is up to the Nations whether they want to belong to a military or economic coalition, NOT RUSSIA or PUTIN. The war is Putin's fault - 100% - he invaded a sovereign nation.

---

Ukraine shouldnt be allowed in Nato. We should at the very least make that concession to avoid a year long war that has done a lot of economic damage to Europe and the USA not to mention destroyed the Ukraine.

---

Why shouldn't Ukraine be allowed to apply and get into NATO? Because Putin invaded, so Ukraine makes a concession? I just do not get that thinking. Reward Putin and punish a Nation trying to move closer to the west?

---

I'm talking more so in retrospect we should've done this a year ago but it seems the goal of the Biden regime and the other unipartyists was never to make any concessions and to force a war at any costs. It hasnt done any good for ayone in the world except for those making money off the money laundering and the defense contractors. IT just seems stupid to me to allow Ukraine to join Nato when a little border skirmish could trigger WW3. Personally, I would prefer Ukraine to remain a buffer like it has since 1990.

---

I would agree if we had not courted Ukraine since the 90's and they had not made the moves to join. Feel like we set them up and the last year has shown me they are a worthy allie. They will fight to stay free, not like Afghan, Iraqi and other spots we tried to help. It seems to me, Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan will carry their weight. I would rather invest in them than some others that just take.

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Naftali Bennett has no reason to lie: Putin invaded Ukraine to prevent it from joining NATO, and Biden rejected a peace deal that would have prevented Ukraine from joining NATO. This is what the war is really about. It’s a war over NATO expansion. https://t.co/3Wzf7WnVFN

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) February 6, 2023

---

And the people wanting to join NATO have no say in joining? Finland, Sweden, Ukraine should all not be allowed to join NATO or the EU to create a better, safer quality of life for the millions that live in those nations?

This is the WORST apologist statement on the war. It is up to the Nations whether they want to belong to a military or economic coalition, NOT RUSSIA or PUTIN. The war is Putin's fault - 100% - he invaded a sovereign nation.

---

Putin wanted Russia to join NATO. Does that mean they should have been allowed?

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Naftali Bennett has no reason to lie: Putin invaded Ukraine to prevent it from joining NATO, and Biden rejected a peace deal that would have prevented Ukraine from joining NATO. This is what the war is really about. It’s a war over NATO expansion. https://t.co/3Wzf7WnVFN

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) February 6, 2023

---

And the people wanting to join NATO have no say in joining? Finland, Sweden, Ukraine should all not be allowed to join NATO or the EU to create a better, safer quality of life for the millions that live in those nations?

This is the WORST apologist statement on the war. It is up to the Nations whether they want to belong to a military or economic coalition, NOT RUSSIA or PUTIN. The war is Putin's fault - 100% - he invaded a sovereign nation.

---

Putin wanted Russia to join NATO. Does that mean they should have been allowed?

---

I expect Russia would be better-behaved as part of NATO.

In any case, why is it our place to hold Veto power?

I think I know where the next colour revolution is going to be https://t.co/EbYbOQt99n

— Theophilus Chilton (Nick Pickles Fan Account) 🇺🇲 (@Theo_Chilton) February 7, 2023

Iran will buy forest products and constructional timber from Belarus that fell under European sanctions.

Iran will pay for all this in Russian rubles through the Russian payment system, the Ministry of Forestry of Belarus said.

— Levi (@Levi_godman) February 6, 2023

Morning Joe: "I'm sick and tired of Republicans trashing the United States of America. And I'm SICK AND TIRED of them trashing our men and women in uniform!" pic.twitter.com/6x0WflJtdp

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) February 6, 2023

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Naftali Bennett has no reason to lie: Putin invaded Ukraine to prevent it from joining NATO, and Biden rejected a peace deal that would have prevented Ukraine from joining NATO. This is what the war is really about. It’s a war over NATO expansion. https://t.co/3Wzf7WnVFN

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) February 6, 2023

---

And the people wanting to join NATO have no say in joining? Finland, Sweden, Ukraine should all not be allowed to join NATO or the EU to create a better, safer quality of life for the millions that live in those nations?

