Russia begins invasion of Ukraine

[hometeam]

Here's the guy the idiot @hometeam says is wrong.

The video is from 2015 and it seems like he's predicted the future that Washington involvement in Ukraine would lead us to exactly where we are now.

His prediction...our present.

But, but...the idiot says nobody in Washington agrees with this guy either


View: https://twitter.com/Glenn_Diesen/status/1637809705522192394?t=8zRWOh3W8RichGFG9-uR7A&s=19

And now you're posting a video of Professor John Mearsheimer after I've brought him up 9 times now. The last time I brought him up, you said:
"Not just mearshimer, whoever the fuck that is."

Russia begins invasion of Ukraine

It'd be one thing if you had any info. Nothing you say, isn't said better and more often on CNN MSNBC and the rest of the Washington DC/DNC propoganda networks on a daily basis. Literally 20 minutes of watching MSNBC will sum up your entire opinions on just about anything You're in this √...

thinksteroids.com

It's the guy in the video you just posted, dummy.

And I said that's the problem, you're using Mearsheimer's argument and don't even know who he his, and you're twisting it to say things he wouldn't say. It's because instead of going directly to the source you're getting it from a tweet by a guy who works for Russian RT TV. What Mearsheimer says most people don't agree with but it does hold up to scrutiny, you can't say he has no evidence or it is false - unlike what you're saying.

You can find a 90 minute debate with him and 3 other people here and it's fascinating stuff:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhgWLmd7mCo


What he says is Putin saw NATO expansion as a threat, and it doesn't matter if it really is that's how he sees it. He says that Russia saw Ukraine becoming NATO as a red line, and a memo from William Burns to Condoleeza Rice in 2008 shows some in the govt knew that. And he says that Russia is a great power and has it's spheres of influence, that we took that away and made him angry. He says that Putin is like a bear and if you anger him he can't help himself but attack.

But, his whole argument falls apart once you realize Ukraine wasn't getting into NATO. Their application was denied. When Russia grabbed Crimea in 2014 and armed the separatist militias it was actually written in their constitution they are neutral. And Putin had been assured many times by many people Ukraine wasn't getting into NATO any time soon, especially by the Germans. Also, idealists argue that sovereign countries decide for themselves which groups to join.

Now, the problem is that you take his argument and you say Biden and his corporate handlers wanted this war and they intentionally caused it, and Russia is justified. You see the difference? Your version you have no evidence for and doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Mearsheimer would never say that. But Mearsheimer's version doesn't fit your agenda.

 

[Hughinn]

Notice he never predicted a Russian invasion of Ukraine, because that couldn't be predicted. In fact even when their tanks were lined up at the border most people (outside the CIA) thought they weren't invading. He did say Ukraine will get wrecked though, which is pretty easy for him to say a year after Russia annexed Crimea and started arming separatist militias in the Donbas.

What Mearsheimer is saying there in 2015 is if we encourage the Ukrainians to play tough with Russia, Russia will win. Ultimately there was a 2015 debate in the Obama administration where he came to the same conclusion and instead of starting an arms race in Ukraine he hit Russia with sanctions.

So, former ambassador to Ukraine William Burns talks about that here:

View: https://youtu.be/yOTx7HxVDsM?t=2854
"There was a debate within the Obama administration, and the concern was that if we provide these weapons, somehow the Russians would be provoked, and they might do things that we didn’t want them to do, was the argument from the Obama administration. I say the Obama administration, but it really was—it was really opposed—the provision of Javelins was opposed at the top.

So the Obama administration, to the end of that administration, did not provide Javelins to the Ukrainians. " - William Burns

And Secretary of State Antony Blinken talks about that here:

View: https://youtu.be/2jXLcCrLrh4?t=1540
"But Obama led this very systematic, determined effort to, in a sense, go at the problem asymmetrically ourselves. That is to say, it made no sense for us, from Obama’s perspective, to try to confront the Russians directly, militarily in Ukraine. They were there; we were not. They could amass force much more significantly than we could. Ukraine was not a NATO member.

