When you're so entitled that you think you can bully and regime change your way around the world and never get any pushback, that's when you need a reality check. And make no mistake -- we are getting one in Ukraine.ATL Bear said:On socialism? Climate change? LGBTQ? Or some other anti-capitalist/anti-American hysteria?Sam Lowry said:Careful, you might get educated.ATL Bear said:Another one dragging out Jeffrey Sachs. Wow…Realitybites said:
Jeffrey Sachs: The Untold History of the Cold War, CIA Coups Around the World, and COVID's Origin
A long and extremely thorough interview.
You know when you need a reality check? When all you do is shill for despots, terror producing nations, and extreme ideologues. I wasn't aware Russia's reeducation facilities had online degree programs. Congratulations on your achievement..,
Why Are We in Ukraine?
327,814 Views |
5911 Replies |
Last: 1 day ago by Redbrickbear
They're not launching missiles at the United States.FLBear5630 said:And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?Sam Lowry said:Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
This is juvenile nonsense. World leaders don't survive as long as Putin by thinking in this way.FLBear5630 said:Got news for you, if Putin is going Nuclear, he is going Nuclear no matter what he gets. . If he is going to use Nukes over the Ukraine attacks, he already has it in his mind that will be the final move. He believes his biggest ace up his sleeve is that he will do it. So, once you establish the pattern of giving him what he wants, where is the limit? When do you say no? More importantly, when will he believe you?Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Well, that depends on whether you want to get on the escalator to World War III and a possible strategic nuclear exchange or not. I don't. So sending the weapons was a bad idea, and allowing the dictator of Ukraine to fire them at Russian territory is a worse one.
The only thing that works with people like that is NEVER giving in to his demands
FLBear5630 said:Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Well, that depends on whether you want to get on the escalator to World War III and a possible strategic nuclear exchange or not. I don't. So sending the weapons was a bad idea, and allowing the dictator of Ukraine to fire them at Russian territory is a worse one.
We hear a lot about the "keyboard Rambo's". Maybe we should be talking a little about the "keyboard Chicken Littles" (the literary character, not impugning anyone's personal courage). Listening to your lot the sky is always falling. Give Putin and Xi what they want or they will destroy the world. Your view is just as bad as the other.
No one has ever said that.
And as it is...whatever grand ambitions Putin & Xi have have they can't get because the USA is in their way....and the USA is going anywhere.
(We are building more land bases in the Baltics and Poland....and we are building 11 massive new supercarriers and 20 new Columbia-class nuclear subs to patrol the worlds oceans and the Pacific)
https://www.army.mil/article/259784/u_s_army_corps_of_engineers_construction_in_baltics_enhances_u_s_nato_capabilities_and_supports_regional_security
https://www.cnet.com/pictures/meet-the-navys-new-13-billion-aircraft-carrier/10/
This is about being rational....
If the USA tried regime change in N. Korea (and its richly justified) the Chinese will intervene with troops because they consider that their neck of the woods and will not allow USA military bases any closer to their territory.
Russia acts the same toward Ukraine or Georgia.
The USA is not being asked to give one inch of ground or abandon one single ally....but if DC continues to push into new areas there will be conflict with Moscow and Beijing.
Most people just think that potentially blowing up the world is not worth it over a gulag state like N. Korea or a poor corrupt ex-soviet state like Ukraine.
Just like how Bosnia was not worth the civilizational bloodbath that was World War I
More like the other way aroundFLBear5630 said:And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?Sam Lowry said:Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Russia is such a major threat to NATO (laughs all around) that the mighty Russian bear has to import in weapons from little Stalinist N. Korea
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/28/asia/north-korea-munitions-factories-shipments-russia-ukraine-intl-hnk/index.html
Besides the embarrassing Russian performance on the battle field (it can't beat a small neighbor) the fact that Russia with all its vast natural resources has to get weapons from N. Korea & Iran to say in the fight is beyond all understanding.
It would be like the USA needing military help from Guatemala and Spain
You do realize we are talking about Russia? If you were talking France, Germany, etc... I would agree.Sam Lowry said:This is juvenile nonsense. World leaders don't survive as long as Putin by thinking in this way.FLBear5630 said:Got news for you, if Putin is going Nuclear, he is going Nuclear no matter what he gets. . If he is going to use Nukes over the Ukraine attacks, he already has it in his mind that will be the final move. He believes his biggest ace up his sleeve is that he will do it. So, once you establish the pattern of giving him what he wants, where is the limit? When do you say no? More importantly, when will he believe you?Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Well, that depends on whether you want to get on the escalator to World War III and a possible strategic nuclear exchange or not. I don't. So sending the weapons was a bad idea, and allowing the dictator of Ukraine to fire them at Russian territory is a worse one.
The only thing that works with people like that is NEVER giving in to his demands
When has Russia EVER had a non-totalitarian form of Govt? Hell, they even turned Communism into Totalitarian! Putin is actually Imperialistic.
You really believe that Putin is a reasonable actor? Ask Nemtsov how juvenile it is to think that Putin would think this way. Real leaders don't have opponents poisoned except in Spy Novels, right?
Great Article on who we are dealing with.
The west appeased Putin once. They'll do it again (ft.com)
I don't think you understand what a reality check is.Sam Lowry said:When you're so entitled that you think you can bully and regime change your way around the world and never get any pushback, that's when you need a reality check. And make no mistake -- we are getting one in Ukraine.ATL Bear said:On socialism? Climate change? LGBTQ? Or some other anti-capitalist/anti-American hysteria?Sam Lowry said:Careful, you might get educated.ATL Bear said:Another one dragging out Jeffrey Sachs. Wow…Realitybites said:
Jeffrey Sachs: The Untold History of the Cold War, CIA Coups Around the World, and COVID's Origin
A long and extremely thorough interview.
You know when you need a reality check? When all you do is shill for despots, terror producing nations, and extreme ideologues. I wasn't aware Russia's reeducation facilities had online degree programs. Congratulations on your achievement..,
Do bases count?Sam Lowry said:They're not launching missiles at the United States.FLBear5630 said:And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?Sam Lowry said:Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Good point.ATL Bear said:Do bases count?Sam Lowry said:They're not launching missiles at the United States.FLBear5630 said:And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?Sam Lowry said:Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Again, my point has to do with attacks on the territory of the US or Russia themselves. This is something that both powers have historically avoided. The fact we're even talking about crossing that line just shows how desperate and irrational our position in Ukraine is.ATL Bear said:Do bases count?Sam Lowry said:They're not launching missiles at the United States.FLBear5630 said:And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?Sam Lowry said:Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
I would argue that communism is totalitarian by nature. In any case, Putin is no totalitarian. And unlike our own, his so-called "imperial" ventures have always been in response to external threats.FLBear5630 said:You do realize we are talking about Russia? If you were talking France, Germany, etc... I would agree.Sam Lowry said:This is juvenile nonsense. World leaders don't survive as long as Putin by thinking in this way.FLBear5630 said:Got news for you, if Putin is going Nuclear, he is going Nuclear no matter what he gets. . If he is going to use Nukes over the Ukraine attacks, he already has it in his mind that will be the final move. He believes his biggest ace up his sleeve is that he will do it. So, once you establish the pattern of giving him what he wants, where is the limit? When do you say no? More importantly, when will he believe you?Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Well, that depends on whether you want to get on the escalator to World War III and a possible strategic nuclear exchange or not. I don't. So sending the weapons was a bad idea, and allowing the dictator of Ukraine to fire them at Russian territory is a worse one.