This is the WORST apologist statement on the war. It is up to the Nations whether they want to belong to a military or economic coalition, NOT RUSSIA or PUTIN. The war is Putin's fault - 100% - he invaded a sovereign nation.

---

Putin wanted Russia to join NATO. Does that mean they should have been allowed?

---

You really see no difference between Russia and its former vassal states?

As for your other question, depends on situation. At the risk of being astrocized for taking a scenario from a novel, but it made sense, where Russia broke up and Siberia and Eastern Russia went alone. European Russia would be apt to fit into NATO. Do a little research on Siberia, it is more than capable of breaking away and succeeding. I know dream-up scenarios are not fact. And I throw it out there as "war gaming" more than expected. But. I can see scenarios where Russia west of the Urals ends up on NATO or in NATOs orbit over China. They would culturally fit better than in the east. Think of it this way, look at the numbers between India and China, can Russia stay together for long term?

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Naftali Bennett has no reason to lie: Putin invaded Ukraine to prevent it from joining NATO, and Biden rejected a peace deal that would have prevented Ukraine from joining NATO. This is what the war is really about. It’s a war over NATO expansion. https://t.co/3Wzf7WnVFN

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) February 6, 2023

---

And the people wanting to join NATO have no say in joining? Finland, Sweden, Ukraine should all not be allowed to join NATO or the EU to create a better, safer quality of life for the millions that live in those nations?

This is the WORST apologist statement on the war. It is up to the Nations whether they want to belong to a military or economic coalition, NOT RUSSIA or PUTIN. The war is Putin's fault - 100% - he invaded a sovereign nation.

---

Putin wanted Russia to join NATO. Does that mean they should have been allowed?

---

You really see no difference between Russia and its former vassal states?

As for your other question, depends on situation. At the risk of being astrocized for taking a scenario from a novel, but it made sense, where Russia broke up and Siberia and Eastern Russia went alone. European Russia would be apt to fit into NATO. Do a little research on Siberia, it is more than capable of breaking away and succeeding. I know dream-up scenarios are not fact. And I throw it out there as "war gaming" more than expected. But. I can see scenarios where Russia west of the Urals ends up on NATO or in NATOs orbit over China. They would culturally fit better than in the east. Think of it this way, look at the numbers between India and China, can Russia stay together for long term?

---

Who are we to decide which people "fit?" You said every country should choose for itself.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Naftali Bennett has no reason to lie: Putin invaded Ukraine to prevent it from joining NATO, and Biden rejected a peace deal that would have prevented Ukraine from joining NATO. This is what the war is really about. It’s a war over NATO expansion. https://t.co/3Wzf7WnVFN

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) February 6, 2023

---

And the people wanting to join NATO have no say in joining? Finland, Sweden, Ukraine should all not be allowed to join NATO or the EU to create a better, safer quality of life for the millions that live in those nations?

This is the WORST apologist statement on the war. It is up to the Nations whether they want to belong to a military or economic coalition, NOT RUSSIA or PUTIN. The war is Putin's fault - 100% - he invaded a sovereign nation.

---

Putin wanted Russia to join NATO. Does that mean they should have been allowed?

---

You really see no difference between Russia and its former vassal states?

As for your other question, depends on situation. At the risk of being astrocized for taking a scenario from a novel, but it made sense, where Russia broke up and Siberia and Eastern Russia went alone. European Russia would be apt to fit into NATO. Do a little research on Siberia, it is more than capable of breaking away and succeeding. I know dream-up scenarios are not fact. And I throw it out there as "war gaming" more than expected. But. I can see scenarios where Russia west of the Urals ends up on NATO or in NATOs orbit over China. They would culturally fit better than in the east. Think of it this way, look at the numbers between India and China, can Russia stay together for long term?

---

Who are we to decide which people "fit?" You said every country should choose for itself.