The soft underbelly for Russia in Ukraine was not military; it was economic. Hence the sanctions; hence the effort by the United States to lead Europe in imposing very significant sanctions on Russia that made it pay a real price for its adventurism in Ukraine." -Antony Blinken

He also goes on to say this:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

"It was a very tough and close call. This was something that was deliberated and debated multiple times, at all levels of the administration and National Security Council, including with the president. On the one hand, some of us believed that it did make sense to give the Ukrainians lethal defensive weapons, particularly anti-tank weapons, because at that point, one of the most dangerous things being used against the Ukrainian soldiers were tanks that the Russians were providing to the separatists, or in some cases actually using themselves, and against which the Ukrainians didn’t have an effective defense.

The argument was that if they had these anti-tank weapons in their hands, they could start to do a lot of damage, defend themselves, but also do damage and maybe create a bit of a disincentive for the Russians to continue to do this, because the Russians would start to lose forces, and they’d have to explain that back home. So that was one argument.

The other argument was that if we started to get into a tit-for-tat with Russia on military grounds, that it would start to spiral up—we would put in more weapons, they would put in more weapons; we’d try to match it, they would surmount that—and that that was going to be a losing game for us, because for Russia, this was really existential, or at least for Putin it was existential. And they were there; we weren’t. They were right on the border. It was very easy for them to get a lot of force in very quickly. We were always going to be behind in that game.

… What made the most sense was not to get into a military tit-for-tat that spiraled up but rather to go at the soft underbelly, which was Russia’s economy. At the end of the day, that’s where President Obama came out. I think Europeans, including [German] Chancellor [Angela] Merkel, thought that that was the best direction to go in, but it was an ongoing argument within the administration." -Antony Blinken

Now there are some people today who say we should've armed Ukraine enough to beat these rebels, because this civil war in Ukraine's Donbas area wouldn't have lasted 8 years, there wouldn't have been the atrocities and outrage, wouldn't be so much animosity or hate. But Mearsheimer argued in 2015 that if we send javelins and heavy equipment, the Russians will just keep escalating and it's not something we can win. And Obama came to the same conclusion.

In hindsight, you can say Mearsheimer and Obama was probably wrong not to arm the Ukrainians more, because Putin invaded anyway once it became clear these militias weren't going to overthrow the govt in Kiev and install a Russian dictator. However, what that 8 year war did was solidify Ukraine's identity as a nation and radicalize their opposition to Russia.

In other words, the guy was absolutely right that starting shit with Russia over Ukraine would get the Ukrainian people slaughtered and Washington slapped across the face.

Diplomacy would have benefitted everyone much better.

His prediction....our present.

Your bullshit propoganda doesn't change anything

 

[hometeam]

In other words, the guy was absolutely right that starting shit with Russia over Ukraine would get the Ukrainian people slaughtered and Washington slapped across the face.

Diplomacy would have benefitted everyone much better.

His prediction....our present.

Your bullshit propoganda doesn't change anything

In my opinion, Mearsheimer's argument is pretty damning of the US govt as it is. He accuses the US govt of provoking Russia, whether intentional or unintentional and whether the correct response is an invasion or not. That's pretty critical of the US.

You shouldn't have to twist it any further to say something like he predicted what we were doing would lead exactly where we are today, and warned us not to yet we did it anyway knowing full well this would happen. You shouldn't need to spin reality into fantasy, just to make a case to vote for the other guy. If you can't make an argument with objective evidence and facts like he does, then maybe you shouldn't be making the case you're making.

He's been making the case all along that taking away Ukraine's 1,200 nuclear warheads in 1994 would lead to Russia attacking them:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060527205728/http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0020.pdf

 

[Hughinn]

Notice he never predicted a Russian invasion of Ukraine, because that couldn't be predicted. In fact even when their tanks were lined up at the border most people (outside the CIA) thought they weren't invading. He did say Ukraine will get wrecked though, which is pretty easy for him to say a year after Russia annexed Crimea and started arming separatist militias in the Donbas.

What Mearsheimer is saying there in 2015 is if we encourage the Ukrainians to play tough with Russia, Russia will win. Ultimately there was a 2015 debate in the Obama administration where he came to the same conclusion and instead of starting an arms race in Ukraine he hit Russia with sanctions.

