Ukraine is a bountiful research opportunity. (Lab Rats)

[Laodicean60]

I think this is also good for Russia and China to learn about NATO's weapon systems, especially the captured ones.

"American officials speaking with the Washington Post described the ongoing war in Ukraine as providing Washington with ample information about Russian war-fighting strategies. The report comes as Kiev struggles to field enough forces to prevent Moscow from capturing more territory."
"According to a soldier who escaped the Avdiivka and spoke with the Associated Press, the Ukrainians were outnumbered five to one."
"Additionally, the AP explained that the manpower shortage is precluding military operations. The outlet reports, “[Ukrainian] Commanders say they don’t have enough soldiers to launch offensives, and barely enough to hold positions amid intensifying Russian assaults.”

We underestimated Russia's ability and at the cost of tens of thousands of ethnic Ukrainian lives.

"Washington and its NATO partners have viewed Ukraine as a proxy war to weaken Russia. While the Joe Biden administration has touted this policy as “for Ukraine,” it has severely harmed the country."

I see Washington but I keep hearing the name of Boris Johnson is what kept this going. Also, other news sources said that Russia wanted Ukraine to pledge neutrality.

"In the early months of the war, Kiev nearly reached an agreement with Moscow to end the conflict and Russian forces would withdraw to the pre-invasion lines. However, Washington and London pressured the Ukrainian leadership to abandon the diplomatic path."

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Yes, the war Russia launched on Ukraine has severely hurt the country. That was their intention. To hurt their neighbor.

I don't see how Ukraine's leadership would ever trust Russia to honor their word when they were insisting for months before the invasion that they weren't going to invade.

The lie detector test determined THAT was a lie.

 

[Laodicean60]

Yes, the war Russia launched on Ukraine has severely hurt the country. That was their intention. To hurt their neighbor.

I don't see how Ukraine's leadership would ever trust Russia to honor their word when they were insisting for months before the invasion that they weren't going to invade.

The lie detector test determined THAT was a lie.

Ukraine's listening to the West hurt the country. Because of Ukraine's demographics, do you think Russia wants all of Ukraine especially the western part, where you have ethnic Ukrainians? That would be a political nightmare for Putin. We'll see now that Russia is winning how far Putin wants to go. If he settles for the East/southern Russian-speaking portions of Ukraine then we'll know that Putin was protecting his own country's interest.

Lie detector depends on the propaganda you listen to. Neutrality was never given a chance because all NATO wanted was to weaken Russia but it caused solidarity among all the other countries namely the BRICS who don't want Western liberal democracy.

What, exactly, is a "neutral" Ukraine?

Why Ukraine staying out of NATO is emerging as a possible settlement to end the war.

www.vox.com

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I think this is also good for Russia and China to learn about NATO's weapon systems, especially the captured ones.

We're not sending them anything that isn't already a known quantity. In many cases, what they're getting is old, outdated equipment.

"In the early months of the war, Kiev nearly reached an agreement with Moscow to end the conflict and Russian forces would withdraw to the pre-invasion lines. However, Washington and London pressured the Ukrainian leadership to abandon the diplomatic path."

Got a source for that claim? You didn't link an article in your OP.

 

[Laodicean60]

Got a source for that claim? You didn't link an article in your OP.

OOps sorry. US Officials See Ukraine as an Active and Bountiful Military Research Opportunity | The Libertarian Institute

 

[Larniavc]

We underestimated Russia's ability and at the cost of tens of thousands of ethnic Ukrainian lives.

Entirely untrue. The expectation was that the 'third best' army in the world would roll over Ukraine in days. Of course it has cost Ukraine lives. It has also cost Russian lives.

All to fuel the ego of Mr Putin.

Please don't be another Tucker Carlson.

 

[Laodicean60]

Please don't be another Tucker Carlson.

I'm not because I'm a free thinker and I look at all points of view. I don't agree with everything Tucker says but I do listen.

 

[Larniavc]

I'm not because I'm a free thinker and I look at all points of view. I don't agree with everything Tucker says but I do listen.

You know that Fox defended a legal case against Tucker Carlson's barefaced lies by saying that no reasonable person would believe that what Tucker reports is accurate?

