Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Big Russia lacked the power to attack tiny Georgia prior to 2008? You really have thought about this deeply, haven't you?

All you are doing is speculating. That is all that any of us can do when it comes to reading Putin's mind.

The facts are not clear, in my view, as to whether the West's actions are motivating Putin to act, or whether we are responding to Putin's actions. It is a circle the feeds back on itself, round and round.

In regard to the latest chapter of this saga, the fact is that a US-Ukraine strategic partnership was signed on Nov 10, 2021, just prior to Putin's build up of troops on Ukraine's border. I think it is plausible that this partnership agreement motivated Putin's invasion of Ukraine. I'm not excusing Putin's actions. I'm just trying to make some guesses as to his logic. I don't believe by the idea that is trying to rebuild the USSR. I think he views his moves as a kind of pro-active form of defense against the West. But, just like you, I can't read his mind (although you seem to believe you have direct access to his thoughts).

Good lord, again the ignorance about Russia is astounding. No one has to guess at what Vladimir Putin is thinking. In July of 2021, he wrote an extensive treatise about what he thinks about the history of Russia and the lands that formerly were a part of Russia. The TL;DR version - Belarus, Ukraine and Russia are one people who have been evilly separated by others. Belarus and Ukraine must return to Russia in order to exercise their true sovereignty. (Never mind what the people of those countries have voted to do.).

Please note that Putin declines to talk about the historical aspects that explain why Ukraine will never willingly be a part of Russia again - just one example is the Holodomor - the deliberate starvation of millions of Ukrainians by Stalin during the period of forced collectivization.

You can read his delusional and self-serving account of history here - https://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

And before you agree with it, please read

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/vladimir-putins-revisionist-history-of-russia-and-ukraine/amp

and

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/01/28/putin-russia-ukraine-myths/

Each of which is by a noted scholar of Ukrainian history.

I think a lot of you guys could better spend your time reading books instead of posting on DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am heartened that a large majority of Americans - both democratic and Republican - agree with bans on Russian oil even if it means higher prices, which we are already seeing.

Well done Americans!

What other options are there?

Anonymous wrote:I am heartened that a large majority of Americans - both democratic and Republican - agree with bans on Russian oil even if it means higher prices, which we are already seeing.

Well done Americans!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Big Russia lacked the power to attack tiny Georgia prior to 2008? You really have thought about this deeply, haven't you?

All you are doing is speculating. That is all that any of us can do when it comes to reading Putin's mind.

The facts are not clear, in my view, as to whether the West's actions are motivating Putin to act, or whether we are responding to Putin's actions. It is a circle the feeds back on itself, round and round.

In regard to the latest chapter of this saga, the fact is that a US-Ukraine strategic partnership was signed on Nov 10, 2021, just prior to Putin's build up of troops on Ukraine's border. I think it is plausible that this partnership agreement motivated Putin's invasion of Ukraine. I'm not excusing Putin's actions. I'm just trying to make some guesses as to his logic. I don't believe by the idea that is trying to rebuild the USSR. I think he views his moves as a kind of pro-active form of defense against the West. But, just like you, I can't read his mind (although you seem to believe you have direct access to his thoughts).

Good lord, again the ignorance about Russia is astounding. No one has to guess at what Vladimir Putin is thinking. In July of 2021, he wrote an extensive treatise about what he thinks about the history of Russia and the lands that formerly were a part of Russia. The TL;DR version - Belarus, Ukraine and Russia are one people who have been evilly separated by others. Belarus and Ukraine must return to Russia in order to exercise their true sovereignty. (Never mind what the people of those countries have voted to do.).

Please note that Putin declines to talk about the historical aspects that explain why Ukraine will never willingly be a part of Russia again - just one example is the Holodomor - the deliberate starvation of millions of Ukrainians by Stalin during the period of forced collectivization.