So, former ambassador to Ukraine William Burns talks about that here:

View: https://youtu.be/yOTx7HxVDsM?t=2854
"There was a debate within the Obama administration, and the concern was that if we provide these weapons, somehow the Russians would be provoked, and they might do things that we didn’t want them to do, was the argument from the Obama administration. I say the Obama administration, but it really was—it was really opposed—the provision of Javelins was opposed at the top.

So the Obama administration, to the end of that administration, did not provide Javelins to the Ukrainians. " - William Burns

And Secretary of State Antony Blinken talks about that here:

View: https://youtu.be/2jXLcCrLrh4?t=1540
"But Obama led this very systematic, determined effort to, in a sense, go at the problem asymmetrically ourselves. That is to say, it made no sense for us, from Obama’s perspective, to try to confront the Russians directly, militarily in Ukraine. They were there; we were not. They could amass force much more significantly than we could. Ukraine was not a NATO member.

The soft underbelly for Russia in Ukraine was not military; it was economic. Hence the sanctions; hence the effort by the United States to lead Europe in imposing very significant sanctions on Russia that made it pay a real price for its adventurism in Ukraine." -Antony Blinken

He also goes on to say this:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

"It was a very tough and close call. This was something that was deliberated and debated multiple times, at all levels of the administration and National Security Council, including with the president. On the one hand, some of us believed that it did make sense to give the Ukrainians lethal defensive weapons, particularly anti-tank weapons, because at that point, one of the most dangerous things being used against the Ukrainian soldiers were tanks that the Russians were providing to the separatists, or in some cases actually using themselves, and against which the Ukrainians didn’t have an effective defense.

The argument was that if they had these anti-tank weapons in their hands, they could start to do a lot of damage, defend themselves, but also do damage and maybe create a bit of a disincentive for the Russians to continue to do this, because the Russians would start to lose forces, and they’d have to explain that back home. So that was one argument.

The other argument was that if we started to get into a tit-for-tat with Russia on military grounds, that it would start to spiral up—we would put in more weapons, they would put in more weapons; we’d try to match it, they would surmount that—and that that was going to be a losing game for us, because for Russia, this was really existential, or at least for Putin it was existential. And they were there; we weren’t. They were right on the border. It was very easy for them to get a lot of force in very quickly. We were always going to be behind in that game.

… What made the most sense was not to get into a military tit-for-tat that spiraled up but rather to go at the soft underbelly, which was Russia’s economy. At the end of the day, that’s where President Obama came out. I think Europeans, including [German] Chancellor [Angela] Merkel, thought that that was the best direction to go in, but it was an ongoing argument within the administration." -Antony Blinken

Now there are some people today who say we should've armed Ukraine enough to beat these rebels, because this civil war in Ukraine's Donbas area wouldn't have lasted 8 years, there wouldn't have been the atrocities and outrage, wouldn't be so much animosity or hate. But Mearsheimer argued in 2015 that if we send javelins and heavy equipment, the Russians will just keep escalating and it's not something we can win. And Obama came to the same conclusion.

In hindsight, you can say Mearsheimer and Obama was probably wrong not to arm the Ukrainians more, because Putin invaded anyway once it became clear these militias weren't going to overthrow the govt in Kiev and install a Russian dictator. However, what that 8 year war did was solidify Ukraine's identity as a nation and radicalize their opposition to Russia.

In other words, the guy was absolutely right that starting shit with Russia over Ukraine would get the Ukrainian people slaughtered and Washington slapped across the face.

Diplomacy would have benefitted everyone much better.

His prediction....our present.

Your bullshit propoganda doesn't change

And in my opinion, Mearsheimer's argument is pretty damning of the US govt as it is. He accuses the US govt of provoking Russia, whether intentional or unintentional and whether the correct response is an invasion or not. That's pretty critical of the US.

You should have to twist it any further to say something like he predicted what we were doing would lead exactly where we are today, and warned us not to yet we did it anyway knowing full well this would happen. You shouldn't need to spin reality into fantasy, just to make a case to vote for the other guy. If you can't make an argument with objective evidence and facts like he does, then maybe you shouldn't be making the case you're making.

