The Struggle For Ukraine

[Admin]

1. We could also add in a dozen other aggressive moves that caused death and destruction, often spearheaded by the US. I think Russia will see their move as similar.   If they do see it that way, I'll have to agree with them.  That is not sanction it, but I do see how they will be able to justify it. 

Fathertime!   

2. We (The US) sometimes preemptively strike sovereign nations due to a perceived threat.   Russia perceives a threat at some point down the road. Sanctions can be a form of financial war and that type of war can also cause suffering and or death.  Russia is at a severe disadvantage, so they are going to use what they do have which is seemingly a strong military.   
Fathertime!

1. Another appeal to hypocrisy. Logical fallacies abound. None of that tripe is relevant. Putting aside the language of political justification, none of those past events figured into Putin's current aggression - EXCEPT - that he did not suffer a price previously.

2. Hard to believe you would claim Russia as the victim to justify their actions.

[Boethius]

I have to agree that Russia WAS positioned and about to score big on their resources, and the pipeline was going to help.  I suspect in addition to the issues we do know, there is probably more that we don't know.  Russia was willing to lay it all on the line.  They probably expected a lot of these sanctions.   Even shipping carriers won't deliver or pick up their goods, airspace restricted, assets confiscated abroad.   Another country potentially aligning against them must have been unpalatable.   From what I perceive as their view, I can see why they are taking steps.   US also accomplished one of it's goals to prevent the pipeline from being completed.     

Fathertime!   

I disagree with you.  I think Putin and his inner circle, all products of the USSR KGB, believed the West (in particular, Germany) is weak, and that their (the West's) economic interests prevailed over everything.  I don't believe for a minute that they entertained the thought Nord Stream would be cancelled.  I doubt they even considered BP and Shell writing off Russian gas interests and exiting Russia.  I doubt they considered Russian artists, who are not part of the government, being banned from cultural events in Western countires.  I really doubt they thought they would be viewed as a pariah state.  Whether that holds up is to be seen. 

[Nightwish]

I disagree with you.  I think Putin and his inner circle, all products of the USSR KGB, believed the West (in particular, Germany) is weak, and that their (the West's) economic interests prevailed over everything.  I don't believe for a minute that they entertained the thought Nord Stream would be cancelled.  I doubt they even considered BP and Shell writing off Russian gas interests and exiting Russia.  I doubt they considered Russian artists, who are not part of the government, being banned from cultural events in Western countires.  I really doubt they thought they would be viewed as a pariah state.  Whether that holds up is to be seen.

Lavrov even said that to Al Jazeera today, they where counting on economical sanktions but never considered athletes and the whole sporting world would be this affected for example, they seemed to have had a long intervju with him, I only saw some headlines go by.

Besides Paralympics I think they have been banned in almost all other branches of sports, individual and team. 

[ML]

$1 million bounty on Putin offered by Russian businessman

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/1-million-bounty-on-putin-offered-by-russian-businessman/ar-AAUvfnL?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=W069

[Patagonie]

I disagree with you.  I think Putin and his inner circle, all products of the USSR KGB, believed the West (in particular, Germany) is weak, and that their (the West's) economic interests prevailed over everything.  I don't believe for a minute that they entertained the thought Nord Stream would be cancelled.  I doubt they even considered BP and Shell writing off Russian gas interests and exiting Russia.  I doubt they considered Russian artists, who are not part of the government, being banned from cultural events in Western countires.  I really doubt they thought they would be viewed as a pariah state.  Whether that holds up is to be seen.

Correct, they have contempt for Germany and France.
These last two countries needed a lot of time to realize it, but now it's done.
And things are unlikely to be fully restored.

[Boethius]

Lavrov even said that to Al Jazeera today, they where counting on economical sanktions but never considered athletes and the whole sporting world would be this affected for example, they seemed to have had a long intervju with him, I only saw some headlines go by.

Besides Paralympics I think they have been banned in almost all other branches of sports, individual and team.