The only thing that works with people like that is NEVER giving in to his demands
When has Russia EVER had a non-totalitarian form of Govt? Hell, they even turned Communism into Totalitarian! Putin is actually Imperialistic.
You really believe that Putin is a reasonable actor? Ask Nemtsov how juvenile it is to think that Putin would think this way. Real leaders don't have opponents poisoned except in Spy Novels, right?
Great Article on who we are dealing with.
The west appeased Putin once. They'll do it again (ft.com)
1. Communism was always going to be Totalitarian....so lets no get carried away on blaming them for that.FLBear5630 said:You do realize we are talking about Russia? If you were talking France, Germany, etc... I would agree.Sam Lowry said:This is juvenile nonsense. World leaders don't survive as long as Putin by thinking in this way.FLBear5630 said:Got news for you, if Putin is going Nuclear, he is going Nuclear no matter what he gets. . If he is going to use Nukes over the Ukraine attacks, he already has it in his mind that will be the final move. He believes his biggest ace up his sleeve is that he will do it. So, once you establish the pattern of giving him what he wants, where is the limit? When do you say no? More importantly, when will he believe you?Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Well, that depends on whether you want to get on the escalator to World War III and a possible strategic nuclear exchange or not. I don't. So sending the weapons was a bad idea, and allowing the dictator of Ukraine to fire them at Russian territory is a worse one.
The only thing that works with people like that is NEVER giving in to his demands
When has Russia EVER had a non-totalitarian form of Govt? Hell, they even turned Communism into Totalitarian! Putin is actually Imperialistic.
It was an is an evil ideology from the get go...and it took power in Russia by force.
2. Of course Russia has had non-totalitarian forms of government....what is has never had is a non-authoritarian form of government. China as not either for that matter...or Iran...or much of the world.
3. The bring us back to the point that regime change in Moscow is probably not going to end up the way the Ivy league and Georgetown grads in DC want it to. Just like how regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan failed.
Russia is not a country that can really ever have a system like DC would want...
Getting rid of Putin might just put someone worse in place (Lenin and Stalin say hi)
ps
The 1st video explains how Russia never even went through the phrase of Feudalism....a necessary step toward modernism it never even developed that step.
The 2nd video explains how because of the vast land and necessity of central control for security reasons a democratic society or de-centralized form government never came into existence
"Despotism is imbedded into the Russian geography"
So allowing them to feed their delusions of imperial grandeur and cause hundreds of billions - trillions of dollars of infrastructure damage in whatever Eastern Bloc state they feel is an ok thing?Redbrickbear said:More like the other way aroundFLBear5630 said:And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?Sam Lowry said:Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Russia is such a major threat to NATO (laughs all around) that the mighty Russian bear has to import in weapons from little Stalinist N. Korea
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/28/asia/north-korea-munitions-factories-shipments-russia-ukraine-intl-hnk/index.html
Besides the embarrassing Russian performance on the battle field (it can't beat a small neighbor) the fact that Russia with all its vast natural resources has to get weapons from N. Korea & Iran to say in the fight is beyond all understanding.
It would be like the USA needing military help from Guatemala and Spain
Just because they are too weak and impotent to defeat Ukraine on the battlefield doesn't mean they are not capable of causing so much damage that it results in the bombed out nation leaning on Russia to "recover"....which is kind of the point.
Eliminate the delusions, eliminate the threat. But Russia gon' Russia. Always have, always will.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Those "Defenders of Christianity" in the Orthodox Church showing how truly committed they are to Christ!!
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1d35gt7/the_russian_orthodox_church_has_announced_that/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1d35gt7/the_russian_orthodox_church_has_announced_that/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
trey3216 said:So allowing them to feed their delusions of imperial grandeur and cause hundreds of billions - trillions of dollars of infrastructure damage in whatever Eastern Bloc state they feel is an ok thing?Redbrickbear said:More like the other way aroundFLBear5630 said:And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?Sam Lowry said:Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Russia is such a major threat to NATO (laughs all around) that the mighty Russian bear has to import in weapons from little Stalinist N. Korea
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/28/asia/north-korea-munitions-factories-shipments-russia-ukraine-intl-hnk/index.html
Besides the embarrassing Russian performance on the battle field (it can't beat a small neighbor) the fact that Russia with all its vast natural resources has to get weapons from N. Korea & Iran to say in the fight is beyond all understanding.
It would be like the USA needing military help from Guatemala and Spain
Moscow is not the one moving into our neck of the woods...its DC moving into their sphere of influence.
Most people can see that DC is the one interested in expanding its Imperium farther than it already is...
Moscow is trying to defend its periphery.
If they were interested in the old Empire they would have taken Finland (the old Duchy of Finland) and they would have invaded the Baltic States and Poland.
As it is they have done nothing when Finland, the Baltic States, and Poland have joined NATO
His goal is to re-create Peter the Great's Russian Empire, in his own words. That is pretty Imperialist/Totalitarian. He made himself President for life. He rolled tanks in Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine... These are all to keep or regain Russian control. Sorry, not seeing the Putin as a victim only reacting to others trying to hurt him.Sam Lowry said:I would argue that communism is totalitarian by nature. In any case, Putin is no totalitarian. And unlike our own, his so-called "imperial" ventures have always been in response to external threats.FLBear5630 said:You do realize we are talking about Russia? If you were talking France, Germany, etc... I would agree.Sam Lowry said:This is juvenile nonsense. World leaders don't survive as long as Putin by thinking in this way.FLBear5630 said:Got news for you, if Putin is going Nuclear, he is going Nuclear no matter what he gets. . If he is going to use Nukes over the Ukraine attacks, he already has it in his mind that will be the final move. He believes his biggest ace up his sleeve is that he will do it. So, once you establish the pattern of giving him what he wants, where is the limit? When do you say no? More importantly, when will he believe you?Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Well, that depends on whether you want to get on the escalator to World War III and a possible strategic nuclear exchange or not. I don't. So sending the weapons was a bad idea, and allowing the dictator of Ukraine to fire them at Russian territory is a worse one.
The only thing that works with people like that is NEVER giving in to his demands
When has Russia EVER had a non-totalitarian form of Govt? Hell, they even turned Communism into Totalitarian! Putin is actually Imperialistic.
You really believe that Putin is a reasonable actor? Ask Nemtsov how juvenile it is to think that Putin would think this way. Real leaders don't have opponents poisoned except in Spy Novels, right?
Great Article on who we are dealing with.
The west appeased Putin once. They'll do it again (ft.com)
FLBear5630 said:His goal is to re-create Peter the Great's Russian Empire, in his own words. That is pretty Imperialist/Totalitarian.Sam Lowry said:I would argue that communism is totalitarian by nature. In any case, Putin is no totalitarian. And unlike our own, his so-called "imperial" ventures have always been in response to external threats.FLBear5630 said:You do realize we are talking about Russia? If you were talking France, Germany, etc... I would agree.Sam Lowry said:This is juvenile nonsense. World leaders don't survive as long as Putin by thinking in this way.FLBear5630 said:Got news for you, if Putin is going Nuclear, he is going Nuclear no matter what he gets. . If he is going to use Nukes over the Ukraine attacks, he already has it in his mind that will be the final move. He believes his biggest ace up his sleeve is that he will do it. So, once you establish the pattern of giving him what he wants, where is the limit? When do you say no? More importantly, when will he believe you?Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Well, that depends on whether you want to get on the escalator to World War III and a possible strategic nuclear exchange or not. I don't. So sending the weapons was a bad idea, and allowing the dictator of Ukraine to fire them at Russian territory is a worse one.