He's been making the case all along that taking away Ukraine's 1,200 nuclear warheads in 1994 would lead to Russia attacking them:

Wayback Machine

web.archive.org

In my opinion, Mearsheimer's argument is pretty damning of the US govt as it is. He accuses the US govt of provoking Russia, whether intentional or unintentional and whether the correct response is an invasion or not. That's pretty critical of the US.

You shouldn't have to twist it any further to say something like he predicted what we were doing would lead exactly where we are today, and warned us not to yet we did it anyway knowing full well this would happen. You shouldn't need to spin reality into fantasy, just to make a case to vote for the other guy. If you can't make an argument with objective evidence and facts like he does, then maybe you shouldn't be making the case you're making.

He's been making the case all along that taking away Ukraine's 1,200 nuclear warheads in 1994 would lead to Russia attacking them:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060527205728/http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0020.pdf

You're opinion means exactly jack shit.

And nothing you've said at any point hasn't been said better on CNN

 

[Hughinn]

Notice he never predicted a Russian invasion of Ukraine, because that couldn't be predicted. In fact even when their tanks were lined up at the border most people (outside the CIA) thought they weren't invading. He did say Ukraine will get wrecked though, which is pretty easy for him to say a year after Russia annexed Crimea and started arming separatist militias in the Donbas.

What Mearsheimer is saying there in 2015 is if we encourage the Ukrainians to play tough with Russia, Russia will win. Ultimately there was a 2015 debate in the Obama administration where he came to the same conclusion and instead of starting an arms race in Ukraine he hit Russia with sanctions.

So, former ambassador to Ukraine William Burns talks about that here:

View: https://youtu.be/yOTx7HxVDsM?t=2854
"There was a debate within the Obama administration, and the concern was that if we provide these weapons, somehow the Russians would be provoked, and they might do things that we didn’t want them to do, was the argument from the Obama administration. I say the Obama administration, but it really was—it was really opposed—the provision of Javelins was opposed at the top.

So the Obama administration, to the end of that administration, did not provide Javelins to the Ukrainians. " - William Burns

And Secretary of State Antony Blinken talks about that here:

View: https://youtu.be/2jXLcCrLrh4?t=1540
"But Obama led this very systematic, determined effort to, in a sense, go at the problem asymmetrically ourselves. That is to say, it made no sense for us, from Obama’s perspective, to try to confront the Russians directly, militarily in Ukraine. They were there; we were not. They could amass force much more significantly than we could. Ukraine was not a NATO member.

The soft underbelly for Russia in Ukraine was not military; it was economic. Hence the sanctions; hence the effort by the United States to lead Europe in imposing very significant sanctions on Russia that made it pay a real price for its adventurism in Ukraine." -Antony Blinken

He also goes on to say this:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

"It was a very tough and close call. This was something that was deliberated and debated multiple times, at all levels of the administration and National Security Council, including with the president. On the one hand, some of us believed that it did make sense to give the Ukrainians lethal defensive weapons, particularly anti-tank weapons, because at that point, one of the most dangerous things being used against the Ukrainian soldiers were tanks that the Russians were providing to the separatists, or in some cases actually using themselves, and against which the Ukrainians didn’t have an effective defense.

The argument was that if they had these anti-tank weapons in their hands, they could start to do a lot of damage, defend themselves, but also do damage and maybe create a bit of a disincentive for the Russians to continue to do this, because the Russians would start to lose forces, and they’d have to explain that back home. So that was one argument.

The other argument was that if we started to get into a tit-for-tat with Russia on military grounds, that it would start to spiral up—we would put in more weapons, they would put in more weapons; we’d try to match it, they would surmount that—and that that was going to be a losing game for us, because for Russia, this was really existential, or at least for Putin it was existential. And they were there; we weren’t. They were right on the border. It was very easy for them to get a lot of force in very quickly. We were always going to be behind in that game.

