Ukraine

More ATACMS strikes in Kursk, this time an airbase.

That you’re testiculating. Again. At least it wasn’t incomprehensible babble this time.

As I mentioned above, a Kamchatka bear is next to you so it naturally to fear it by seeking protection, just in case.  But the bear is not interested because there is no salmon there.  However, the salmon is swimming happily in another location and as a big Kamchatka bear it’s naturally going to protect it’s territory and to ensure it dominates the location, in case another bear encroaches on it’s territory to eat all the salmons.

Well ok I did, but what I really meant was that Zelensky is the latest and most vocal in a number of Ukrainian leaders with unrealistic NATO ambitions.

Ukraine only abandoned militarily non-aligned country status in 2014 when Russia took Crimea illegally.

President Zelenskyy would rather be in NATO than become a nuclear-armed state, which are the two clubs that Russia heeds

They were neutral.

And yet Russia invaded in 2014 and 2021.

So I’m not sure that counts as ‘enjoy’.

If they were “neutral” there would be no invasion whatever.  Too late now to argue that point.

Ukraine spooked the bear, the bear strikes back.

President Zelenskyy would rather be in NATO than become a nuclear-armed state, which are the two clubs that Russia heeds

So he decided to join another nuclear-armed group …

If they were “neutral” there would be no invasion whatever. Too late now to argue that point.

See my last two posts ^^

See my last two posts ^^

They spooked the bear.

And you insist that you never behave like a troll. Hmmmm

They spooked the bear.

But Russia would have invaded anyway. This is Putin’s aim. A combination of annihilation and invasion of the countries he sees as “Russian”.

Whether Ukraine did or did not seek to join NATO, whether it did what Russia told it too or not, Russia wanted Ukraine’s territory, growing wealth, it’s people, it’s food, it’s warm water port, it’s proximity to other countries, the ability to be up against NATO and European country borders, and most of all to be seen as ‘the Boss’, back where Russians see themselves – leaders of the world.

So Ukraine was always going to be invaded IMO, just a matter of when and how.

The most important video on Ukraine | Prof. John Mearsheimer

I think a realist like Prof Mearsheimer can explain better than me.

You can check your facts against his.

Weird double post. Ignore.

 I think a realist like Prof Mearsheimer can explain better than me.

The rationale for your last few posts has just become much clearer

You can check your facts against his.

His ‘facts’ have been debunked as nonsense several times on this thread do we have to go through all that again?

His ‘facts’ have been debunked as nonsense several times on this thread do we have to go through all that again?

I wouldn’t go into such extreme as to describe his views as “nonsense” by comparing his argument to those presented on this forum or other platforms.

He certainly has the logic and credibility in his arguments, but not agreeing with him does not mean he is nonsense but merely another point of views.

So far I have not seen many (any) convincing “debunked” arguments on social media against the Prof. at all.

His ‘facts’ have been debunked as nonsense several times on this thread do we have to go through all that again?

Hopefully not, but this is the internet.. it’s quite interesting though, to see just how baseless some opinions are. Is Chewk the same person as Dazeh?

They seem very alligned on certain topics.

Daz, you’ve chosen the minutes from the two-day Bucharest summit on 3 April 2008. It doesn’t give a balanced history, rather a snapshot

In fact, Ukraine agreed in 2010 not to pursue NATO membership, which was a policy of Russia-leaning then-President Yanukovych

And you think that a Western backed coup to overthrow Yanukovych provided reassurance to Russia that Ukraine wouldn’t join NATO?

A what now? Even if correct, Russia is in no position to get butt-hurt over election interference.

So far I have not seen many (any) convincing “debunked” arguments on social media against the Prof. at all

Well for one thing he spent a long time telling everyone that Putin definitely wouldn’t invade Ukraine

As I mentioned above, a Kamchatka bear is next to you so it naturally to fear it by seeking protection, just in case. But the bear is not interested because there is no salmon there. However, the salmon is swimming happily in another location and as a big Kamchatka bear it’s naturally going to protect it’s territory and to ensure it dominates the location, in case another bear encroaches on it’s territory to eat all the salmons

You are Eric Cantona and I claim my five pounds.

So, what’s the ‘End Game’ here?