The only thing that works with people like that is NEVER giving in to his demands
When has Russia EVER had a non-totalitarian form of Govt? Hell, they even turned Communism into Totalitarian! Putin is actually Imperialistic.
You really believe that Putin is a reasonable actor? Ask Nemtsov how juvenile it is to think that Putin would think this way. Real leaders don't have opponents poisoned except in Spy Novels, right?
Great Article on who we are dealing with.
The west appeased Putin once. They'll do it again (ft.com)
1. Do you even know what totalitarian means?
"Totalitarianism is best understood as any system of political ideas that is both thoroughly dictatorial and utopian."
https://iep.utm.edu/totalita/
"Totalitarianism is a form of government that attempts to assert total control over the lives of its citizens. It is characterized by strong central rule that attempts to control and direct all aspects of individual life through coercion and repression. It does not permit individual freedom. Traditional social institutions and organizations are discouraged and suppressed, making people more willing to be merged into a single unified movement."
https://www.britannica.com/question/What-is-totalitarianism
Modern China might be defined as a totalitarian state...they care are what you think and do in private. The modern Putinist Russian state does not. They only care that you do what your told. Its classically authoritarian and NOT totalitarian
The Old Russian Empire under the Czars was also authoritarian and not totalitarian
2. If Putin wanted to re-create the old Russian Empire he would have invaded Finland, the Baltic States, and Poland....all were part of the Russian empire. As well as several more States in Central Asia.
As it is he has been fine with losing those areas and made no great complaint about it.
FLBear5630 said:His goal is to re-create Peter the Great's Russian Empire, in his own words.Sam Lowry said:I would argue that communism is totalitarian by nature. In any case, Putin is no totalitarian. And unlike our own, his so-called "imperial" ventures have always been in response to external threats.FLBear5630 said:You do realize we are talking about Russia? If you were talking France, Germany, etc... I would agree.Sam Lowry said:This is juvenile nonsense. World leaders don't survive as long as Putin by thinking in this way.FLBear5630 said:Got news for you, if Putin is going Nuclear, he is going Nuclear no matter what he gets. . If he is going to use Nukes over the Ukraine attacks, he already has it in his mind that will be the final move. He believes his biggest ace up his sleeve is that he will do it. So, once you establish the pattern of giving him what he wants, where is the limit? When do you say no? More importantly, when will he believe you?Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Well, that depends on whether you want to get on the escalator to World War III and a possible strategic nuclear exchange or not. I don't. So sending the weapons was a bad idea, and allowing the dictator of Ukraine to fire them at Russian territory is a worse one.
The only thing that works with people like that is NEVER giving in to his demands
When has Russia EVER had a non-totalitarian form of Govt? Hell, they even turned Communism into Totalitarian! Putin is actually Imperialistic.
You really believe that Putin is a reasonable actor? Ask Nemtsov how juvenile it is to think that Putin would think this way. Real leaders don't have opponents poisoned except in Spy Novels, right?
Great Article on who we are dealing with.
The west appeased Putin once. They'll do it again (ft.com)
And yet he never said that....said the opposite actually.
Aren't we supposed to be against spreading false news?
I think you are misremembering when he complained about the collapse of the USSR and its consequences back in 2005
[Russian President Vladimir Putin told the nation Monday that the collapse of the Soviet empire "was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century" and had fostered separatist movements inside Russia.
In his annual state of the nation address to parliament and the country's top political leaders, Putin said the Soviet collapse also was a tragedy for Russians.
"First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century," Putin said. "As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory.
"The epidemic of collapse has spilled over to Russia itself," he said, referring to separatist movements such as those in Chechnya.]
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7632057
And like any good Russian, easily seen in those comments, he viewed the Soviet Union as Russia and all its constituent "republics" as Russian.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:His goal is to re-create Peter the Great's Russian Empire, in his own words.Sam Lowry said:I would argue that communism is totalitarian by nature. In any case, Putin is no totalitarian. And unlike our own, his so-called "imperial" ventures have always been in response to external threats.FLBear5630 said:You do realize we are talking about Russia? If you were talking France, Germany, etc... I would agree.Sam Lowry said:This is juvenile nonsense. World leaders don't survive as long as Putin by thinking in this way.FLBear5630 said:Got news for you, if Putin is going Nuclear, he is going Nuclear no matter what he gets. . If he is going to use Nukes over the Ukraine attacks, he already has it in his mind that will be the final move. He believes his biggest ace up his sleeve is that he will do it. So, once you establish the pattern of giving him what he wants, where is the limit? When do you say no? More importantly, when will he believe you?Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Well, that depends on whether you want to get on the escalator to World War III and a possible strategic nuclear exchange or not. I don't. So sending the weapons was a bad idea, and allowing the dictator of Ukraine to fire them at Russian territory is a worse one.
The only thing that works with people like that is NEVER giving in to his demands
When has Russia EVER had a non-totalitarian form of Govt? Hell, they even turned Communism into Totalitarian! Putin is actually Imperialistic.
You really believe that Putin is a reasonable actor? Ask Nemtsov how juvenile it is to think that Putin would think this way. Real leaders don't have opponents poisoned except in Spy Novels, right?
Great Article on who we are dealing with.
The west appeased Putin once. They'll do it again (ft.com)
And yet he never said that....said the opposite actually.
Aren't we supposed to be against spreading false news?
I think you are misremembering when he complained about the collapse of the USSR and its consequences back in 2005
[Russian President Vladimir Putin told the nation Monday that the collapse of the Soviet empire "was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century" and had fostered separatist movements inside Russia.
In his annual state of the nation address to parliament and the country's top political leaders, Putin said the Soviet collapse also was a tragedy for Russians.
"First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century," Putin said. "As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory.
"The epidemic of collapse has spilled over to Russia itself," he said, referring to separatist movements such as those in Chechnya.]
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7632057
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:His goal is to re-create Peter the Great's Russian Empire, in his own words. That is pretty Imperialist/Totalitarian.Sam Lowry said:I would argue that communism is totalitarian by nature. In any case, Putin is no totalitarian. And unlike our own, his so-called "imperial" ventures have always been in response to external threats.FLBear5630 said:You do realize we are talking about Russia? If you were talking France, Germany, etc... I would agree.Sam Lowry said:This is juvenile nonsense. World leaders don't survive as long as Putin by thinking in this way.FLBear5630 said:Got news for you, if Putin is going Nuclear, he is going Nuclear no matter what he gets. . If he is going to use Nukes over the Ukraine attacks, he already has it in his mind that will be the final move. He believes his biggest ace up his sleeve is that he will do it. So, once you establish the pattern of giving him what he wants, where is the limit? When do you say no? More importantly, when will he believe you?Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Well, that depends on whether you want to get on the escalator to World War III and a possible strategic nuclear exchange or not. I don't. So sending the weapons was a bad idea, and allowing the dictator of Ukraine to fire them at Russian territory is a worse one.