… What made the most sense was not to get into a military tit-for-tat that spiraled up but rather to go at the soft underbelly, which was Russia’s economy. At the end of the day, that’s where President Obama came out. I think Europeans, including [German] Chancellor [Angela] Merkel, thought that that was the best direction to go in, but it was an ongoing argument within the administration." -Antony Blinken

Now there are some people today who say we should've armed Ukraine enough to beat these rebels, because this civil war in Ukraine's Donbas area wouldn't have lasted 8 years, there wouldn't have been the atrocities and outrage, wouldn't be so much animosity or hate. But Mearsheimer argued in 2015 that if we send javelins and heavy equipment, the Russians will just keep escalating and it's not something we can win. And Obama came to the same conclusion.

In hindsight, you can say Mearsheimer and Obama was probably wrong not to arm the Ukrainians more, because Putin invaded anyway once it became clear these militias weren't going to overthrow the govt in Kiev and install a Russian dictator. However, what that 8 year war did was solidify Ukraine's identity as a nation and radicalize their opposition to Russia.

In other words, the guy was absolutely right that starting shit with Russia over Ukraine would get the Ukrainian people slaughtered and Washington slapped across the face.

Diplomacy would have benefitted everyone much better.

His prediction....our present.

Your bullshit propoganda doesn't change

And in my opinion, Mearsheimer's argument is pretty damning of the US govt as it is. He accuses the US govt of provoking Russia, whether intentional or unintentional and whether the correct response is an invasion or not. That's pretty critical of the US.

It should be critical of Washington. Because Washington created it.

Knowing full well what the consequences would be

You should have to twist it any further to say something like he predicted what we were doing would lead exactly where we are today, and warned us not to yet we did it anyway knowing full well this would happen. You shouldn't need to spin reality into fantasy, just to make a case to vote for the other guy. If you can't make an argument with objective evidence and facts like he does, then maybe you shouldn't be making the case you're making.

No need to twist anything.

He predicted exactly this outcome if Washington pushed it's reckless political agenda.

They did anyway, and it happened just like he said it would.

Twist that shit anyway you want.

It doesn't change anything

He's been making the case all along that taking away Ukraine's 1,200 nuclear warheads in 1994 would lead to Russia attacking them:

Wayback Machine

web.archive.org

In my opinion, Mearsheimer's argument is pretty damning of the US govt as it is. He accuses the US govt of provoking Russia, whether intentional or unintentional and whether the correct response is an invasion or not. That's pretty critical of the US.

You shouldn't have to twist it any further to say something like he predicted what we were doing would lead exactly where we are today, and warned us not to yet we did it anyway knowing full well this would happen. You shouldn't need to spin reality into fantasy, just to make a case to vote for the other guy. If you can't make an argument with objective evidence and facts like he does, then maybe you shouldn't be making the case you're making.

He's been making the case all along that taking away Ukraine's 1,200 nuclear warheads in 1994 would lead to Russia attacking them:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060527205728/http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0020.pdf

Your opinion means exactly jack shit.

And nothing you've said at any point hasn't been said better on cnn.

Nothing about it, has been remotely close to reality.

Which just goes to show how stupid you are

 

[hometeam]

In other words, the guy was absolutely right that starting shit with Russia over Ukraine would get the Ukrainian people slaughtered and Washington slapped across the face.

That's the problem. That's not what he says. That's what your guy who works for RT says and your libertarian radio show host says by twisting his argument. He's saying there in 2015 if we encourage Ukrainians to get tough with Russia it won't end well for them, well duh. And Obama deliberately withheld weapons in 2015 to Ukraine that they needed so that we would not "start shit" with Russia. And they had diplomacy and a ceasefire in 2015.

 

[Hughinn]

That's the problem. That's not what he says. That's what your guy who works for RT says and your libertarian radio show host says by twisting his argument. He's saying there in 2015 if we encourage Ukrainians to get tough with Russia it won't end well for them, well duh. And Obama deliberately withheld weapons in 2015 to Ukraine that they needed so that we would not "start shit" with Russia. And they had diplomacy and a ceasefire in 2015.

Lmfao...

In other words, they were careful not to start shit with Russia, until Joe Biden and his handlers overthrew the Ukrainian government and began pushing for NATO membership.

Fucking exactly what mearshimer said would get Ukraine's ass kicked and Washington slapped in the face.