---

You are just being intractable now. Who is to decide anything? Is blue really blue or just as you perceive it? Do we see the same blue?

Of course cultural fit matters, that is one of the issues NATO has on Turkey. Its culture is swings based on the leadership from European to Middle Eastern, it is now more on Middle Eastern than Europe. When it swings to Middle Eastern, NATO has problems.

Ukraine wants and sees itself aligned with Europe. NATO courted the Baltics, Maldova (brother-in-law went on agricultural missions), Ukraine and others. There has been a courtship for decades. So, yes Ukraine is a cultural fit. To say that the Ukrainian interest in NATO is all one sided is disingenuous. They had issues to correct last time they discussed joining and have worked to do so.

Russia west of the Urals is more European than Asian. That counts. Any alliance to the east puts the western Russian area in conflict.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

From a thread about the war:


"A Turkish paper has published what they claim is an Israeli intelligence assessment of losses in Ukraine.

Ukraine: 157,000 KIA
Russia: 184,000 KIA
(another tidbit, it says 2,458 foreign fighters are dead)

Long story short: the Ukraine number could be more or less bang on. I think the Russian one is undercounted, perhaps by as much as 25,000. Foreigners dead is almost impossible to estimate so I won't try.

Of course, the paper could be lying, or the Israelis could be clueless."

---

I listened to a BBC podcast yesterday which cited German intel sources as assessing the numbers at 100k deaths for UKR, 300k deaths for Russia. Those numbers are roughly proportional to the populations of the two countries, which would mostly negate a Russian plan to simply outlast Ukr in a war of attrition.

---

I imagine those numbers could be accurate.

Certainly everything I have seen says Ukraine has lost 100,000 to 150,000 and that Russia has lost 180,000 to 300,000.

But how would a 1 to 3 casualty rate fundamentally favor Ukraine?

Ukraine has 43 million people (8 million have fled abroad...so real population is more like 35 million)

Russia has 144 million people.

A bloody war of attrition, even that those causality rates, still favors Russia long term.


Not to mention that for the past year of war Russia was actively attacking into central Ukraine and against Ukrainian defenses while trying to take Kyiv.

Now Russia is just digging into the land it already has (World War I style) and building up fortified positions.

Ukraine will have to actively attack those lines to push Russia out. Obviously it is easier and usually less costly to defend territory than attack.

---

I didn't say it favored Ukraine. I said it mitigates a Russian advantage of larger numbers. It means the two countries (allowing for the softness of the numbers) appear to have losses which appear to be roughly proportional to their populations. But that is a more general and long-term metric. More meaningful in the short-term is that Russia does not appear to have come anywhere close to meeting the yardstick of a 3:1 advantage in manpower in the field typically considered a MINIMUM for an attacking force to prevail over a defender. More a like 2:1 ratio. So relative to troops engaged, Ukraine is dishing it out WAY better than it is suffering. Russia has too few troops, who are very poorly supplied, and have very low morale. It's advantage UKR on almost every point.

Ukraine has far greater will to continue the fight, and they get high marks as very quick learners who apply lessons well in battle. But none of that would matter if they did not have a robust supply chain to West, and are able to at least maintain proportional losses. Russia could in theory simply keep grinding Ukraine down and out bleed them. But the Russian military cannot get organized to do that. They can't raise troops, equip the with the right kit, and get them to the front-lines in force, quickly enough to matter. They are dribbling & drabbling them up to th front at about the pace they are being attritted in battle. They are illustrating Napoleon's old adage about never reinforcing defeat.

The problems facing the Russian military structure are systemic, to the point of cultural. They even go beyond force structure, and involve basic issues of national infrastructure. They are highly dependent on rail lines, which means logistics for expeditionary operations are dependent on vehicles, yet they have about 25% of the vehicle support that a comparable US unit would field. Those kinds of issues would take years to fix in peacetime. They have no chance of making those kinds of reforms in wartime, under crippling sanctions.