I think it has to be made a true pariah state, akin to Iran or North Korea.  Visas for travel (and travel should be difficult for ordinary citizens), no Western clothing stores, or skincare products, make up, etc.  It's only when ordinary Russians feel the effects of being a pariah state that the situation will improve.  This has to be done until Russia no longer occupies Ukraine in any way, shape or form.

[fathertime]

1. Another appeal to hypocrisy. Logical fallacies abound. None of that tripe is relevant. Putting aside the language of political justification, none of those past events figured into Putin's current aggression - EXCEPT - that he did not suffer a price previously.
 

I'm going to have disagree to the relevance issue.   I can't speak for Russia, but from their view they may well think what is good for the goose is good for the gander.   

2. Hard to believe you would claim Russia as the victim to justify their actions.

I'm attempting to put myself in their shoes.  From their viewpoint they probably think they need to limit how far the West can start to have influence and right up on their doorstep is too far.     YOU used the word victim; I don't recall using that word.   If they are victims, they are going to be aggressive victims. 

Fathertime!   

[fathertime]

I disagree with you.  I think Putin and his inner circle, all products of the USSR KGB, believed the West (in particular, Germany) is weak, and that their (the West's) economic interests prevailed over everything.  I don't believe for a minute that they entertained the thought Nord Stream would be cancelled.  I doubt they even considered BP and Shell writing off Russian gas interests and exiting Russia.  I doubt they considered Russian artists, who are not part of the government, being banned from cultural events in Western countires.  I really doubt they thought they would be viewed as a pariah state.  Whether that holds up is to be seen.

I suspect the sanctions are more severe than they expected.  I think Russia thought they would be sanctioned, and they would lose the pipeline, but other sanctions and talk of even more are more than they expected.   

All that said, many of the larger nations such as China, India, and Pakistan seem to be more in Russia's corner than one might suspect.  They all abstained from the big UN vote today.   I take that to mean they are turning a blind eye to what is going on.  Keeping the door open to Russia. 

Fathertime!   

[Boethius]

All will need to turn, if they want to continue to trade with the West, and, in the case of India and Pakistan, continue to receive Western aid.

[fathertime]

All will need to turn, if they want to continue to trade with the West, and, in the case of India and Pakistan, continue to receive Western aid.

I think that may be correct.  The west has historically been much better at twisting arms than the rest of the world.  I would suspect a lot of votes were cast out of financial interests.

Fathertime!   

[Admin]

1. I'm going to have disagree to the relevance issue.   I can't speak for Russia, but from their view they may well think what is good for the goose is good for the gander.[/b]  I'm attempting to put myself in their shoes.  From their viewpoint they probably think they need to limit how far the West can start to have influence and right up on their doorstep is too far[/b].     

2. YOU used the word victim; I don't recall using that word.   If they are victims, they are going to be aggressive victims. 
Fathertime!

1. You are correct, you cannot speak for Russia. Your SPECULATION as to Russia's thought process is a ridiculous line of argument.


2. The statement that "Russia is at a severe disadvantage" is a naked attempt to cast them as the victim and use that as justification for their actions. Another ridiculous line of argument.

[fathertime]

1. You are correct, you cannot speak for Russia. Your SPECULATION as to Russia's thought process is a ridiculous line of argument.


2. The statement that "Russia is at a severe disadvantage" is a naked attempt to cast them as the victim and use that as justification for their actions. Another ridiculous line of argument.
[/

You may think it is ridiculous, but I think what I've written would probably be close to what their concerns are.  It seems pretty clear they don't concern themselves too much with western opinion.  In most of the media I've seen here in the USA, the Russians are 100% the problem.  Despite this, I'm seeing they have a side to the story too. I'm not big on categorizing them as 'victims', that has been your characterization of what I'm stating. 
 They have concerns and which obviously haven't been addressed.  You may characterize them as ridiculous and as long as the West does the same, I guess there will be more shooting, death, and destruction.

Fathertime! 