And yes, they faked diplomacy to buy time to prepare Ukraine for an ass kicking.

Merkel Admits Minsk Agreement Was To Trick Russia | Armstrong Economics

Merkel has basically said that the Minsk Agreement was to buy time for Ukraine to build up its army and never was there any intention of allowing the Russians

www.armstrongeconomics.com

Go figure.

You're a stupid person. Why do you persist in making yourself look stupid to give audience to other stupid people?

 

[Hughinn]

@hometeam idiot....

"Nobody thinks mearshimer was right"

Also @hometeam
"Mearshimer was right but your twisting his meaning"

What a fukkin joke

Where's the other idiot @NorthMich ?

Go on now, cheer on this idiot. Show everyone he's not the dumbest mutherfukker here....you are.

 

[hometeam]

Lmfao...

In other words, they were careful not to start shit with Russia, until Joe Biden and his handlers overthrew the Ukrainian government and began pushing for NATO membership.

Fucking exactly what mearshimer said would get Ukraine's ass kicked and Washington slapped in the face.

And yes, they faked diplomacy to buy time to prepare Ukraine for an ass kicking.

Merkel Admits Minsk Agreement Was To Trick Russia | Armstrong Economics

Merkel has basically said that the Minsk Agreement was to buy time for Ukraine to build up its army and never was there any intention of allowing the Russians

www.armstrongeconomics.com

Go figure.

You're a stupid person. Why do you persist in making yourself look stupid to give audience to other stupid people?

And now you start injecting your unproven conspiracies and fantasies. Why can't you just work with fact based evidence and reality like Mearsheimer does and say we probably angered Putin a bit too much and a big dumb bear attacks when he's angry? Most people don't agree with it but it's a compelling argument. Even Putin admits he has "teeth and claws." Notice in Mearsheimer's 90 minute debate he doesn't talk about coups and handlers, doesn't even mention your nemesis Biden. No one would take him seriously.

Ya know, you could probably make the argument that sending Ukraine any help whatsoever was provocative. And that if those militias had overthrown the government in Kiev, Russia wouldn't have needed to invade. We've been more hawkish on Russia than say, Germany has. You could say the sanctions were a provocation. Containing Russian expansion provokes them. As well as toppling dictators like Hussein, Ghaddafi, Milosevic... our very existence and values provokes Putin/Russia. But that doesn't mean he had no choice but to invade Ukraine.

We were never going to let Putin topple the democratically elected West friendly government in Ukraine and replace it with a Russian dictator and Putin loyalist, not if we can help it. Not then and not now. The last thing we wanted was this invasion but we got lucky and Russia wasn't nearly as strong as we thought they were.

Julia Ioffe puts it well when she says:

View: https://youtu.be/qEu0oRajJxE?t=3511

"Putin is shocked by the resistance his army’s meeting on the ground. And he is shocked by his army’s performance. I think he didn’t realize that the corruption that had eaten away at everything in Russian society had also eaten away at the core of his army; that everybody had been stealing and lying inside the army and the FSB, too."

 

[Big_paul]

Nice try. Hugh would never accept Julia Ioffe. She makes sense. I like her view on the trump -putin dynamic.

Where's the other idiot @NorthMich ?

You have a wingman I've noticed. He has interesting views on the holocaust, Kim Jong-un, the use of nuclear weapons to end the second world war and the bombing of Dresden.

 

[hometeam]

Nice try. Hugh would never accept Julia Ioffe. She makes sense. I like her view on the trump -putin dynamic.

You have a wingman I've noticed. He has interesting views on the holocaust, Kim Jong-un, the use of nuclear weapons to end the second world war and the bombing of Dresden.

It is an interesting thought experiment about what Trump would do about Ukraine if he was still President. Remember, he was the one who sent javelin and stinger missiles not Obama, but they made the Ukrainians store them in the West far away from the Donbas and the Minsk accords were in place. And he was trying to look strong on Russia because of the Steele Dossier and accusations he was compromised. Ukraine would be Russia now if not for that though. No question about it.

He also pulled out of the intermediate missile treaty, but threatened to withhold Ukraine's aid if they didn't investigate Joe Biden's son. He criticized NATO for relying on the US for security while not spending enough of their own money on defense, which was seen as weakening NATO relations but probably helped us in aiding Ukraine.