People forget that war tends to lock-in your manufacturing base and sharply limit innovation. You and do R&D all you want. But you can't produce what you invent in numbers enough to matter. Germany developed a Jet in WWII that could have cleared the skies of allied planes. BUT. Germany's entire aircraft production line was already kitted out to make propeller driven planes. It simply was not possible to produce enough Jets to have effect without effectively grounding the Luftwaffe for 6 months. Russia hasn't a prayer of fixing the logistical issues plaguing it's operations, much less scaling up production of arms/ordnance to meet the pace of expenditure. UKR's supply chain WILL outlast the Russian supply chain.

And that's why we see Russian human wave attacks in the Donbas to gain territory by the yards. Russia knows it's on the clock and has no hope but to unleash unimaginable carnage to break UKR will. (Only UKR is giving a little bit better than it's taking.)

Redbrickbear said:

---

I think I know where the next colour revolution is going to be https://t.co/EbYbOQt99n

— Theophilus Chilton (Nick Pickles Fan Account) 🇺🇲 (@Theo_Chilton) February 7, 2023

---

I guess I missed something. What was said about Hungary?

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

I think I know where the next colour revolution is going to be https://t.co/EbYbOQt99n

— Theophilus Chilton (Nick Pickles Fan Account) 🇺🇲 (@Theo_Chilton) February 7, 2023

---

I guess I missed something. What was said about Hungary?

---

Hungary officials want a negotiated peace and de-escalation.

USA officials from Biden administration call them Putin lovers.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-politics-united-states-government-hungary-peter-szijjarto-442ab571b4b5494ff228194f1c188e7f

BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) The Hungarian foreign minister accused the United States ambassador to Budapest on Thursday of trying to interfere in Hungary's internal affairs, amid a growing diplomatic rift between the U.S. and the Central European country.

At a news conference in Budapest, Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto lashed out at comments in Politico this week in which Ambassador David Pressman referred to Hungary's approach to the war in neighboring Ukraine as pushing "policies endorsed by (Russian President Vladimir) Putin."

Szijjarto said it is "completely irrelevant what (Pressman) or any other ambassador thinks about the domestic political process in Hungary, because it has nothing to do with him."
"It is not his place to interfere in Hungary's internal affairs," Szijjarto said.

Pressman, an appointee of the Biden administration who earlier served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations for Special Political Affairs, has faced significant headwinds since taking office in Hungary in August last year.

No one in DC is facing reality about Ukraine
Col Doug Macgregor#ChineseSpyBallon #Biden #PENTAGON
see full vid: https://t.co/OCtWbCVVk6 pic.twitter.com/SQq1yR3YtC

— Judge Napolitano (@Judgenap) February 7, 2023

The first piece of honest journalism from The New York Times, on a foreign war the War Department and CIA are promoting, since the Fall of Saigon.
"Exhausted Ukrainian troops complain they are already outnumbered and outgunned"

[Why now?] @juangon68
https://t.co/ekxjhfNR1N

— a beltran (@fabfashionista8) February 8, 2023

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

I think I know where the next colour revolution is going to be https://t.co/EbYbOQt99n

— Theophilus Chilton (Nick Pickles Fan Account) 🇺🇲 (@Theo_Chilton) February 7, 2023

---

I guess I missed something. What was said about Hungary?

---

Hungary officials want a negotiated peace and de-escalation.

USA officials from Biden administration call them Putin lovers.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-politics-united-states-government-hungary-peter-szijjarto-442ab571b4b5494ff228194f1c188e7f

BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) The Hungarian foreign minister accused the United States ambassador to Budapest on Thursday of trying to interfere in Hungary's internal affairs, amid a growing diplomatic rift between the U.S. and the Central European country.

At a news conference in Budapest, Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto lashed out at comments in Politico this week in which Ambassador David Pressman referred to Hungary's approach to the war in neighboring Ukraine as pushing "policies endorsed by (Russian President Vladimir) Putin."

Szijjarto said it is "completely irrelevant what (Pressman) or any other ambassador thinks about the domestic political process in Hungary, because it has nothing to do with him."
"It is not his place to interfere in Hungary's internal affairs," Szijjarto said.