[Admin]

You may think it is ridiculous, but I think what I've written would probably be close to what their concerns are.  It seems pretty clear they don't concern themselves too much with western opinion.  In most of the media I've seen here in the USA, the Russians are 100% the problem.  Despite this, I'm seeing they have a side to the story too. I'm not big on categorizing them as 'victims', that has been your characterization of what I'm stating. 
 They have concerns and which obviously haven't been addressed.  You may characterize them as ridiculous and as long as the West does the same, I guess there will be more shooting, death, and destruction.

Fathertime! 

It was YOUR post which made the attempt to cast them as victims by claiming that "Russia is at a severe disadvantage." There is no other interpretation of your words FT. And you then go on to use that fallacious and absurd claim as some sort of justification for their actions. Yes, I most certainly assert this argument you've posed is "ridiculous." And that's the kindest thing to be said about it.

[tfcrew]

$1 million bounty on Putin offered by Russian businessman

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/1-million-bounty-on-putin-offered-by-russian-businessman/ar-AAUvfnL?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=W069

Whether that report about Alex Konanykhin is true or not...A $10 million bounty may in turn be put on him.

Putin puts nuclear forces on high alert, escalating tensions

http://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-kyiv-business-europe-moscow-2e4e1cf784f22b6afbe5a2f936725550
Dubious... as any nuclear command is always on 'high alert'.

Anxiety Grows in Odessa as Russians Advance in Southern Ukraine

http://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/02/world/europe/odessa-black-sea-ukraine-russia.html

[fathertime]

It was YOUR post which made the attempt to cast them as victims by claiming that "Russia is at a severe disadvantage." There is no other interpretation of your words FT.  most certainly assert this argument you've posed is "ridiculous." And that's the kindest thing to be said about it.

I had to review the posts to see the context from which you pulled 'severe disadvantage' from.  It was stated in the context of finances and the ability to inflict harm through sanctions.  I stand by that statement, if you want to add it makes them 'victims' that is your choice.   Russia doesn't have the ability or allies to create the type of hardship through sanctions that the West does.   They are at a severe disadvantage in that respect.     Because of this, when they want to get their way, it will be use of brute force.  The West will often use other levers that aren't available to Russia at this time.  Often when those levers fail to produce the result they want, brute force is also used. 

Fathertime!   

[fathertime]

Whether that report about Alex Konanykhin is true or not...A $10 million bounty may in turn be put on him.

If Putin REALLY thinks he may be in jeopardy, he probably will act even more aggressive. That puts everybody in even greater jeopardy on a faster timeline. 

Fathertime!   

[GQBlues]

I had to review the posts to see the context from which you pulled 'severe disadvantage' from.  It was stated in the context of finances and the ability to inflict harm through sanctions.  I stand by that statement, if you want to add it makes them 'victims' that is your choice.   Russia doesn't have the ability or allies to create the type of hardship through sanctions that the West does.   They are at a severe disadvantage in that respect.     Because of this, when they want to get their way, it will be use of brute force.  The West will often use other levers that aren't available to Russia at this time.  Often when those levers fail to produce the result they want, brute force is also used. 

Fathertime!   

I agree completely. Doesn't excuse Russia's current adventure, nor should it excuse all others in theirs.

As for sanctions, it’s a joke. The US imports oil from Russia to the tune of 600,000 barrels/day. At $100.00 per barrel, we are giving Russia $60 million/day, everyday. The White House excluded crude oil from the sanctioned lot because it fears it’ll make the inflation worse. Go figure.   

[fathertime]

She has every right to be disappointed.  Especially if we (The US) led her people to believe that we were going to jeopardize the planet with WWIII.   Her request of a no-fly zone isn't realistic at all.   I'm now convinced Putin is willing to do everything up to nukes to get what he wants out of Ukraine.   Before this all started, he probably would have settled for less, now given what the global consequences are going to be, he probably wants it all, unequivocally. If that means squashing all resistance and taking millions of lives, he will probably do it.  People seem to be evacuating and I hope they continue to do so.  I don't see why Russia wouldn't let women, children, old men, flee out of the country.     