But Putin thought this would all be over so quickly that no President could do anything.

John Bolton had some interesting things to says about this:

View: https://youtu.be/KT7n1VOgNq0?t=1565
"Well, there are a lot of aspects of American policy. The most important thing to understand is that Trump doesn’t do policy, that that’s not how he approached dealing with foreign leaders, particularly adversaries. It was, what was his personal relationship with Vladimir Putin in this case? And he believed that he had a good personal relationship with Vladimir Putin, that the United States and Russia had a good relationship.

Now, I’m not discounting the importance of personal relationships, but Vladimir Putin is as clear-eyed and cold-blooded as any foreign leader I have ever seen. He knows exactly what he thinks Russia’s national interest is, and he pursues it unrelentingly. So confronted with Donald Trump, this is like an open field in front of a football player carrying the football. And I think Trump never understood that, never understood what the nature of Putin’s game was. And we should all be thankful that Putin wasn’t more adventurous than he turned out to be. "

He also said about the javelin:
"And Trump himself would boast about it, because he could say, “We’re supplying Javelins to Ukraine, and the Obama administration different.” Anytime you could convince Trump he was doing something Obama hadn’t, forget the policy reasons for it, it was a good argument to make."

 

[Hughinn]

Nice try. Hugh would never accept Julia Ioffe. She makes sense. I like her view on the trump -putin dynamic.

You have a wingman I've noticed. He has interesting views on the holocaust, Kim Jong-un, the use of nuclear weapons to end the second world war and the bombing of Dresden.

Oh yeah the stupid ivy league, establishment toadie bitch that claimed Trump was a Russian asset makes sense to you. Because she tells you how corrupt the Russian military might be. (Obviously she's never actually been in the Russian military)


But war veteran and military leader Colonel macgregor telling you how corrupt and inept our own military is doesn't make sense you (obviously macgregor HAS been in the US military)

Go figure.

Good one Paul. Good one

And God forbid someone has some kind of "interesting views" that might deviate from the popular narrative.

 

[Hughinn]

And now you start injecting your unproven conspiracies and fantasies. Why can't you just work with fact based evidence and reality like Mearsheimer does and say we probably angered Putin a bit too much and a big dumb bear attacks when he's angry? Most people don't agree with it but it's a compelling argument. Even Putin admits he has "teeth and claws." Notice in Mearsheimer's 90 minute debate he doesn't talk about coups and handlers, doesn't even mention your nemesis Biden. No one would take him seriously.

Ya know, you could probably make the argument that sending Ukraine any help whatsoever was provocative. And that if those militias had overthrown the government in Kiev, Russia wouldn't have needed to invade. We've been more hawkish on Russia than say, Germany has. You could say the sanctions were a provocation. Containing Russian expansion provokes them. As well as toppling dictators like Hussein, Ghaddafi, Milosevic... our very existence and values provokes Putin/Russia. But that doesn't mean he had no choice but to invade Ukraine.

We were never going to let Putin topple the democratically elected West friendly government in Ukraine and replace it with a Russian dictator and Putin loyalist, not if we can help it. Not then and not now. The last thing we wanted was this invasion but we got lucky and Russia wasn't nearly as strong as we thought they were.

Julia Ioffe puts it well when she says:

View: https://youtu.be/qEu0oRajJxE?t=3511

"Putin is shocked by the resistance his army’s meeting on the ground. And he is shocked by his army’s performance. I think he didn’t realize that the corruption that had eaten away at everything in Russian society had also eaten away at the core of his army; that everybody had been stealing and lying inside the army and the FSB, too."

In other words, the stealing, lying and corruption of our own military is not unique, Russia has a similar problem. Most large militaries do.

Well fuckin duh

You and @Big_paul needed to be told that after watching a twenty years long money pit in Afghanistan where trillions of dollars went missing and put US military equipment on the black market ended in a humiliating defeat?