Pressman, an appointee of the Biden administration who earlier served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations for Special Political Affairs, has faced significant headwinds since taking office in Hungary in August last year.

---

Hungary has consistently been among the most reluctant Nato members on the Russo-Ukrainian War. I disagree with their reasoning, but it is a principled and valid position for any country to take, particularly a smaller one who doubts long-term Nato resolve and/or has serious philosophical disagreements with the rest of Europe on key social issues (like illegal immigration, etc....). I also reject the constant refrain from the Western media and leftist political parties that the current Hungarian government is a totalitarian regime, and current president Orban is Putin-lite. (but that's what the left does, define anyone who seriously disagrees with them as proto-fascists.) Hungar is doing what Hungary should - looking out for Hungary.

In fact, what we see out of Hungary is EXACTLY why it is so essential to maintain an independent and INTACT Ukraine. If Hungary is taking the above position now, imagine how much softer it will be with a Russian Army encamped on its border. If Russia can prevail over the largest nation in Europe with a population of 50m citizens, how could a far smaller country like Hungary ever hope to prevail? Russian victory weakens the knees of every one of the front-line Nato states, makes their foreign policy more likely to turn more pro-Russian. Yes, most of them now are quite a bit more resolute than the Hungarians. (particularly the Poles). But every one of them have elections ever 2-4 years. Eventually, more dovish governments will be elected. And that will greatly complicate internal Nato dynamics.

Russian victory in Ukraine will greatly strain the future of Nato, greatly increase the number of scenarios where one or more members chose to leave the alliance for neutral status (potentially under Russian protection). That would matter far less if we did not belong to Nato. But we do. Thus, such instability holds far greater risk of existential conflict than does the current mess in Ukraine. So do not think our own kids and grandkids are not at risk of hot-conflict with Russia. They are. And Russian victory in Ukraine only brings that risk closer to all of us.

We need to win the battle we have right now, right there, not cede the field to our opponent who will only move it to our doorstep.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

I think I know where the next colour revolution is going to be https://t.co/EbYbOQt99n

— Theophilus Chilton (Nick Pickles Fan Account) 🇺🇲 (@Theo_Chilton) February 7, 2023

---

I guess I missed something. What was said about Hungary?

---

Hungary officials want a negotiated peace and de-escalation.

USA officials from Biden administration call them Putin lovers.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-politics-united-states-government-hungary-peter-szijjarto-442ab571b4b5494ff228194f1c188e7f

BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) The Hungarian foreign minister accused the United States ambassador to Budapest on Thursday of trying to interfere in Hungary's internal affairs, amid a growing diplomatic rift between the U.S. and the Central European country.

At a news conference in Budapest, Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto lashed out at comments in Politico this week in which Ambassador David Pressman referred to Hungary's approach to the war in neighboring Ukraine as pushing "policies endorsed by (Russian President Vladimir) Putin."

Szijjarto said it is "completely irrelevant what (Pressman) or any other ambassador thinks about the domestic political process in Hungary, because it has nothing to do with him."
"It is not his place to interfere in Hungary's internal affairs," Szijjarto said.

Pressman, an appointee of the Biden administration who earlier served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations for Special Political Affairs, has faced significant headwinds since taking office in Hungary in August last year.

---

Hungary has consistently been among the most reluctant Nato members on the Russo-Ukrainian War. I disagree with their reasoning, but it is a principled and valid position for any country to take, particularly a smaller one who doubts long-term Nato resolve and/or has serious philosophical disagreements with the rest of Europe on key social issues (like illegal immigration, etc....). I also reject the constant refrain from the Western media and leftist political parties that the current Hungarian government is a totalitarian regime, and current president Orban is Putin-lite. (but that's what the left does, define anyone who seriously disagrees with them as proto-fascists.) Hungar is doing what Hungary should - looking out for Hungary.