Ukrainian parliament member says Biden’s SOTU was ‘a total disappointment’ for Ukraine

....And today when I see President Biden saying that we’re going to protect every inch of the NATO territory, excuse me, we’ve been promised the same thing when we gave up our nuclear weapons," Ustinova said. "The Russians have totally destroyed all of the airports in Ukraine, the majority of the roads. We are grateful for help, but we need protection in our sky."

The Biden administration has said it will not send military aircraft to enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine because that would amount to a direct confrontation with Russian forces.

"We have been protecting ourselves on the ground, but if we do not protect our sky, if there is (not) a no-fly zone or if there is no dome to protect it with the air defense, we will all go down," Ustinova said. "People will literally die."....

http://www.yahoo.com/news/ukrainian-parliament-member-says-biden-144019213.html   

Fathertime! 

[Boethius]

If Putin REALLY thinks he may be in jeopardy, he probably will act even more aggressive. That puts everybody in even greater jeopardy on a faster timeline. 

Fathertime!

I doubt that.  He could face a Mussolini type fate if he goes too far.

[Intrepid Traveler]

If Putin REALLY thinks he may be in jeopardy, he probably will act even more aggressive. That puts everybody in even greater jeopardy on a faster timeline. 

Fathertime!

I doubt that.  He could face a Mussolini type fate if he goes too far.

Fathertime is likely correct.

Here's an informative YouTube where we learn to never trap a rat:

Former MI6 Chief On the Ukraine & Russia Conflict | Oxford Union

[fathertime]

This will be a grim post.

NY Times Report seems pretty spot on.    Many NATO nations are going to be trying to transport weaponry into Ukraine.   This raises the question of 'unofficial' NATO involvement.
Several points regarding this.   
1.  Russia Will feel they have every right to preemptively attack, *As the US has done* even if it is within a NATO country border.
2.  If Russia feels the weaponry is going to make it to Ukraine, they may feel the urgent need to exterminate Ukraine's military on an accelerated timeline, with less and less regard for 'collateral damage.  If they don't Ukraine will have enough weapons to inflict more casualties on Russia. 
3.  If Russia does decide to attack within a NATO nation, NATO will likely respond with overwhelming force, and Russia could easily go tactically Nuclear. 
4.  I don't think NATO would respond right away with nuclear weapons because it would escalate Russia even more.  At that point it is clearly the planet at risk.   

The longer this goes on the harder it becomes to find a solution.  Ukrainians civilians should be running for the exits faster than ever.   


NATO Countries Pour Weapons Into Ukraine, Risking Conflict With Russia


.....In fact, even if no NATO soldier ever crosses into Ukraine, and even if convoys of materiel are driven to the border by nonuniformed personnel or contractors in plain trucks, the European arms supplies are likely to be seen in Moscow as a not-so-disguised intervention by NATO.

Supplying Ukraine to allow the resistance to bloody Russia’s nose is a good idea, “but the more it ramps up you wonder how Putin will respond,” said Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director of the Royal United Services Institute, a defense research institute. “What happens if he attacks on the other side of the border? We pursue terrorists across borders, why not him?”.....

http://www.yahoo.com/news/nato-countries-pour-weapons-ukraine-195214505.html 

Fathertime! 

[BC]

FT,

All weapons being provided by western nations, to date, are defensive weapons.  Anti-tank, anti-aircraft, etc

This is likely why the idea of providing them with fighter jets was dropped.  A fighter is not a defensive weapon.

If UA armed forces fall, it may become more of an issue since we would then be providing arms to what might be deemed by RU as an insurgence or terrorists. Even so, that is exactly what RU has been doing with the rebels in the eastern part of UA since 2014.

