There are no good guys in this war of oligarchs which includes the U.S. for some of you. Russia should have gone to the U.N. and laid out the problems and how the U.S. cannot tolerate any nation not being subservient and that U.S. is determined to destroy Russia. U.N. could have gone in as a peace keeping force and held elections for any region that wanted to become affiliated with Russia. Bottom line is Russia played into U.S. hands by invading.
The problem I have with Russian Dissent is most writers here don't seem to recognize the U.S. oligarchy is by far the most evil and dangerous on the planet.
Very true, re Russian Dissent seeming to not understand that the US is by far the most dangerous threat to the entire planet. It’s not even comparable. This obviously includes NATO.
Except, Russia did go to the rest of the world to avert this war. It signed onto the Minsk accords, as did Germany and France, and Ukraine.
I don't see how the UN could have halted the US shipment of arms to Ukraine. We are a rogue nation. Additoinally, i think eveyone in the UN knew that this was a proxy war to overthrow another gov't and plant a puppet on the Russia throne, similar to what we have been doing for decades. In fact, people on the planet Saturn probably knew what we were doing as well
If the smoldering Donbass War was to escalate inexorably into fratricide between Moscow & Kiev, then at minimum Putin should have prepared the Russian armed forces for said conflict.
1) Russia, it could be said, in either case, has done an admirable job against the entire NATO force.
2) my question, is WHAT else could Putin have done to counter this proxy war?
3) if the USA was faced with another country fueling arms to our neighbor, together with wall to wall media defaming this country as nazi - like, what would we have done?
If Russia had adequately prepared its armed forces for this conflict, it would have made quick work of the Ukrainian armed forces and various Banderite militias. The buck stops with Putin, Shoigu, Gerasimov, etc.
From what i have been reading, Russia didn't want to make 'quick' work, as that would have entailed large civilian casulties. According to people like Ritter and Berletic, Russias goal was lessen civilian deaths. I am not saying you are wrong, but Putin could always make quick work of the Ukraine forces. He is holding back for some reason.
Also, it might not have been that easy to mobilize Russia with large scale preparation. After all, the nation was under sanctions for many years. The USA had illegally confiscated its currency reserves. It was cut off from the SWIFT system.
If indeed the Russian general staff opted deliberately to pursue a war of attrition instead of a lightning victory over its ostensibly inferior opponent, then Shoigu, et. al. should be court martialed for monumental incompetence and dereliction of duty. This war; er "Special Military Operation" is resulting in the very death & destruction--civilian and military--that they supposedly sought to avoid. What this 15+ long war has laid bare for all to see is the rot pervading the Russian Armed Forces and its equally inept civilian political leadership.
1) maybe you are right, and the general military staff, miscalculated. But i still do not see how the Russians could have AVERTED a confrontation.
2) perhaps they thought the internecine conflict betw the Donbass and the 'mad' Ukr army would go on longer? In either case, reports affirm that 60k Azov? mobilized to the Donbass front, and began shelling. Is that your information as well? If that is true, and the reports i read, is its true, then Russia needed to confront the conflict at THAT time.
3) And the questiion does remain, as to whether a 'lightning' victory, as you mention could have been executed, w/out outsized damage to civilians - do you think that is a possibility?
4) Further, Putins war of attrition, involved, an 'energy' component, in which he was planning, (as i see it) to remove Russian energy from NATO , starving the EU 's thirst for this war. If it had been a cold winter, then he was attacking on that front as well.
5) The attempt by the USA was to remove Putin. And kill him. And destroy the value of the ruble. Biden said so publicly. Instead, the head of Italy was removed. So was Boris Johnson in England. And soon Biden himself will be removed. While the ruble has kept its value and the USA is going into recession and the EU has been damaged economically. IOW, Putins war of attrition is winning on many fronts.
6) As well, what is also exposed is, from the NATO side, is that they are ineffective. And liars. NATO has stated to the world, they are a defensive force. But there actions in Serbia, Iraq, Afganistan, Yemen, Syria, Lybia reveal they are perpetrators of aggression. Not defense. Additionally, that they are paper tigers. They have lost all their wars.
7) Lastly, Africa, , the global south, Asia, predominantly , does not support the USA war of aggression against Russia. It is publicly broadcast that most of the world supports the Ukrainians while, most of the world, does NOT SUPPORT the Ukr war. that is Western media propaganda. Latin America, Africa, India, China, Iran, far East are not supportive. Last count, 65% ofthe world does not support USA war of aggression.
8) I dont' think my question as to WHAT Putins response could possibly have been when the Donbass was shelled in late Feb 22.? And another question, WHY has the USA been arming, the Ukrainian neo-nazi groups for a decade? Isn't that a sign of aggression and a sign that the USA was preparing for still another destablization attempt to overthrown another forign gov't? thanks
To me there's two questions I'd like answers to right now:
1. Can 'who is right and who is wrong' really be decided in terms that justify the castigation, condemnation, outright hatred and avowal to eliminate a whole people?
and
2. What exactly is the nature of the Russian people, their government and their military machine; these three things.
Part of question 2 is addressed in posts by simplicius, and roloslavsky of substack I find recently and I think all should look at them.
Question? .
Always wanted to know the answer to this. In view of the fact that
1) the USA had been contributing weaponry to Ukraine for a decade now
2) had reneged on their promise not to move NATO eastward
3) Putin had signed the Minsk accords, which neither Ukraine nor the NATO nations abided by
4) had seen, Russian speaking people in the Donbass, shelled for 8years in a conflict, just because they were Russian descent
5) and watched the Azov battalion (an admittedly neo-nazi group, in the vanguard of the shelling
then,
what should Putin have done? as Lavrovs, many declarations to the press, were met with silence?