In fact, what we see out of Hungary is EXACTLY why it is so essential to maintain an independent and INTACT Ukraine. If Hungary is taking the above position now, imagine how much softer it will be with a Russian Army encamped on its border. If Russia can prevail over the largest nation in Europe with a population of 50m citizens, how could a far smaller country like Hungary ever hope to prevail? Russian victory weakens the knees of every one of the front-line Nato states, makes their foreign policy more likely to turn more pro-Russian. Yes, most of them now are quite a bit more resolute than the Hungarians. (particularly the Poles). But every one of them have elections ever 2-4 years. Eventually, more dovish governments will be elected. And that will greatly complicate internal Nato dynamics.

Russian victory in Ukraine will greatly strain the future of Nato, greatly increase the number of scenarios where one or more members chose to leave the alliance for neutral status (potentially under Russian protection). That would matter far less if we did not belong to Nato. But we do. Thus, such instability holds far greater risk of existential conflict than does the current mess in Ukraine. So do not think our own kids and grandkids are not at risk of hot-conflict with Russia. They are. And Russian victory in Ukraine only brings that risk closer to all of us.

We need to win the battle we have right now, right there, not cede the field to our opponent who will only move it to our doorstep.

---

Russia does not have the money or military power to give anyone protection.

There is literally no scenario imaginable where any country leaves NATO to be placed under wing of an autocratic and demographically declining Russia.

This whole war is really about Russia desperately trying to cling on to its important 3 neighboring countries (Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan) while the USA tries to rip them away.

Indeed this whole war has only done one thing everyone can agree on...it's breathed new life into NATO and its mission.

Finland and Sweden (formerly neutral) have now jumped to NATO.


p.s.

Hungary has more cause than anyone in Western Europe or America to hate Russia (or at least the old USSR).

They were enemies of the Russia Empire in World War 1 and enemies of the USSR in WWIII.

And were brutally suppressed by the Soviets during the uprising against communism in 1956

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956

They have no love for Moscow...yet here they are advising for peace and de-escalation.

We should listen to them.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/viktor-orban-the-wests-lone-anti-war-prophet/

[Hungarian PM is the only leader capable of seeing the Russia-Ukraine conflict through the lens of Realpolitik -- which is why he's pushing for peace]


Mario Fantini was at that controversial meeting with Hungarian PM Viktor Orban the other day, and wrote about it here. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

Orbn's frank discussion of the war in Ukraine, for example, reflected a deep, nuanced, and historically informed understanding of Russian behavior, motivations, and tactics. He noted that being isolated by the West is not necessarily unwelcome by the Russians, and that Moscow takes the long view on all pressing geopolitical matters. This is something that the West seems to have trouble doing in its own dealings with both Russia and the Islamic worldcivilizations that think in terms of millennia, not months or even mere years.

By comparison, many Western leaders seem like strategic neophytes. They are so wedded to preconceived tactics or short-term approaches that they have locked themselves into a dangerous, predetermined path. The West, Orbn said, now seems to be hurtling down this path without an ability to adjust its course, despite changing circumstances. The West is not "nimble," to use a term favored by business schools.

"War," Orbn said, "creates new realities" with which good leaders must then grapple. But if a leader dispenses with strategic frameworks and instead merely asserts that he is on the "right side of history," for example, he has succumbed to what Daniel Bell called "the trap of ideology." That is why "competing interpretations are needed," Orbn said. (Here, I thought at the time, was a master class in realpolitik.)
Orbn's comments reminded me of something Henry Kissinger said in a 2012 interview: "The American tendency is to wait for a problem to arise and then to overwhelm it with resources or with some pragmatic answers. But what you need is a framework of decisions [emphasis mine] that help you understand where you're trying to go."

---

"But what you need is a framework of decisions [emphasis mine] that help you understand where you're trying to go."

And that is how you get to groupthink. World Wars 1 and 2 started because the leaders all thought they grasped the full import of what was going on, and that they had planned well for it.

American-style thinking worked in both wars precisely because the US did not act as predicted.