Tucker Carlson Successfully Argues Nobody Really Believes Tucker Carlson Is Reporting Facts - FindLaw

Tucker Carlson has a point.

www.findlaw.com

 

[RocksInMyHead]

OOps sorry. US Officials See Ukraine as an Active and Bountiful Military Research Opportunity | The Libertarian Institute

Interesting. The article doesn't provide a source for that claim either. Doing my own reading, it appears to be a piece of Russian misinformation centered around the collapse of the Istanbul peace talks.

The reality is that, even if negotiators did set a basic framework for a peace agreement during those talks, that framework was never going to be workable, given the terms that we know were put forward. For instance, it required 60-70% cuts to Ukraine's military, with the expectation that western nations would guarantee the country's security - something that none of those countries had actually agreed to do. Furthermore, the fate of the agreement was sealed by the discovery of the Bucha massacre. Following that, public support in Ukraine for any concessions to Russia virtually evaporated, with over 80% of Ukrainians opposed to the idea.

I'm not because I'm a free thinker and I look at all points of view.

No offense, but when it comes to Ukraine, you seem to be falling to the the trap of believing anything that runs counter to the prevailing western narrative, simply because you disagree with the war. Take the article you quoted in the OP - it makes several inflammatory claims (such as the one I discussed above) that, under any amount of scrutiny, are quickly revealed as propaganda or misinformation. And, rather than engaging with people who challenge the points that you make, you ignore them and continue repeating the same claims.

 

[Laodicean60]

Interesting. The article doesn't provide a source for that claim either. Doing my own reading, it appears to be a piece of Russian misinformation centered around the collapse of the Istanbul peace talks.

It depends on the propaganda you like to hear. I look at the world through the lens of peace and have to question our desires for peace in the world. I'm a realist when it comes to the world I live in. I don't believe every country on this planet should conform to Western liberal democracy nor will they. They all have their own culture and beliefs, for Ukraine, I didn't see anything wrong with neutrality because the country was made up of ethnic Ukrainians and Russian.

No offense, but when it comes to Ukraine, you seem to be falling to the the trap of believing anything that runs counter to the prevailing western narrative, simply because you disagree with the war.

I bought into all the Western propaganda up until a little over a year ago when I started questioning our involvement in all the countries in the world and the endless wars starting with G Bush and Iraq. I don't know if you realize it but there is only one way this will all end. Peace Out

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It depends on the propaganda you like to hear.

How about you address the reasoning for why I called it propaganda? There are good reasons why Ukraine backed out of the Istanbul negotiations that had nothing to do with Western pressure. If you think I'm wrong, or you disagree with my analysis, explain why - this is supposed to be a discussion. Peacing out because I disagree with you is the opposite of being a free thinker and looking at all points of view.

They all have their own culture and beliefs, for Ukraine, I didn't see anything wrong with neutrality because the country was made up of ethnic Ukrainians and Russian.

Ukrainian neutrality only works if Russia is willing to honor it. They have shown that they will not.

I bought into all the Western propaganda up until a little over a year ago when I started questioning our involvement in all the countries in the world and the endless wars starting with G Bush and Iraq. I don't know if you realize it but there is only one way this will all end. Peace Out

Questioning things is fine, but blindly parroting opinions just because they support your point of view is just hitching your wagon to another propaganda machine. It's not any better.

 

[Laodicean60]

Ukrainian neutrality only works if Russia is willing to honor it. They have shown that they will not.

Putin warned of Ukraine joining NATO since the Brussels summit. So much for peace. We had to keep pushing.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Putin warned of Ukraine joining NATO since the Brussels summit. So much for peace. We had to keep pushing.

I guess no one told him he’s the president of Russia, not Ukraine.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Putin warned of Ukraine joining NATO since the Brussels summit. So much for peace. We had to keep pushing.

If Putin wasn't so keen on attacking his neighbors, perhaps Ukraine wouldn't have had so much interest in joining NATO. He just had to keep pushing.