The only thing that works with people like that is NEVER giving in to his demands
When has Russia EVER had a non-totalitarian form of Govt? Hell, they even turned Communism into Totalitarian! Putin is actually Imperialistic.
You really believe that Putin is a reasonable actor? Ask Nemtsov how juvenile it is to think that Putin would think this way. Real leaders don't have opponents poisoned except in Spy Novels, right?
Great Article on who we are dealing with.
The west appeased Putin once. They'll do it again (ft.com)
1. Do you even know what totalitarian means?
"Totalitarianism is best understood as any system of political ideas that is both thoroughly dictatorial and utopian."
https://iep.utm.edu/totalita/
"Totalitarianism is a form of government that attempts to assert total control over the lives of its citizens. It is characterized by strong central rule that attempts to control and direct all aspects of individual life through coercion and repression. It does not permit individual freedom. Traditional social institutions and organizations are discouraged and suppressed, making people more willing to be merged into a single unified movement."
https://www.britannica.com/question/What-is-totalitarianism
Modern China might be defined as a totalitarian state...they care are what you think and do in private. The modern Putinist Russian state does not. They only care that you do what your told. Its classically authoritarian and NOT totalitarian
The Old Russian Empire under the Czars was also authoritarian and not totalitarian
2. If Putin wanted to re-create the old Russian Empire he would have invaded Finland, the Baltic States, and Poland....all were part of the Russian empire. As well as several more States in Central Asia.
As it is he has been fine with losing those areas and made no great complaint about it.
"Totalitarianism is a form of government that attempts to assert total control over the lives of its citizens. It is characterized by strong central rule that attempts to control and direct all aspects of individual life through coercion and repression. It does not permit individual freedom. Traditional social institutions and organizations are discouraged and suppressed, making people more willing to be merged into a single unified movement"
So which part doesn't describe Putin?
" If Putin wanted to re-create the old Russian Empire he would have invaded Finland, the Baltic States, and Poland....all were part of the Russian empire. As well as several more States in Central Asia.
As it is he has been fine with losing those areas and made no great complaint about it."
Made no complaint??? Have you read anything about what Putin says about Peter the Great? Here is a Reuters on his comments.
June 9 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin paid tribute on Thursday to Tsar Peter the Great on the 350th anniversary of his birth, drawing a parallel between what he portrayed as their twin historic quests to win back Russian lands.
"Peter the Great waged the Great Northern War for 21 years. It would seem that he was at war with Sweden, he took something from them. He did not take anything from them, he returned (what was Russia's)," Putin said after a visiting an exhibition dedicated to the tsar.
In televised comments on day 106 of his war in Ukraine, he compared Peter's campaign with the task facing Russia today.
"Apparently, it also fell to us to return (what is Russia's) and strengthen (the country). And if we proceed from the fact that these basic values form the basis of our existence, we will certainly succeed in solving the tasks that we face."
The guy is obsessed with recreating the Russian Empire and taking back lands he sees as Russian. It does not matter to him if we or Europe agree. That is his words.
trey3216 said:And like any good Russian, easily seen in those comments, he viewed the Soviet Union as Russia and all its constituent "republics" as Russian.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:His goal is to re-create Peter the Great's Russian Empire, in his own words.Sam Lowry said:I would argue that communism is totalitarian by nature. In any case, Putin is no totalitarian. And unlike our own, his so-called "imperial" ventures have always been in response to external threats.FLBear5630 said:You do realize we are talking about Russia? If you were talking France, Germany, etc... I would agree.Sam Lowry said:This is juvenile nonsense. World leaders don't survive as long as Putin by thinking in this way.FLBear5630 said:Got news for you, if Putin is going Nuclear, he is going Nuclear no matter what he gets. . If he is going to use Nukes over the Ukraine attacks, he already has it in his mind that will be the final move. He believes his biggest ace up his sleeve is that he will do it. So, once you establish the pattern of giving him what he wants, where is the limit? When do you say no? More importantly, when will he believe you?Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Well, that depends on whether you want to get on the escalator to World War III and a possible strategic nuclear exchange or not. I don't. So sending the weapons was a bad idea, and allowing the dictator of Ukraine to fire them at Russian territory is a worse one.
The only thing that works with people like that is NEVER giving in to his demands
When has Russia EVER had a non-totalitarian form of Govt? Hell, they even turned Communism into Totalitarian! Putin is actually Imperialistic.
You really believe that Putin is a reasonable actor? Ask Nemtsov how juvenile it is to think that Putin would think this way. Real leaders don't have opponents poisoned except in Spy Novels, right?
Great Article on who we are dealing with.
The west appeased Putin once. They'll do it again (ft.com)
And yet he never said that....said the opposite actually.
Aren't we supposed to be against spreading false news?
I think you are misremembering when he complained about the collapse of the USSR and its consequences back in 2005
[Russian President Vladimir Putin told the nation Monday that the collapse of the Soviet empire "was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century" and had fostered separatist movements inside Russia.
In his annual state of the nation address to parliament and the country's top political leaders, Putin said the Soviet collapse also was a tragedy for Russians.
"First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century," Putin said. "As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory.
"The epidemic of collapse has spilled over to Russia itself," he said, referring to separatist movements such as those in Chechnya.]
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7632057
But he did not make that exact comparison.
Read again what he said...
"First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century," Putin said. "As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory"
The bolded statement is of course true. Millions of ethnic Russians became residents of new countries. For good or bad that did take place. Obviously Putin dislikes it, other don't care, but did never said the USSR was "Russia" but that its dissolution created problems.
(Of course I'm sure in the back of his mind what he really disliked was the lost of power for Moscow...the same as how DC would dislike the break up of the USA because it would take away power from them. Geo-strategic considerations of power more than ethnic loyalty)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_Russians_in_post-Soviet_states
The problem with Putin's "own words" is that no one really listens to them. Western commentators stubbornly ignore his detailed statements of policy and instead read elaborate narratives into isolated remarks taken out of context. He's made it clear that Russia won't tolerate certain threats around its borders, which is what those conflicts have been about. And in fact he hasn't made himself president for life.FLBear5630 said:His goal is to re-create Peter the Great's Russian Empire, in his own words. That is pretty Imperialist/Totalitarian. He made himself President for life. He rolled tanks in Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine... These are all to keep or regain Russian control. Sorry, not seeing the Putin as a victim only reacting to others trying to hurt him.Sam Lowry said:I would argue that communism is totalitarian by nature. In any case, Putin is no totalitarian. And unlike our own, his so-called "imperial" ventures have always been in response to external threats.FLBear5630 said:You do realize we are talking about Russia? If you were talking France, Germany, etc... I would agree.Sam Lowry said:This is juvenile nonsense. World leaders don't survive as long as Putin by thinking in this way.FLBear5630 said:Got news for you, if Putin is going Nuclear, he is going Nuclear no matter what he gets. . If he is going to use Nukes over the Ukraine attacks, he already has it in his mind that will be the final move. He believes his biggest ace up his sleeve is that he will do it. So, once you establish the pattern of giving him what he wants, where is the limit? When do you say no? More importantly, when will he believe you?Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Well, that depends on whether you want to get on the escalator to World War III and a possible strategic nuclear exchange or not. I don't. So sending the weapons was a bad idea, and allowing the dictator of Ukraine to fire them at Russian territory is a worse one.