[Admin]

1. I had to review the posts to see the context from which you pulled 'severe disadvantage' from.  It was stated in the context of finances and the ability to inflict harm through sanctions.  I stand by that statement,

2. if you want to add it makes them 'victims' that is your choice.   Russia doesn't have the ability or allies to create the type of hardship through sanctions that the West does.   They are at a severe disadvantage in that respect.     Because of this, when they want to get their way, it will be use of brute force. 

3. The West will often use other levers that aren't available to Russia at this time.  Often when those levers fail to produce the result they want, brute force is also used. 
Fathertime!   

1. You don't remember your claim in your own post?!? Do you just write stuff without thinking?? Those are YOUR words I cited on multiple occasions. "Russia is at a severe disadvantage." In the context YOU presented, you seek to establish Russia as the victim (the one disadvantaged) and then spin that as justification for their aggression. Ludicrous.

2. Russia has just as much influence over the UN as does China or the US or any other permanent member, and far more than any regular UN member nation.

3. And you return to a fallacious appeal to hypocrisy. None of that is relevant to the central issue of unprovoked Russian aggression against a neighboring sovereign nation.

[Admin]

She has every right to be disappointed. 1. Especially if we (The US) led her people to believe that we were going to jeopardize the planet with WWIII.   Her request of a no-fly zone isn't realistic at all.   I'm now convinced Putin is willing to do everything up to nukes to get what he wants out of Ukraine.   2. Before this all started, he probably would have settled for less, now given what the global consequences are going to be, he probably wants it all, unequivocally. If that means squashing all resistance and taking millions of lives, he will probably do it.  People seem to be evacuating and I hope they continue to do so.  I don't see why Russia wouldn't let women, children, old men, flee out of the country.     


Ukrainian parliament member says Biden’s SOTU was ‘a total disappointment’ for Ukraine

3. ....And today when I see President Biden saying that we’re going to protect every inch of the NATO territory, excuse me, we’ve been promised the same thing when we gave up our nuclear weapons," Ustinova said. "The Russians have totally destroyed all of the airports in Ukraine, the majority of the roads. We are grateful for help, but we need protection in our sky."

The Biden administration has said it will not send military aircraft to enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine because that would amount to a direct confrontation with Russian forces.

"We have been protecting ourselves on the ground, but if we do not protect our sky, if there is (not) a no-fly zone or if there is no dome to protect it with the air defense, we will all go down," Ustinova said. "People will literally die."....

http://www.yahoo.com/news/ukrainian-parliament-member-says-biden-144019213.html   

Fathertime!

1. Appeal to exaggeration. At the time Ukraine held a large number of Soviet-era nuclear weapons. In an effort to reduce the number of countries holding nuclear arsenals, guarantees were offered by the West AND BY RUSSIA for Ukrainian sovereignty and security. Your "jeopardize the planet with WWIII" bullshit is pure hyperbole.

2. Probably this. Probably that. More speculative nonsense.

3. You failed to include the most profound part of the interview when she asked the question of what red line is it that Putin must cross before the West intervenes. Of course, that question presupposes one starts from the position that Putin's aggressions are unwarranted - a step too far for you it seems.

[fathertime]

1. You don't remember your claim in your own post?!? Do you just write stuff without thinking?? Those are YOUR words I cited on multiple occasions. "Russia is at a severe disadvantage." In the context YOU presented, you seek to establish Russia as the victim (the one disadvantaged) and then spin that as justification for their aggression. Ludicrous.

Since you quoted my words, I went back and reviewed the context it was stated in to see if I was incorrect.   Turns out it was stated in a context I can stand behind.   You can label as "Victim" or appeal to hypocrisy, but that doesn't mean it isn't accurate.   Russia is indeed at a SEVERE DISADVANTAGE as it pertains to being able to inflict harm through sanctions.  That isn't a route they can take (At this time).  In this particular case they tried intimidation before massive attacks, but that didn't work, in part because the West had been pumping up Ukraine. 

If Russia is going to get their way, they have military strength (It seems), that is method they are can and are willing to use. 

Fathertime!