The article appears to have been aimed at European sentiment, not a full scope of perspectives. The Americans may well be wearing blinders, but so is everyone else in the room.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"But what you need is a framework of decisions [emphasis mine] that help you understand where you're trying to go."

And that is how you get to groupthink. World Wars 1 and 2 started because the leaders all thought they grasped the full import of what was going on, and that they had planned well for it.

American-style thinking worked in both wars precisely because the US did not act as predicted.

The article appears to have been aimed at European sentiment, not a full scope of perspectives. The Americans may well be wearing blinders, but so is everyone else in the room.

---

Good points

In light of the Seymour Hersh bombshell on the U.S. and Norway blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline, let's recall how U.S. officials openly incited against it for months, then blamed... Russia.https://t.co/qp1d7Jx9ry pic.twitter.com/V0Cy2JPSXI

— Dan Cohen (@dancohen3000) February 8, 2023

Redbrickbear said:

---

In light of the Seymour Hersh bombshell on the U.S. and Norway blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline, let's recall how U.S. officials openly incited against it for months, then blamed... Russia.https://t.co/qp1d7Jx9ry pic.twitter.com/V0Cy2JPSXI

— Dan Cohen (@dancohen3000) February 8, 2023

---

We worked with Norway to close down Nord? Huh. Would think Russia would make more of that in the media.

Many have argued that the large numbers of Ukrainian refugees in Poland,Germany,Czechia & other countries will solve their respective demographic crunches. I have two principal thoughts on the topic. First (& most importantly imo)such a solution comes at enormous cost to Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/pvHiZ5hV59

— Aaronal (@Aaronal16) February 9, 2023

A Ukraine of <30M but with huge numbers of pensioners will struggle to prosper. Most towns & cities emptied by the war would also never repopulate (many will not regardless as smaller cities & towns destroyed will not be rebuilt). The state will be deprived of tax revenue. pic.twitter.com/0D5lLfeENe

— Aaronal (@Aaronal16) February 9, 2023

Redbrickbear said:

---

Many have argued that the large numbers of Ukrainian refugees in Poland,Germany,Czechia & other countries will solve their respective demographic crunches. I have two principal thoughts on the topic. First (& most importantly imo)such a solution comes at enormous cost to Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/pvHiZ5hV59

— Aaronal (@Aaronal16) February 9, 2023

A Ukraine of <30M but with huge numbers of pensioners will struggle to prosper. Most towns & cities emptied by the war would also never repopulate (many will not regardless as smaller cities & towns destroyed will not be rebuilt). The state will be deprived of tax revenue. pic.twitter.com/0D5lLfeENe

— Aaronal (@Aaronal16) February 9, 2023

---

Turkey will want to open up the refugee pipeline from Syria.

Remember, Crimea and much of southern Ukr (Donbas in particular) were Khanates allied with Ottomans for centuries.

To the extent we talk about Russian nationalism, it's not the only nationalism at play. Turkish nationalism wants the Black Sea as Turkish lake.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.....

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Many have argued that the large numbers of Ukrainian refugees in Poland,Germany,Czechia & other countries will solve their respective demographic crunches. I have two principal thoughts on the topic. First (& most importantly imo)such a solution comes at enormous cost to Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/pvHiZ5hV59

— Aaronal (@Aaronal16) February 9, 2023

A Ukraine of <30M but with huge numbers of pensioners will struggle to prosper. Most towns & cities emptied by the war would also never repopulate (many will not regardless as smaller cities & towns destroyed will not be rebuilt). The state will be deprived of tax revenue. pic.twitter.com/0D5lLfeENe

— Aaronal (@Aaronal16) February 9, 2023

---

Turkey will want to open up the refugee pipeline from Syria.

Remember, Crimea and much of southern Ukr (Donbas in particular) were Khanates allied with Ottomans for centuries.

To the extent we talk about Russian nationalism, it's not the only nationalism at play. Turkish nationalism wants the Black Sea as Turkish lake.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.....

---

Stalin took great lengths to try and remove that issue.