The only thing that works with people like that is NEVER giving in to his demands
When has Russia EVER had a non-totalitarian form of Govt? Hell, they even turned Communism into Totalitarian! Putin is actually Imperialistic.
You really believe that Putin is a reasonable actor? Ask Nemtsov how juvenile it is to think that Putin would think this way. Real leaders don't have opponents poisoned except in Spy Novels, right?
Great Article on who we are dealing with.
The west appeased Putin once. They'll do it again (ft.com)
Point taken, until 2036 when he is 84. Isn't that still younger than Biden? So who knows... : )Sam Lowry said:The problem with Putin's "own words" is that no one really listens to them. Western commentators stubbornly ignore his detailed statements of policy and instead read elaborate narratives into isolated remarks taken out of context. He's made it clear that Russia won't tolerate certain threats around its borders, which is what those conflicts have been about. And in fact he hasn't made himself president for life.FLBear5630 said:His goal is to re-create Peter the Great's Russian Empire, in his own words. That is pretty Imperialist/Totalitarian. He made himself President for life. He rolled tanks in Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine... These are all to keep or regain Russian control. Sorry, not seeing the Putin as a victim only reacting to others trying to hurt him.Sam Lowry said:I would argue that communism is totalitarian by nature. In any case, Putin is no totalitarian. And unlike our own, his so-called "imperial" ventures have always been in response to external threats.FLBear5630 said:You do realize we are talking about Russia? If you were talking France, Germany, etc... I would agree.Sam Lowry said:This is juvenile nonsense. World leaders don't survive as long as Putin by thinking in this way.FLBear5630 said:Got news for you, if Putin is going Nuclear, he is going Nuclear no matter what he gets. . If he is going to use Nukes over the Ukraine attacks, he already has it in his mind that will be the final move. He believes his biggest ace up his sleeve is that he will do it. So, once you establish the pattern of giving him what he wants, where is the limit? When do you say no? More importantly, when will he believe you?Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Well, that depends on whether you want to get on the escalator to World War III and a possible strategic nuclear exchange or not. I don't. So sending the weapons was a bad idea, and allowing the dictator of Ukraine to fire them at Russian territory is a worse one.
The only thing that works with people like that is NEVER giving in to his demands
When has Russia EVER had a non-totalitarian form of Govt? Hell, they even turned Communism into Totalitarian! Putin is actually Imperialistic.
You really believe that Putin is a reasonable actor? Ask Nemtsov how juvenile it is to think that Putin would think this way. Real leaders don't have opponents poisoned except in Spy Novels, right?
Great Article on who we are dealing with.
The west appeased Putin once. They'll do it again (ft.com)
How? We've provided weapons to Ukraine in a war against Russia. Russia is arming and supplying its military from the positions in Russia just beyond Ukraines border. Is Crimea off limits too? The Black Sea? Sevastopol? I would agree with you if the intent is to strike population centers with no military purpose, but Russia is regularly launching missile attacks and doing resupplies from position in Russia. No reason Ukraine should be limited for that purpose. I think even Putin's ire was pointed at those saying to strike "deep into Russia". Would it be more palatable if we sold the weapons to Poland and supplied them? Because many of the weapons coming to them have US origins, particularly in parts, tech, etc.Sam Lowry said:Again, my point has to do with attacks on the territory of the US or Russia themselves. This is something that both powers have historically avoided. The fact we're even talking about crossing that line just shows how desperate and irrational our position in Ukraine is.ATL Bear said:Do bases count?Sam Lowry said:They're not launching missiles at the United States.FLBear5630 said:And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?Sam Lowry said:Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
The reason we're at this point unfortunately is Putin is forcing it in his conduct of the war. Perhaps some escalation will bring us back to some rationality.
What was the actual threat?Sam Lowry said:I would argue that communism is totalitarian by nature. In any case, Putin is no totalitarian. And unlike our own, his so-called "imperial" ventures have always been in response to external threats.FLBear5630 said:You do realize we are talking about Russia? If you were talking France, Germany, etc... I would agree.Sam Lowry said:This is juvenile nonsense. World leaders don't survive as long as Putin by thinking in this way.FLBear5630 said:Got news for you, if Putin is going Nuclear, he is going Nuclear no matter what he gets. . If he is going to use Nukes over the Ukraine attacks, he already has it in his mind that will be the final move. He believes his biggest ace up his sleeve is that he will do it. So, once you establish the pattern of giving him what he wants, where is the limit? When do you say no? More importantly, when will he believe you?Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Well, that depends on whether you want to get on the escalator to World War III and a possible strategic nuclear exchange or not. I don't. So sending the weapons was a bad idea, and allowing the dictator of Ukraine to fire them at Russian territory is a worse one.
The only thing that works with people like that is NEVER giving in to his demands
When has Russia EVER had a non-totalitarian form of Govt? Hell, they even turned Communism into Totalitarian! Putin is actually Imperialistic.
You really believe that Putin is a reasonable actor? Ask Nemtsov how juvenile it is to think that Putin would think this way. Real leaders don't have opponents poisoned except in Spy Novels, right?
Great Article on who we are dealing with.
The west appeased Putin once. They'll do it again (ft.com)
FLBear5630 said:Point taken, until 2036 when he is 84. Isn't that still younger than Biden? So who knows... : )Sam Lowry said:The problem with Putin's "own words" is that no one really listens to them. Western commentators stubbornly ignore his detailed statements of policy and instead read elaborate narratives into isolated remarks taken out of context. He's made it clear that Russia won't tolerate certain threats around its borders, which is what those conflicts have been about. And in fact he hasn't made himself president for life.FLBear5630 said:His goal is to re-create Peter the Great's Russian Empire, in his own words. That is pretty Imperialist/Totalitarian. He made himself President for life. He rolled tanks in Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine... These are all to keep or regain Russian control. Sorry, not seeing the Putin as a victim only reacting to others trying to hurt him.Sam Lowry said:I would argue that communism is totalitarian by nature. In any case, Putin is no totalitarian. And unlike our own, his so-called "imperial" ventures have always been in response to external threats.FLBear5630 said:You do realize we are talking about Russia? If you were talking France, Germany, etc... I would agree.Sam Lowry said:This is juvenile nonsense. World leaders don't survive as long as Putin by thinking in this way.FLBear5630 said:Got news for you, if Putin is going Nuclear, he is going Nuclear no matter what he gets. . If he is going to use Nukes over the Ukraine attacks, he already has it in his mind that will be the final move. He believes his biggest ace up his sleeve is that he will do it. So, once you establish the pattern of giving him what he wants, where is the limit? When do you say no? More importantly, when will he believe you?Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Well, that depends on whether you want to get on the escalator to World War III and a possible strategic nuclear exchange or not. I don't. So sending the weapons was a bad idea, and allowing the dictator of Ukraine to fire them at Russian territory is a worse one.
The only thing that works with people like that is NEVER giving in to his demands
When has Russia EVER had a non-totalitarian form of Govt? Hell, they even turned Communism into Totalitarian! Putin is actually Imperialistic.