There are no good guys in this war of oligarchs which includes the U.S. for some of you. Russia should have gone to the U.N. and laid out the problems and how the U.S. cannot tolerate any nation not being subservient and that U.S. is determined to destroy Russia. U.N. could have gone in as a peace keeping force and held elections for any region that wanted to become affiliated with Russia. Bottom line is Russia played into U.S. hands by invading.
The problem I have with Russian Dissent is most writers here don't seem to recognize the U.S. oligarchy is by far the most evil and dangerous on the planet.
Very true, re Russian Dissent seeming to not understand that the US is by far the most dangerous threat to the entire planet. It’s not even comparable. This obviously includes NATO.
Totally concur with all you say.
Except, Russia did go to the rest of the world to avert this war. It signed onto the Minsk accords, as did Germany and France, and Ukraine.
I don't see how the UN could have halted the US shipment of arms to Ukraine. We are a rogue nation. Additoinally, i think eveyone in the UN knew that this was a proxy war to overthrow another gov't and plant a puppet on the Russia throne, similar to what we have been doing for decades. In fact, people on the planet Saturn probably knew what we were doing as well
If the smoldering Donbass War was to escalate inexorably into fratricide between Moscow & Kiev, then at minimum Putin should have prepared the Russian armed forces for said conflict.
Doesn't quite answer the question, John.
1) Russia, it could be said, in either case, has done an admirable job against the entire NATO force.
2) my question, is WHAT else could Putin have done to counter this proxy war?
3) if the USA was faced with another country fueling arms to our neighbor, together with wall to wall media defaming this country as nazi - like, what would we have done?
If Russia had adequately prepared its armed forces for this conflict, it would have made quick work of the Ukrainian armed forces and various Banderite militias. The buck stops with Putin, Shoigu, Gerasimov, etc.
From what i have been reading, Russia didn't want to make 'quick' work, as that would have entailed large civilian casulties. According to people like Ritter and Berletic, Russias goal was lessen civilian deaths. I am not saying you are wrong, but Putin could always make quick work of the Ukraine forces. He is holding back for some reason.
Also, it might not have been that easy to mobilize Russia with large scale preparation. After all, the nation was under sanctions for many years. The USA had illegally confiscated its currency reserves. It was cut off from the SWIFT system.
If indeed the Russian general staff opted deliberately to pursue a war of attrition instead of a lightning victory over its ostensibly inferior opponent, then Shoigu, et. al. should be court martialed for monumental incompetence and dereliction of duty. This war; er "Special Military Operation" is resulting in the very death & destruction--civilian and military--that they supposedly sought to avoid. What this 15+ long war has laid bare for all to see is the rot pervading the Russian Armed Forces and its equally inept civilian political leadership.
1) maybe you are right, and the general military staff, miscalculated. But i still do not see how the Russians could have AVERTED a confrontation.
2) perhaps they thought the internecine conflict betw the Donbass and the 'mad' Ukr army would go on longer? In either case, reports affirm that 60k Azov? mobilized to the Donbass front, and began shelling. Is that your information as well? If that is true, and the reports i read, is its true, then Russia needed to confront the conflict at THAT time.
3) And the questiion does remain, as to whether a 'lightning' victory, as you mention could have been executed, w/out outsized damage to civilians - do you think that is a possibility?
4) Further, Putins war of attrition, involved, an 'energy' component, in which he was planning, (as i see it) to remove Russian energy from NATO , starving the EU 's thirst for this war. If it had been a cold winter, then he was attacking on that front as well.
5) The attempt by the USA was to remove Putin. And kill him. And destroy the value of the ruble. Biden said so publicly. Instead, the head of Italy was removed. So was Boris Johnson in England. And soon Biden himself will be removed. While the ruble has kept its value and the USA is going into recession and the EU has been damaged economically. IOW, Putins war of attrition is winning on many fronts.
6) As well, what is also exposed is, from the NATO side, is that they are ineffective. And liars. NATO has stated to the world, they are a defensive force. But there actions in Serbia, Iraq, Afganistan, Yemen, Syria, Lybia reveal they are perpetrators of aggression. Not defense. Additionally, that they are paper tigers. They have lost all their wars.
7) Lastly, Africa, , the global south, Asia, predominantly , does not support the USA war of aggression against Russia. It is publicly broadcast that most of the world supports the Ukrainians while, most of the world, does NOT SUPPORT the Ukr war. that is Western media propaganda. Latin America, Africa, India, China, Iran, far East are not supportive. Last count, 65% ofthe world does not support USA war of aggression.
8) I dont' think my question as to WHAT Putins response could possibly have been when the Donbass was shelled in late Feb 22.? And another question, WHY has the USA been arming, the Ukrainian neo-nazi groups for a decade? Isn't that a sign of aggression and a sign that the USA was preparing for still another destablization attempt to overthrown another forign gov't? thanks
To me there's two questions I'd like answers to right now:
1. Can 'who is right and who is wrong' really be decided in terms that justify the castigation, condemnation, outright hatred and avowal to eliminate a whole people?
and
2. What exactly is the nature of the Russian people, their government and their military machine; these three things.
Part of question 2 is addressed in posts by simplicius, and roloslavsky of substack I find recently and I think all should look at them.
Here is an example:
https://roloslavskiy.substack.com/p/strelkov-provides-reassuring-analysis?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=795903&post_id=118957958&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email