What’s trying to be accomplished?

That’s the big question.

Slight hijack.

You are Eric Cantona and I claim my five pound

Eric Cantona is a philosopher..

I am afraid there are no seagulls following the trawlers begging for scraps there, but a bear swipe.

As I mentioned above, a Kamchatka bear is next to you so it naturally to fear it by seeking protection, just in case. But the bear is not interested because there is no salmon there. However, the salmon is swimming happily in another location and as a big Kamchatka bear it’s naturally going to protect it’s territory and to ensure it dominates the location, in case another bear encroaches on it’s territory to eat all the salmons

I reckon Chewy nails it. It’s about markets and competition over these markets. The United States and its allies were perfectly happy when Russia was ruled by a corrupt and chronic alcoholic who rigged elections and allowed gangsters to run amok murdering their business rivals.

No one became a billionaire in Boris Yeltsin’s Russia without being deeply involved in criminal activity. And yet the United States loved him because the chaos, criminality, and the damage that he did to Russia, served their interests. The relative stability that Vladimir Putin brought to Russia after Yeltsin did not.

The problem for the United States and its allies is that Putin is the wrong sort of crook for them, and one over which they have no control. He’s basically Victor Orban on steroids and with nuclear weapons.

The United States government couldn’t give a toss about the Ukraine people, since when have they cared about a people living under a brutal regime? And they certainly don’t care whether Ukraine is independent or not beyond how it might affect their interests.

Yeltsin never invaded his neighbour and killed 10s of thousands for no good reason. Putins not like Orban he’s more like Hitler.

Dunno what’s going on with the formatting.

Well for one thing he spent a long time telling everyone that Putin definitely wouldn’t invade Ukraine

President Zelensky said the same thing only two days prior to Russia crossing the border.

So far I have not seen many (any) convincing “debunked” arguments on social media against the Prof. at all.

Look a bit wider. Four authors for you to read…

Stephen Kotkin, the preeminent historian of the Soviet Union, and Michael McFaul, the US ambassador to Russia between 2012 and 2014, acknowledged that Mearsheimer was “a giant of a scholar” and “one [of] the clearest, most logical realist theorists out there”, but he was wrong to blame the US for Putin’s invasion.

In a more excoriating key, the journalist Anne Applebaum accused Mearsheimer of being Putin’s useful idiot, tweeting that his article had given the Kremlin its talking points for the war.

Lawrence Freedman, the New Statesman contributor and a world authority on theories of war, has known Mearsheimer since the 1980s, but he spoke for many of his detractors when he described his position on Ukraine as “unforgivable”.

“John simply can’t explain Russian behaviour because he is too focused on the international system and ignores the domestic forces at play. He suggests that Ukraine was about to join Nato, but it wasn’t, and he seems to find it reasonable to deny Ukraine the right to chart its own course. He also can’t detect Russia’s colonial attitudes towards Ukraine. I would consider myself a realist, but it is a realism based on assessing the situation as you find it rather than how you wish it to be based on some dogmatic theory.”

https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/09/tragedy-john-mearsheimer

i prefered this thread when it was focusing on news and events and you know real tangible stuff thats actually happening in ukraine, since musk twitter is no longer as easy to use to find breaking information

its been hijacked again just scrolled through pages of frankly mostly nonsense

i might make projections / have an opinion about what putin or trump will do but i dont try and ram it down others throats nor argue with some other non expert person on the internets view if its different, because it doesnt matter what you or I think about it. unless someone on here is in putins inner council and is leaking his thinking?

i prefered this thread when it was focusing on news and events and you know real tangible stuff thats actually happening in ukraine, since musk twitter is no longer as easy to use to find breaking information

Yup.  I found that useful as well

And you think that a Western backed coup to overthrow Yanukovych provided reassurance to Russia that Ukraine wouldn’t join NATO?