You really believe that Putin is a reasonable actor? Ask Nemtsov how juvenile it is to think that Putin would think this way. Real leaders don't have opponents poisoned except in Spy Novels, right?
Great Article on who we are dealing with.
The west appeased Putin once. They'll do it again (ft.com)
Putin will be dead by then.
He is 71 (and some say not in the best health)
Is is already older than the average Russian male life expectancy...which is not high
[In 2021, the life expectancy at birth for Russian men was 64.21 years. This is lower than the average life expectancy in the European Union and the United States. ]
He could drop dead anytime
trey3216 said:And like any good Russian, easily seen in those comments, he viewed the Soviet Union as Russia and all its constituent "republics" as Russian.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:His goal is to re-create Peter the Great's Russian Empire, in his own words.Sam Lowry said:I would argue that communism is totalitarian by nature. In any case, Putin is no totalitarian. And unlike our own, his so-called "imperial" ventures have always been in response to external threats.FLBear5630 said:You do realize we are talking about Russia? If you were talking France, Germany, etc... I would agree.Sam Lowry said:This is juvenile nonsense. World leaders don't survive as long as Putin by thinking in this way.FLBear5630 said:Got news for you, if Putin is going Nuclear, he is going Nuclear no matter what he gets. . If he is going to use Nukes over the Ukraine attacks, he already has it in his mind that will be the final move. He believes his biggest ace up his sleeve is that he will do it. So, once you establish the pattern of giving him what he wants, where is the limit? When do you say no? More importantly, when will he believe you?Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Well, that depends on whether you want to get on the escalator to World War III and a possible strategic nuclear exchange or not. I don't. So sending the weapons was a bad idea, and allowing the dictator of Ukraine to fire them at Russian territory is a worse one.
The only thing that works with people like that is NEVER giving in to his demands
When has Russia EVER had a non-totalitarian form of Govt? Hell, they even turned Communism into Totalitarian! Putin is actually Imperialistic.
You really believe that Putin is a reasonable actor? Ask Nemtsov how juvenile it is to think that Putin would think this way. Real leaders don't have opponents poisoned except in Spy Novels, right?
Great Article on who we are dealing with.
The west appeased Putin once. They'll do it again (ft.com)
And yet he never said that....said the opposite actually.
I don't think the powers that be in Moscow care if the new Republics around them exist as independent States.
But they do tend to care if they are not allies of the Russian State.
No different than how the USA views countries in the Western Hampshire...they can exist but they better not be a threat and be on good terms with us.
And from a geo-strategic map it makes some security sense...they have a wide open western frontier with European powers and a vulnerable central Asian underbelly.
The despotism of geography is a new one. Especially when only 40% of Russia is really habitable, and the struggle for centuries has been over the same Southern and Western parts of the Russian empire. The video says what many here have expressed. Ukraine is an empire play going back to whatever disgruntled Soviet break up the nationalists feel slighted over. A despot empire at that.Redbrickbear said:1. Communism was always going to be Totalitarian....so lets no get carried away on blaming them for that.FLBear5630 said:You do realize we are talking about Russia? If you were talking France, Germany, etc... I would agree.Sam Lowry said:This is juvenile nonsense. World leaders don't survive as long as Putin by thinking in this way.FLBear5630 said:Got news for you, if Putin is going Nuclear, he is going Nuclear no matter what he gets. . If he is going to use Nukes over the Ukraine attacks, he already has it in his mind that will be the final move. He believes his biggest ace up his sleeve is that he will do it. So, once you establish the pattern of giving him what he wants, where is the limit? When do you say no? More importantly, when will he believe you?Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Well, that depends on whether you want to get on the escalator to World War III and a possible strategic nuclear exchange or not. I don't. So sending the weapons was a bad idea, and allowing the dictator of Ukraine to fire them at Russian territory is a worse one.
The only thing that works with people like that is NEVER giving in to his demands
When has Russia EVER had a non-totalitarian form of Govt? Hell, they even turned Communism into Totalitarian! Putin is actually Imperialistic.
It was an is an evil ideology from the get go...and it took power in Russia by force.
2. Of course Russia has had non-totalitarian forms of government....what is has never had is a non-authoritarian form of government. China as not either for that matter...or Iran...or much of the world.
3. The bring us back to the point that regime change in Moscow is probably not going to end up the way the Ivy league and Georgetown grads in DC want it to. Just like how regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan failed.
Russia is not a country that can really ever have a system like DC would want...
Getting rid of Putin might just put someone worse in place (Lenin and Stalin say hi)
ps
The 1st video explains how Russia never even went through the phrase of Feudalism....a necessary step toward modernism it never even developed that step.
The 2nd video explains how because of the vast land and necessity of central control for security reasons a democratic society or de-centralized form government never came into existence
"Despotism is imbedded into the Russian geography"
Again, what is the actual threat?Redbrickbear said:trey3216 said:And like any good Russian, easily seen in those comments, he viewed the Soviet Union as Russia and all its constituent "republics" as Russian.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:His goal is to re-create Peter the Great's Russian Empire, in his own words.Sam Lowry said:I would argue that communism is totalitarian by nature. In any case, Putin is no totalitarian. And unlike our own, his so-called "imperial" ventures have always been in response to external threats.FLBear5630 said:You do realize we are talking about Russia? If you were talking France, Germany, etc... I would agree.Sam Lowry said:This is juvenile nonsense. World leaders don't survive as long as Putin by thinking in this way.FLBear5630 said:Got news for you, if Putin is going Nuclear, he is going Nuclear no matter what he gets. . If he is going to use Nukes over the Ukraine attacks, he already has it in his mind that will be the final move. He believes his biggest ace up his sleeve is that he will do it. So, once you establish the pattern of giving him what he wants, where is the limit? When do you say no? More importantly, when will he believe you?Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Well, that depends on whether you want to get on the escalator to World War III and a possible strategic nuclear exchange or not. I don't. So sending the weapons was a bad idea, and allowing the dictator of Ukraine to fire them at Russian territory is a worse one.
The only thing that works with people like that is NEVER giving in to his demands
When has Russia EVER had a non-totalitarian form of Govt? Hell, they even turned Communism into Totalitarian! Putin is actually Imperialistic.
You really believe that Putin is a reasonable actor? Ask Nemtsov how juvenile it is to think that Putin would think this way. Real leaders don't have opponents poisoned except in Spy Novels, right?
Great Article on who we are dealing with.
The west appeased Putin once. They'll do it again (ft.com)
And yet he never said that....said the opposite actually.
I don't think the powers that be in Moscow care if the new Republics around them exist as independent States.
But they do tend to care if they are not allies of the Russian State.
No different than how the USA views countries in the Western Hampshire...they can exist but they better not be a threat and be on good terms with us.
And from a geo-strategic map it makes some security sense...they have a wide open western frontier with European powers and a vulnerable central Asian underbelly.