You can read his delusional and self-serving account of history here - https://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

And before you agree with it, please read

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/vladimir-putins-revisionist-history-of-russia-and-ukraine/amp

and

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/01/28/putin-russia-ukraine-myths/

Each of which is by a noted scholar of Ukrainian history.

I think a lot of you guys could better spend your time reading books instead of posting on DCUM.

I think your argument is just as weak as the one you are responding to. None of you really know what's going on there, none. All you know is what you are shown, the info you have access to and what you are interested in learning. Confirmation bias is a big thing. Reality is you don't know what's going on in the head of ANY person, not to mention all the wheels in motion behind large scale world events and complex relationships. Even yourself you don't know how you would react in complex situations that will test your own system of beliefs. There is plenty of stuff out there to support any opinion or bias. The links you have, I can find you a 100 more confirming what you said and your opponent can find links confirming what she is arguing about.

Anonymous wrote:I’m trying to figure out what next?

When will sanctions will impact the economy? Right now life goes on as usual in Russia. The cards are working until tomorrow.

According to my sources in Moscow, stores have produce, products. They don’t feel amy impact except for people who lost their job and people who lost their savings in $$.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Big Russia lacked the power to attack tiny Georgia prior to 2008? You really have thought about this deeply, haven't you?

All you are doing is speculating. That is all that any of us can do when it comes to reading Putin's mind.

The facts are not clear, in my view, as to whether the West's actions are motivating Putin to act, or whether we are responding to Putin's actions. It is a circle the feeds back on itself, round and round.

In regard to the latest chapter of this saga, the fact is that a US-Ukraine strategic partnership was signed on Nov 10, 2021, just prior to Putin's build up of troops on Ukraine's border. I think it is plausible that this partnership agreement motivated Putin's invasion of Ukraine. I'm not excusing Putin's actions. I'm just trying to make some guesses as to his logic. I don't believe by the idea that is trying to rebuild the USSR. I think he views his moves as a kind of pro-active form of defense against the West. But, just like you, I can't read his mind (although you seem to believe you have direct access to his thoughts).

Good lord, again the ignorance about Russia is astounding. No one has to guess at what Vladimir Putin is thinking. In July of 2021, he wrote an extensive treatise about what he thinks about the history of Russia and the lands that formerly were a part of Russia. The TL;DR version - Belarus, Ukraine and Russia are one people who have been evilly separated by others. Belarus and Ukraine must return to Russia in order to exercise their true sovereignty. (Never mind what the people of those countries have voted to do.).

Please note that Putin declines to talk about the historical aspects that explain why Ukraine will never willingly be a part of Russia again - just one example is the Holodomor - the deliberate starvation of millions of Ukrainians by Stalin during the period of forced collectivization.

You can read his delusional and self-serving account of history here - https://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

And before you agree with it, please read

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/vladimir-putins-revisionist-history-of-russia-and-ukraine/amp

and

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/01/28/putin-russia-ukraine-myths/

Each of which is by a noted scholar of Ukrainian history.

I think a lot of you guys could better spend your time reading books instead of posting on DCUM.

I think your argument is just as weak as the one you are responding to. None of you really know what's going on there, none. All you know is what you are shown, the info you have access to and what you are interested in learning. Confirmation bias is a big thing. Reality is you don't know what's going on in the head of ANY person, not to mention all the wheels in motion behind large scale world events and complex relationships. Even yourself you don't know how you would react in complex situations that will test your own system of beliefs. There is plenty of stuff out there to support any opinion or bias. The links you have, I can find you a 100 more confirming what you said and your opponent can find links confirming what she is arguing about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am heartened that a large majority of Americans - both democratic and Republican - agree with bans on Russian oil even if it means higher prices, which we are already seeing.

Well done Americans!

What other options are there?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Big Russia lacked the power to attack tiny Georgia prior to 2008? You really have thought about this deeply, haven't you?

All you are doing is speculating. That is all that any of us can do when it comes to reading Putin's mind.