The two issues are totally separate. The “Western backed coup” was about ordinary Ukrainians wanting to join the EU, as had been agreed by a majority in Ukraine’s parliament and promised by Russia-leaning Yanukovych, who changed his mind at the eleventh hour in November 2013. He then decided to align with Russian economic bodies

Timeline:
21st November 2013 Ukraine civil unrest (Euromaidan)
21st February 2014 Yanukovych fled, eventually to Russia
22nd Feb Ukraine’s parliament scheduled Presidential Elections
26th Feb 2014 NATO head Anders Fogh Rasmussen told Ukraine that membership was an option if that was what the country wanted
??Feb (the start date is difficult to pin down because Russia already had a military lease) Russia took Crimea during Feb and March, declaring it “annexed” on 18th March 2014
??March 2014 Russia invaded the Donbas region of Ukraine, using Russian military veterans under the guise of local separatists (again, difficult to specify a date)

Ukraine’s parliament hadn’t removed its militarily non-aligned status before Russia invaded, they hadn’t had time for another poll on NATO alliance as referred to earlier ^^.

It was an invasion because Yanukovych failed to align Ukraine with Russian interests

its been hijacked again just scrolled through pages of frankly mostly nonsense

I agree. I’m out until it settles down again.

The same old nuclear world war and Ukraine wanting membership of NATO since 2008 leading to war points have been raised by the same protagonists on at least three occasions this year. Those points have been answered several times now

I’m confused by bears, seagulls and eric cantina. Never mind what someone said in 2008 and Boris Yeltsin.
Another point scoring thread.

Had NATO ruled out the prospect of Ukraine joining from the outset we would probably be in a very different place today

Why? You really think the main motivation for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was the threat of NATO encroachment? That was just his excuse. Putin’s been very vocal on how he thinks the break up of the Soviet Union was disastrous and should never have been allowed to happen and is clearly bent on reforming some version of it. Or if you mean Ukraine wouldn’t have been so prepared for invasion and would already have been overrun and annexed – you’re probably right.

As for the future, I think Trump might be able to get a ceasefire agreed, followed by years of protracted negotiations that don’t go anywhere, before it all kicks off again. The key will be whether sanctions remain in place during that time, if they don’t Russia will be able to rebuild it’s military much faster than Ukraine. I’m not really sure how NATO counters that, especially without US backing. Putin will no doubt throw his toys out of the pram anytime any military (or even just economic aid) is mooted for Ukraine and they’ll probably back down vs risk re-igniting the war.

So I think, despite Putin’s recent nuclear rhetoric, he’s ready to play the long game and rely on Trump screwing over Ukraine. That said maybe he’ll also seek to split NATO and use a tactical nuke close to Trump’s inauguration – most of NATO would likely support a non-nuclear military response but it’s doubtful Trump would and I’m sure he’d be using funding threats etc. behind the scenes. I’m not sure EU+UK would risk a military response without US backing so it would create a lot of bad blood, maybe enough to fragment NATO with a bit of Russian covert interference.

So, what’s the ‘End Game’ here?

What’s trying to be accomplished?

Russia / Putin – want all of Ukraine to do with what they please, and then to continue to invade more countries.

Ukraine – their sovereign land back.

How, not a clue.

I too used to drop into twatter to get some updates of progress and issues. Has anyone found such information from other socials such as Bluesky, Mastadon or even Reddit? While not fully accurate, the few ‘on the ground’ in Ukraine did bring rapid and focussed news.

So far I have not seen many (any) convincing “debunked” arguments on social media against the Prof. at all.

Translation: I haven’t looked for any. There’s loads BTW if you do an even casual search for articles critical of Mearsheimer’s analysis, but anyway, summary below;

1. He ignores the fact that Ukraine, like many other former soviet states had been actively seeking political and military alliances with the EU and western states since the fall of the Soviet Empire and the end of the cold war.

2. His timing is wonky, his account cannot satisfactorily account for the timing of the invasion, in that Ukraine at the time had had its NATO membership put on hold – and was extremely unlikely to go ahead and can’t explain why former Warsaw pact states have avoided a similar fate. A more likely cause of the invasion is Russian domestic political expediency.