ATL Bear said:Again, what is the actual threat?Redbrickbear said:trey3216 said:And like any good Russian, easily seen in those comments, he viewed the Soviet Union as Russia and all its constituent "republics" as Russian.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:His goal is to re-create Peter the Great's Russian Empire, in his own words.Sam Lowry said:I would argue that communism is totalitarian by nature. In any case, Putin is no totalitarian. And unlike our own, his so-called "imperial" ventures have always been in response to external threats.FLBear5630 said:You do realize we are talking about Russia? If you were talking France, Germany, etc... I would agree.Sam Lowry said:This is juvenile nonsense. World leaders don't survive as long as Putin by thinking in this way.FLBear5630 said:Got news for you, if Putin is going Nuclear, he is going Nuclear no matter what he gets. . If he is going to use Nukes over the Ukraine attacks, he already has it in his mind that will be the final move. He believes his biggest ace up his sleeve is that he will do it. So, once you establish the pattern of giving him what he wants, where is the limit? When do you say no? More importantly, when will he believe you?Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Well, that depends on whether you want to get on the escalator to World War III and a possible strategic nuclear exchange or not. I don't. So sending the weapons was a bad idea, and allowing the dictator of Ukraine to fire them at Russian territory is a worse one.
The only thing that works with people like that is NEVER giving in to his demands
When has Russia EVER had a non-totalitarian form of Govt? Hell, they even turned Communism into Totalitarian! Putin is actually Imperialistic.
You really believe that Putin is a reasonable actor? Ask Nemtsov how juvenile it is to think that Putin would think this way. Real leaders don't have opponents poisoned except in Spy Novels, right?
Great Article on who we are dealing with.
The west appeased Putin once. They'll do it again (ft.com)
And yet he never said that....said the opposite actually.
I don't think the powers that be in Moscow care if the new Republics around them exist as independent States.
But they do tend to care if they are not allies of the Russian State.
No different than how the USA views countries in the Western Hampshire...they can exist but they better not be a threat and be on good terms with us.
And from a geo-strategic map it makes some security sense...they have a wide open western frontier with European powers and a vulnerable central Asian underbelly.
Historically? Mongols, Tartars, Poles, French, Germans, etc.
They have been invaded a lot...mostly because of how easy it is to invade.
[Tatar invasion from 1240 (their rule and jarlyk in Rus' lasted to 1480) was successful, Lithuanian invasion of 1370 and 1372; Polish invasion of 1610 successful until the national heroes Minin & Pozharsky saved the Tsar; Swedish invasion of 1709 successful until battle of Poltava; Napoleon's French invasion of 1812 ; German invasion in WWI and WWII]
https://www.rbth.com/history/330753-which-countries-dared-to-invade-russia
Heck even the USA invaded Russia during its last civil war quite easily
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/03/03/the-big-lesson-from-the-wests-last-invasion-of-russia/
[On Sept. 4, 1918, 4,800 U.S. troops landed in Arkhangelsk, Russia, only 140 miles from the Arctic Circle. Three weeks later, they were plunged into battle against the Red Army among towering pine forests and subarctic swamps, alongside the British and French]
ATL Bear said:The despotism of geography is a new one. Especially when only 40% of Russia is really habitable,Redbrickbear said:1. Communism was always going to be Totalitarian....so lets no get carried away on blaming them for that.FLBear5630 said:You do realize we are talking about Russia? If you were talking France, Germany, etc... I would agree.Sam Lowry said:This is juvenile nonsense. World leaders don't survive as long as Putin by thinking in this way.FLBear5630 said:Got news for you, if Putin is going Nuclear, he is going Nuclear no matter what he gets. . If he is going to use Nukes over the Ukraine attacks, he already has it in his mind that will be the final move. He believes his biggest ace up his sleeve is that he will do it. So, once you establish the pattern of giving him what he wants, where is the limit? When do you say no? More importantly, when will he believe you?Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Well, that depends on whether you want to get on the escalator to World War III and a possible strategic nuclear exchange or not. I don't. So sending the weapons was a bad idea, and allowing the dictator of Ukraine to fire them at Russian territory is a worse one.
The only thing that works with people like that is NEVER giving in to his demands
When has Russia EVER had a non-totalitarian form of Govt? Hell, they even turned Communism into Totalitarian! Putin is actually Imperialistic.
It was an is an evil ideology from the get go...and it took power in Russia by force.
2. Of course Russia has had non-totalitarian forms of government....what is has never had is a non-authoritarian form of government. China as not either for that matter...or Iran...or much of the world.
3. The bring us back to the point that regime change in Moscow is probably not going to end up the way the Ivy league and Georgetown grads in DC want it to. Just like how regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan failed.
Russia is not a country that can really ever have a system like DC would want...
Getting rid of Putin might just put someone worse in place (Lenin and Stalin say hi)
ps
The 1st video explains how Russia never even went through the phrase of Feudalism....a necessary step toward modernism it never even developed that step.
The 2nd video explains how because of the vast land and necessity of central control for security reasons a democratic society or de-centralized form government never came into existence
"Despotism is imbedded into the Russian geography"
Can you name a lot of historically large States/Empires that have NOT been authoritarian or centralized?
China, Ancient Egypt, the empire of Alexander, the Roman empire, Mongol Empire, Arab Empire, etc.
I think you would admit that the larger the empire the less its been decentralized and democratic.
The video was not making a defense of such systems but just explaining the geographic realities of the Russian state...you are arguing with a video that does not disagree about the fact that Russia has always wanted to deepen its territorial depth
The issue isn't whether the attacks have a military purpose. It's who participates in them and how much damage they can do. Ukraine has been attacking Belgorod with Czech-made rockets throughout the war. These are small, multiple-launch systems used for saturation attacks. There's no legitimate reason to fire them at population centers. Even if a military installation were nearby, they would have no way to target it accurately. One of the purposes of the Kharkiv offensive is to stop these attacks. But Russia hasn't retaliated against Czechia because it isn't directly involved.ATL Bear said:How? We've provided weapons to Ukraine in a war against Russia. Russia is arming and supplying its military from the positions in Russia just beyond Ukraines border. Is Crimea off limits too? The Black Sea? Sevastopol? I would agree with you if the intent is to strike population centers with no military purpose, but Russia is regularly launching missile attacks and doing resupplies from position in Russia. No reason Ukraine should be limited for that purpose. I think even Putin's ire was pointed at those saying to strike "deep into Russia". Would it be more palatable if we sold the weapons to Poland and supplied them? Because many of the weapons coming to them have US origins, particularly in parts, tech, etc.Sam Lowry said:Again, my point has to do with attacks on the territory of the US or Russia themselves. This is something that both powers have historically avoided. The fact we're even talking about crossing that line just shows how desperate and irrational our position in Ukraine is.ATL Bear said:Do bases count?Sam Lowry said:They're not launching missiles at the United States.FLBear5630 said:And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?Sam Lowry said:Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
The reason we're at this point unfortunately is Putin is forcing it in his conduct of the war. Perhaps some escalation will bring us back to some rationality.
The precision missiles we're talking about are different. They need reconnaissance from our satellites and targeting by Western personnel, either American or European. Giving them to Poland would make a difference to the extent that Russia would only retaliate against Poland. Of course the problem is that Poland is a NATO ally and there would be even more pressure for the US to get involved. Once the escalation starts, you don't know where it ends.
ETA: I should add that when I say Russia would limit its retaliation to Poland, I mean they wouldn't immediately attack US territory. I suspect American bases elsewhere in the world would be very much on the table.