Ukraine is a case of brinkmanship taken to its conclusion - the only thing is that the brink on one side was allowing a country to dictate its own policies, while on the other side, it was military invasion. Bit of an unbalanced scale, that. In the world of modern diplomacy, we generally hold that attacking a sovereign country because they won't bow to your demands is not acceptable. Russia is free to express its desires on the behavior of its neighbors, and even to try to encourage them to follow the desired path through economic incentives such as favorable trade deals, but ultimately, the final decision on policy comes from a country's own people and government. Appeasement - the policy of allowing an aggressor nation to dictate policy in the hope that they won't start a war - is what brought about World War II. I can't see how it would have worked out any differently in Ukraine.

Were there decisions that could have been made that wouldn't have resulted in war? Maybe. I can point to one or two specific turning points that led to the current scenario, but hindsight is 20/20, and it's impossible to predict how things would have turned out had those decisions been made differently. I will say though that, short of Russia joining the European community (something that it has shown little inclination to do), a split between Russia and Ukraine was all but inevitable. And Russia's track record with countries attempting to break from its sphere of influence speaks for itself.

Again, I note your avoidance of certain issues. Allow me to re-post, in case you forgot:

How about you address the reasoning for why I called it propaganda? There are good reasons why Ukraine backed out of the Istanbul negotiations that had nothing to do with Western pressure. If you think I'm wrong, or you disagree with my analysis, explain why - this is supposed to be a discussion. Peacing out because I disagree with you is the opposite of being a free thinker and looking at all points of view.

Questioning things is fine, but blindly parroting opinions just because they support your point of view is just hitching your wagon to another propaganda machine. It's not any better.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ukraine's listening to the West hurt the country. Because of Ukraine's demographics, do you think Russia wants all of Ukraine especially the western part, where you have ethnic Ukrainians? That would be a political nightmare for Putin. We'll see now that Russia is winning how far Putin wants to go. If he settles for the East/southern Russian-speaking portions of Ukraine then we'll know that Putin was protecting his own country's interest.

The Russians want every bit of Ukraine they can get their hands on (plus part or all of several other countries they border). They have said so in their internal media. They don't regard Ukrainians as a real people (confused russians under the sway of the west/"Kyiv regime"). At minimum they want all of the land and resources.

 

[Laodicean60]

If Putin wasn't so keen on attacking his neighbors, perhaps Ukraine wouldn't have had so much interest in joining NATO. He just had to keep pushing.

We kept pushing.... if you read Ukrainians from 2005 to 2013 didn't care for joining NATO. I don't think they attacked Ukraine in 2008.
Ukraine–NATO relations - Wikipedia

If the globalists wanted peace:

George W. Bush Carries Some Blame for the Current Conflict With Putin

Russia is on somewhat solid ground in lashing out against NATO’s “enlargement” policy.

slate.com

Again, I note your avoidance of certain issues. Allow me to re-post, in case you forgot:

I don't care about all the negotiations they had in the past. I just care for the one they agree upon. You mentioned propaganda and I said it goes both ways.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

We kept pushing.... if you read Ukrainians from 2005 to 2013 didn't care for joining NATO.

Eh, Ukraine's government went back and forth on whether joining NATO was a good idea. Depended on who was in power (hint: the pro-Russia factions were opposed to NATO membership). The citizens were more firmly against it, that's true, but keep in mind that the government was periodically anti-NATO (especially between 2010 and 2014), and Russia mounted several anti-NATO propaganda campaigns in Ukraine, which would have influenced public opinion.

It's also important to note that Ukrainians were more universally for closer economic alignment with Europe, which I believe would have ultimately resulted in Russia trying to re-exert control by force anyways.

I don't think they attacked Ukraine in 2008.

They did attack Georgia though - you'll notice a corresponding uptick in NATO approval at that time:

Ukraine and NATO – Evidence from Public Opinion Surveys

How has public opinion in Ukraine changed regarding Ukraine's NATO membership? Explore the impact of Russian aggression on public sentiment.

freepolicybriefs.org

If the globalists wanted peace:

George W. Bush Carries Some Blame for the Current Conflict With Putin

Russia is on somewhat solid ground in lashing out against NATO’s “enlargement” policy.

slate.com

You can definitely argue that the declaration that Ukraine would one day be part of NATO was ill-advised, but that does not justify an invasion on Russia's part. First of all, joining NATO is a bilateral process - if Ukraine's government doesn't vote in favor of joining, they can't be added against their will, and stated Ukrainian policy was that they would not join if public opinion was against it. Which it was until 2014. Second, as I pointed out, it's a disproportionate response. If Russia was worried that Ukraine might join NATO, the proper response would be to examine what Ukraine would be getting out of the deal and offer them something equivalent or better for keeping their alignment with Russia, not to invade them. It would be like you breaking down your neighbor's door and shooting his dog because you heard he hung out with some people you didn't get along with once. While it may justify your actions to yourself, that's not really relevant as far as the rest of the community is concerned.