The facts are not clear, in my view, as to whether the West's actions are motivating Putin to act, or whether we are responding to Putin's actions. It is a circle the feeds back on itself, round and round.

In regard to the latest chapter of this saga, the fact is that a US-Ukraine strategic partnership was signed on Nov 10, 2021, just prior to Putin's build up of troops on Ukraine's border. I think it is plausible that this partnership agreement motivated Putin's invasion of Ukraine. I'm not excusing Putin's actions. I'm just trying to make some guesses as to his logic. I don't believe by the idea that is trying to rebuild the USSR. I think he views his moves as a kind of pro-active form of defense against the West. But, just like you, I can't read his mind (although you seem to believe you have direct access to his thoughts).

Good lord, again the ignorance about Russia is astounding. No one has to guess at what Vladimir Putin is thinking. In July of 2021, he wrote an extensive treatise about what he thinks about the history of Russia and the lands that formerly were a part of Russia. The TL;DR version - Belarus, Ukraine and Russia are one people who have been evilly separated by others. Belarus and Ukraine must return to Russia in order to exercise their true sovereignty. (Never mind what the people of those countries have voted to do.).

Please note that Putin declines to talk about the historical aspects that explain why Ukraine will never willingly be a part of Russia again - just one example is the Holodomor - the deliberate starvation of millions of Ukrainians by Stalin during the period of forced collectivization.

You can read his delusional and self-serving account of history here - https://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

And before you agree with it, please read

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/vladimir-putins-revisionist-history-of-russia-and-ukraine/amp

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/01/28/putin-russia-ukraine-myths/

Each of which is by a noted scholar of Ukrainian history.

I think a lot of you guys could better spend your time reading books instead of posting on DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Big Russia lacked the power to attack tiny Georgia prior to 2008? You really have thought about this deeply, haven't you?

All you are doing is speculating. That is all that any of us can do when it comes to reading Putin's mind.

The facts are not clear, in my view, as to whether the West's actions are motivating Putin to act, or whether we are responding to Putin's actions. It is a circle the feeds back on itself, round and round.

In regard to the latest chapter of this saga, the fact is that a US-Ukraine strategic partnership was signed on Nov 10, 2021, just prior to Putin's build up of troops on Ukraine's border. I think it is plausible that this partnership agreement motivated Putin's invasion of Ukraine. I'm not excusing Putin's actions. I'm just trying to make some guesses as to his logic. I don't believe by the idea that is trying to rebuild the USSR. I think he views his moves as a kind of pro-active form of defense against the West. But, just like you, I can't read his mind (although you seem to believe you have direct access to his thoughts).

Good lord, again the ignorance about Russia is astounding. No one has to guess at what Vladimir Putin is thinking. In July of 2021, he wrote an extensive treatise about what he thinks about the history of Russia and the lands that formerly were a part of Russia. The TL;DR version - Belarus, Ukraine and Russia are one people who have been evilly separated by others. Belarus and Ukraine must return to Russia in order to exercise their true sovereignty. (Never mind what the people of those countries have voted to do.).

Please note that Putin declines to talk about the historical aspects that explain why Ukraine will never willingly be a part of Russia again - just one example is the Holodomor - the deliberate starvation of millions of Ukrainians by Stalin during the period of forced collectivization.

You can read his delusional and self-serving account of history here - https://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

And before you agree with it, please read

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/vladimir-putins-revisionist-history-of-russia-and-ukraine/amp

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/01/28/putin-russia-ukraine-myths/

Each of which is by a noted scholar of Ukrainian history.

I think a lot of you guys could better spend your time reading books instead of posting on DCUM.

I have read Putin's "historical unity" document. Your primary focus is on Putin's belief that Russians and Ukrainians are essentially one people. But you are failing to recognize the other primary emotion running through the document: a fear that the West is going to use Ukraine as a weapon against Russia. It is this fear, in my view, that has motivated many of Putin's aggressive moves. We would grow quite uncomfortable if Mexico were to develop a close relationship with Russia, particularly if that relationship carried the promise of future military help. It is natural to be fearful if one of your enemies is courting your next-door neighbor.