3. Offensive realism is not a credible guide to the behaviour of modern states, the breakup of the Soviet Union, Germanys relative weakness militarily post reunification, peace amongst traditional warring European states, all really demonstrate the lack of coherence of such a theory. Even if you accept that a Ukraine in NATO is an existential threat to Russia (which not even Russian propaganda and rhetoric was saying at the time) the timing of Russian invasion still took some of its own satellite states and political allies by surprise, and ultimately it still doesn’t abdicate Russia from its responsibility and culpability in starting a war for which there was no pressing urgency -Wars are started by states pulling the trigger, not by those seeking treaties and alliances

4.For such a theory you’d hope that Mearsheimer would have some bang to rights evidence. In fact he relies totally on selective and uncritical  reading of official Russian documents, and relies in part at least of believing that Putin is sincere in his beliefs and statements, and said that he believes Russia had no Imperial motivations – Facts on the ground since as proved the Prof 100% wrong on that.

I don’t think he’s an apologist, but most if not all of what Mearsheimer was saying pre-invasion has turned out to be baloney. I’m not surprised though, that you’re still clinging to it.

I’m confused by bears, seagulls and eric cantina. Never mind what someone said in 2008 and Boris Yeltsin.

Another point scoring thread.

Don’t worry, I predict a long period of normality returning in which everyone on this thread agrees and echoes each other’s opinions.

Until the next annoying interruption.

The same old nuclear world war and Ukraine wanting membership of NATO since 2008 leading to war points have been raised by the same protagonists on at least three occasions this year. Those points have been answered several times now

Speaking on my own behalf re-raising the prospect of Nuclear War; some of us don’t read this thread daily, can’t remember years of posts and cannot be arsed to scroll through 508 pages.   Plus, the daily situation and narrative changes.   Putin has raised the prospect of Nuclear war more times than I have, and each time the situation is different, just becuase it bores you / you have a better memory than I have doesn’t mean I should be immediately discounted because I raised the question again, specifically under different circumstances becuase I am concerned and seek the opinion of those better educated in the matter.

Until the next annoying interruption.

I don’t think anyone on the thread has any problem in hearing views different to their own, I think the actual situation on the ground has clearly moved on from recycled nonsense that have been been shown to be based in nothing but revisionist Russian myth-making and endless contrarianism from some posters.

I agree. I’m out until it settles down again.

It’s not the same without the obscure military acronyms, and other masturbatory aids.

its been hijacked again just scrolled through pages of frankly mostly nonsense

The thread title is Ukraine, and we’re discussing Ukraine. Doesn’t really matter if what is being discussed is a load of bollocks or not, that’s what internet forums are for. If you want a thread specifically limited to flag waving, tracking military movements and salivating over the latest military hardware go and create another one.

I don’t see what’s so interesting anyway, they’re stuck in a stalemate lobbing missiles and artillery at each other and that will no doubt continue ad infinitum until someone has the courage to do something about the pointless slaughter of young men. Why anyone would want to pore over the finer detail of that I have no idea.*

*Edit: Actually scratch that last comment, I absolutely do understand. Every time there is a war whether it’s in Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever, a particular group of (mostly) men get very excited and treat it like some sort of ghoulish spectator sport. And it’s generally the blokes who have never been in the services or near any sort of danger too. I have huge respect for those on this thread who can talk from experience of war, but the rest of you can keep it quite frankly.

Russia / Putin – want all of Ukraine to do with what they please, and then to continue to invade more countries.

More specifically, they want to push west until they have a defensible natural barrier to prevent further invasions, which sounds fairly reasonable until you realise that the barrier in question is the mountains that run North from the Western edge of the back sea, to the baltic.

In order to achieve this they will have to occupy and make into vassal states Ukraine, Poland, The Baltic States, Czechia, Moldova and half of Romania, an untold toll of human death and misery to appease the paranoia of one old man.

No ‘appeasing’ of Russia will work unless it offers them this, Ukraine’s people evicting their Russian puppet leader to move towards the EU in 2014 endangered this whole project which is why Russia invaded them. NATO membership was not in any way on the cards at the time, Ukraine’s democratic awakening, European aspirations and defiance of their Russia ‘masters’ was what triggered Putin’s wrath,

I think Mearsheimer’s pre-war analysis was well-intentioned but it assumed good faith on Russia’s part when there was none and as a result it’s aged horribly.

Why anyone would want to pour over the finer detail of that I have no idea.

I think you mean “pore”. Or maybe not. “Pour” is a euphemism in Greek that means “ejaculate”.