I agree, knowing that there are no consequences will not help end it. The only way to get people like Putin to back off is for them to feel real pain. Ukraine shooting little Czech rockets is nothing, a few missiles landing in Moscow? Now he has to think. The biggest issue with Georgia, Chechnya, Crimea, and now Ukraine is that Russia takes action with no accountability. There is no consequence.ATL Bear said:How? We've provided weapons to Ukraine in a war against Russia. Russia is arming and supplying its military from the positions in Russia just beyond Ukraines border. Is Crimea off limits too? The Black Sea? Sevastopol? I would agree with you if the intent is to strike population centers with no military purpose, but Russia is regularly launching missile attacks and doing resupplies from position in Russia. No reason Ukraine should be limited for that purpose. I think even Putin's ire was pointed at those saying to strike "deep into Russia". Would it be more palatable if we sold the weapons to Poland and supplied them? Because many of the weapons coming to them have US origins, particularly in parts, tech, etc.Sam Lowry said:Again, my point has to do with attacks on the territory of the US or Russia themselves. This is something that both powers have historically avoided. The fact we're even talking about crossing that line just shows how desperate and irrational our position in Ukraine is.ATL Bear said:Do bases count?Sam Lowry said:They're not launching missiles at the United States.FLBear5630 said:And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?Sam Lowry said:Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
The reason we're at this point unfortunately is Putin is forcing it in his conduct of the war. Perhaps some escalation will bring us back to some rationality.
He is not going Nuclear.
Oh, I get the historical threats. It's the origin of never start a land war in Asia. During the days when a mountain range was as good a defense mechanism as a battalion of soldiers.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Again, what is the actual threat?Redbrickbear said:trey3216 said:And like any good Russian, easily seen in those comments, he viewed the Soviet Union as Russia and all its constituent "republics" as Russian.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:His goal is to re-create Peter the Great's Russian Empire, in his own words.Sam Lowry said:I would argue that communism is totalitarian by nature. In any case, Putin is no totalitarian. And unlike our own, his so-called "imperial" ventures have always been in response to external threats.FLBear5630 said:You do realize we are talking about Russia? If you were talking France, Germany, etc... I would agree.Sam Lowry said:This is juvenile nonsense. World leaders don't survive as long as Putin by thinking in this way.FLBear5630 said:Got news for you, if Putin is going Nuclear, he is going Nuclear no matter what he gets. . If he is going to use Nukes over the Ukraine attacks, he already has it in his mind that will be the final move. He believes his biggest ace up his sleeve is that he will do it. So, once you establish the pattern of giving him what he wants, where is the limit? When do you say no? More importantly, when will he believe you?Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
Well, that depends on whether you want to get on the escalator to World War III and a possible strategic nuclear exchange or not. I don't. So sending the weapons was a bad idea, and allowing the dictator of Ukraine to fire them at Russian territory is a worse one.
The only thing that works with people like that is NEVER giving in to his demands
When has Russia EVER had a non-totalitarian form of Govt? Hell, they even turned Communism into Totalitarian! Putin is actually Imperialistic.
You really believe that Putin is a reasonable actor? Ask Nemtsov how juvenile it is to think that Putin would think this way. Real leaders don't have opponents poisoned except in Spy Novels, right?
Great Article on who we are dealing with.
The west appeased Putin once. They'll do it again (ft.com)
And yet he never said that....said the opposite actually.
I don't think the powers that be in Moscow care if the new Republics around them exist as independent States.
But they do tend to care if they are not allies of the Russian State.
No different than how the USA views countries in the Western Hampshire...they can exist but they better not be a threat and be on good terms with us.
And from a geo-strategic map it makes some security sense...they have a wide open western frontier with European powers and a vulnerable central Asian underbelly.
Historically? Mongols, Tartars, Poles, French, Germans, etc.
They have been invaded a lot...mostly because of how easy it is to invade.
[Tatar invasion from 1240 (their rule and jarlyk in Rus' lasted to 1480) was successful, Lithuanian invasion of 1370 and 1372; Polish invasion of 1610 successful until the national heroes Minin & Pozharsky saved the Tsar; Swedish invasion of 1709 successful until battle of Poltava; Napoleon's French invasion of 1812 ; German invasion in WWI and WWII]
https://www.rbth.com/history/330753-which-countries-dared-to-invade-russia
Heck even the USA invaded Russia during its last civil war quite easily
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/03/03/the-big-lesson-from-the-wests-last-invasion-of-russia/
[On Sept. 4, 1918, 4,800 U.S. troops landed in Arkhangelsk, Russia, only 140 miles from the Arctic Circle. Three weeks later, they were plunged into battle against the Red Army among towering pine forests and subarctic swamps, alongside the British and French]
I was more focused on modern times. Terrain, distance, and proximity have been mostly bested by technology and hyper destructive weaponry. The generations of despot loving nationalist Russians is dying off. I'm hopeful maybe someone after Putin can finish what Yeltsin tried to start. Russia and the world would be better off.
Poland could be in Moscow in a month If they wanted to.Sam Lowry said:The issue isn't whether the attacks have a military purpose. It's who participates in them and how much damage they can do. Ukraine has been attacking Belgorod with Czech-made rockets throughout the war. These are small, multiple-launch systems used for saturation attacks. There's no legitimate reason to fire them at population centers. Even if a military installation were nearby, they would have no way to target it accurately. One of the purposes of the Kharkiv offensive is to stop these attacks. But Russia hasn't retaliated against Czechia because it isn't directly involved.ATL Bear said:How? We've provided weapons to Ukraine in a war against Russia. Russia is arming and supplying its military from the positions in Russia just beyond Ukraines border. Is Crimea off limits too? The Black Sea? Sevastopol? I would agree with you if the intent is to strike population centers with no military purpose, but Russia is regularly launching missile attacks and doing resupplies from position in Russia. No reason Ukraine should be limited for that purpose. I think even Putin's ire was pointed at those saying to strike "deep into Russia". Would it be more palatable if we sold the weapons to Poland and supplied them? Because many of the weapons coming to them have US origins, particularly in parts, tech, etc.Sam Lowry said:Again, my point has to do with attacks on the territory of the US or Russia themselves. This is something that both powers have historically avoided. The fact we're even talking about crossing that line just shows how desperate and irrational our position in Ukraine is.ATL Bear said:Do bases count?Sam Lowry said:They're not launching missiles at the United States.FLBear5630 said:And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?Sam Lowry said:Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.FLBear5630 said:
So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?
Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...
The reason we're at this point unfortunately is Putin is forcing it in his conduct of the war. Perhaps some escalation will bring us back to some rationality.
The precision missiles we're talking about are different. They need reconnaissance from our satellites and targeting by Western personnel, either American or European. Giving them to Poland would make a difference to the extent that Russia would only retaliate against Poland. Of course the problem is that Poland is a NATO ally and there would be even more pressure for the US to get involved. Once the escalation starts, you don't know where it ends.
ETA: I should add that when I say Russia would limit its retaliation to Poland, I mean they wouldn't immediately attack US territory. I suspect American bases elsewhere in the world would be very much on the table.
And you're whining about using multiple launch rockets into Russian military bases when Russia is launching hypersonic missiles into apartment buildings and shopping malls.
I forgot how advanced their technology is though, and how reserved Putin is being. Perhaps it's just those darned former military advisors allowing that expensive weaponry to be aimed at civ targets.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.