Suppose that the West did not exist. Suppose that NATO did not exist. Suppose that the only two counties on the planet were Russia and Ukraine. Do you believe that Putin would have invaded Ukraine? Of course, we can only guess, but my sense is that he would not have invaded. Putin's key motivating factor is not a desire to absorb Ukraine into Russia, but rather to deflect and dampen the influence of the West.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am heartened that a large majority of Americans - both democratic and Republican - agree with bans on Russian oil even if it means higher prices, which we are already seeing.

Well done Americans!

What other options are there?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Big Russia lacked the power to attack tiny Georgia prior to 2008? You really have thought about this deeply, haven't you?

All you are doing is speculating. That is all that any of us can do when it comes to reading Putin's mind.

The facts are not clear, in my view, as to whether the West's actions are motivating Putin to act, or whether we are responding to Putin's actions. It is a circle the feeds back on itself, round and round.

In regard to the latest chapter of this saga, the fact is that a US-Ukraine strategic partnership was signed on Nov 10, 2021, just prior to Putin's build up of troops on Ukraine's border. I think it is plausible that this partnership agreement motivated Putin's invasion of Ukraine. I'm not excusing Putin's actions. I'm just trying to make some guesses as to his logic. I don't believe by the idea that is trying to rebuild the USSR. I think he views his moves as a kind of pro-active form of defense against the West. But, just like you, I can't read his mind (although you seem to believe you have direct access to his thoughts).

Good lord, again the ignorance about Russia is astounding. No one has to guess at what Vladimir Putin is thinking. In July of 2021, he wrote an extensive treatise about what he thinks about the history of Russia and the lands that formerly were a part of Russia. The TL;DR version - Belarus, Ukraine and Russia are one people who have been evilly separated by others. Belarus and Ukraine must return to Russia in order to exercise their true sovereignty. (Never mind what the people of those countries have voted to do.).

Please note that Putin declines to talk about the historical aspects that explain why Ukraine will never willingly be a part of Russia again - just one example is the Holodomor - the deliberate starvation of millions of Ukrainians by Stalin during the period of forced collectivization.

You can read his delusional and self-serving account of history here - https://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

And before you agree with it, please read

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/vladimir-putins-revisionist-history-of-russia-and-ukraine/amp

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/01/28/putin-russia-ukraine-myths/

Each of which is by a noted scholar of Ukrainian history.

I think a lot of you guys could better spend your time reading books instead of posting on DCUM.

I have read Putin's "historical unity" document. Your primary focus is on Putin's belief that Russians and Ukrainians are essentially one people. But you are failing to recognize the other primary emotion running through the document: a fear that the West is going to use Ukraine as a weapon against Russia. It is this fear, in my view, that has motivated many of Putin's aggressive moves. We would grow quite uncomfortable if Mexico were to develop a close relationship with Russia, particularly if that relationship carried the promise of future military help. It is natural to be fearful if one of your enemies is courting your next-door neighbor.

Suppose that the West did not exist. Suppose that NATO did not exist. Suppose that the only two counties on the planet were Russia and Ukraine. Do you believe that Putin would have invaded Ukraine? Of course, we can only guess, but my sense is that he would not have invaded. Putin's key motivating factor is not a desire to absorb Ukraine into Russia, but rather to deflect and dampen the influence of the West.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m trying to figure out what next?

When will sanctions will impact the economy? Right now life goes on as usual in Russia. The cards are working until tomorrow.

According to my sources in Moscow, stores have produce, products. They don’t feel amy impact except for people who lost their job and people who lost their savings in $$.

Unemployment is looming in some industries for sure as Russia had been cut off. I don't think their population will starve or go cold due to lack of natural resources, but they may have something akin to our Great Depression.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.