Again, what you're arguing for here is essentially appeasement - if Russia says they want something (or don't want something), we should listen to them because otherwise they'll invade. Or launch their nukes. Or something. That never works in the long run, because once it works one time, they'll just continue to use it. At some point you have to call the bluff.

I don't care about all the negotiations they had in the past. I just care for the one they agree upon.

That was a key argument in the article you posted though - that the US and the UK were responsible for the failure of that particular peace agreement. I pointed out how that's simply not true. They agreed on a framework, but then Russia started making unreasonable demands and their soldiers massacred 500 civilians in Bucha (which Sergei Lavrov initially tried to pass off as a false-flag operation to torpedo the peace talks). You cannot post an article - especially without comment - and not expect people to want to discuss the things in it.

You mentioned propaganda and I said it goes both ways.

Yes, and? My point was that you're claiming to be a "free thinker who looks at all sides" while parroting propaganda and misinformation - things that are easily proven wrong - uncritically. It's good to question what your government tells you, but questioning everything they tell you doesn't mean that everything will turn out to be wrong - or that every position critical of the government is correct. Don't fall into the trap of confirmation bias.

 

[Laodicean60]

Eh, Ukraine's government went back and forth on whether joining NATO was a good idea. Depended on who was in power (hint: the pro-Russia factions were opposed to NATO membership). The citizens were more firmly against it, that's true, but keep in mind that the government was periodically anti-NATO (especially between 2010 and 2014), and Russia mounted several anti-NATO propaganda campaigns in Ukraine, which would have influenced public opinion.

My point is why are we meddling in Ukraine with its mixed demographics?

They did attack Georgia though - you'll notice a corresponding uptick in NATO approval at that time:

Could it be over NATO membership?

Yes, and? My point was that you're claiming to be a "free thinker who looks at all sides" while parroting propaganda and misinformation - things that are easily proven wrong - uncritically. It's good to question what your government tells you, but questioning everything they tell you doesn't mean that everything will turn out to be wrong - or that every position critical of the government is correct. Don't fall into the trap of confirmation bias.

Parroting propaganda? How do you know it's not true because all the Western media does not mention it or tell you so? Funny you should tell me about confirmation bias don't everyone do it on these forums in their arguments? Are you sure you're not guilty yourself?

 

[Laodicean60]

The Russians want every bit of Ukraine they can get their hands on (plus part or all of several other countries they border). They have said so in their internal media. They don't regard Ukrainians as a real people (confused russians under the sway of the west/"Kyiv regime"). At minimum they want all of the land and resources.

Sort of like what the USA said on supporting Ukraine: "as long as it takes" and now it's "as long as we can". Time will tell if what Russia says is true but I still think if Russia takes Western Ukraine they'll have a nightmare on their hands because it's predominately ethnic Ukrainians.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sort of like what the USA said on supporting Ukraine: "as long as it takes" and now it's "as long as we can". Time will tell if what Russia says is true but I still think if Russia takes Western Ukraine they'll have a nightmare on their hands because it's predominately ethnic Ukrainians.

THere is no reason to think that any significant number (maybe a few percent) of those living in the free part of Ukraine today would accept Russian rule.

Since you want to be aware of the propaganda that is out there, there is a source I think you should look into. Reporter Julia Davis curates and translates long clips of Russian media and posts them to various social media sites including YouTube. In those clips speakers and hosts on state supported and backed media repeatedly state motivations contrary to the lines we here about Russian motivations on US social media from those who are skeptical of or opposed to US support of Ukraine. Look for "Julia Davis News" on Twitter, BlueSky, or YouTube.