Such intellectual juggernauts. Very impressive

 

[Hughinn]

Now that @hometeam has made himself look stupid...... again

Que another long assed copy and paste propoganda feed full of the same old shit taken directly from CNN archived propoganda vaults

3....2...1

 

[Hughinn]

I'll just leave this and let anybody with rationally driven thought decide who makes sense

Listen to what he's saying. Then contrast it to the woman on CNN posted above.

I've listened carefully to both, unlike our resident idiot @hometeam

Obviously the woman isn't all wrong, because obviously Russia miscalculated badly in the very beginning. That's obvious.

The rest of what she says strikes me as horseshit.

Now here's macgregor


View: https://youtu.be/n2S5o5qTpFs

 

[hometeam]

I'll just leave this and let anybody with rationally driven thought decide who makes sense

Listen to what he's saying. Then contrast it to the woman on CNN posted above.

I've listened carefully to both, unlike our resident idiot @hometeam

Obviously the woman isn't all wrong, because obviously Russia miscalculated badly in the very beginning. That's obvious.

The rest of what she says strikes me as horseshit.

Now here's macgregor


View: https://youtu.be/n2S5o5qTpFs

Your libertarian colonel's theme, that he's been promoting for about a year now, is that Russia's military really is as strong as we thought they are. And he's always saying they've got something else up their sleeve that will change their fortunes, whether it's the mobilization bringing extra troops or more artillery rounds are coming or hitting infrastructure or they're holding back or whatever. No one his rank or higher in any military agrees with him.

After a year of war -- Russia losing at Kiev, Kharkiv, and Kherson -- the mobilization, the winter where nobody gained ground, the Spring offensive now culminating, and probably 150,000 Russian casualties, we know he's wrong. You can't sit there and still say Russia is as strong as we thought they were, there's a point where you objectively have to say he's full of crap but MacGregor is a guy who never got promoted because he won't admit when he's wrong.

General Ben Hodges and General Mark Hertling commanded US Army Europe when there was a period of friendship and cooperation with Russia with the NATO-Russia joint council. As Hertling says:
"Over the course of nearly four decades, I spent a lot of time either engaging or working with the two armies now engaged in a bitter struggle in Ukraine. I met their leaders, observed their maneuvers, and watched their development closely either up close or through reading intelligence reports. Strangely, one memory that stands out had more to do with trumpets and rim-shots than tanks and rifles."

I Commanded U.S. Army Europe. Here's What I Saw in the Russian and Ukrainian Armies.

The two armies at war today couldn’t be more different.

www.thebulwark.com

They say the corruption in both the Ukrainian and Russia militaries was unbelievable, but the Ukrainians were more willing to reform. And Russia's military reminded them of a potemkin village, whose sole purpose is to provide an external façade to a country that is faring poorly, making people believe that the country is faring better. Everything about Russia's military was all show and no substance, so this performance comes as no surprise to them.

"The Russian barracks were spartan, with twenty beds lined up in a large room similar to what the U.S. Army had during World War II. The food in their mess halls was terrible. The Russian “training and exercises” we observed were not opportunities to improve capabilities or skills, but rote demonstrations, with little opportunity for maneuver or imagination. The military college classroom where a group of middle- and senior-ranking officers conducted a regimental map exercise was rudimentary, with young soldiers manning radio-telephones relaying orders to imaginary units in some imaginary field location. On the motor pool visit, I was able to crawl into a T-80 tank—it was cramped, dirty, and in poor repair—and even fire a few rounds in a very primitive simulator."

"their staged maneuvers, lack of leadership development, absence of a logistics plan to support operations, inability to coordinate and conduct air-ground-sea joint operations and continued use of conscript soldiers in critical missions—all indicate a larger failure to modernize their army"
"I later learned Chirkin did not keep his promises, partially because Putin fired him in December 2013. He had been convicted on bribery charges (accused of taking a bribe from a subordinate officer who asked for help in getting a Moscow apartment from the Defense Ministry), stripped of his rank and most of his state awards, and sentenced to five years in a labor colony."

I Commanded U.S. Army Europe. Here's What I Saw in the Russian and Ukrainian Armies.

The two armies at war today couldn’t be more different.

www.thebulwark.com

What Russia has found is the plates from bulletproof vests have been stolen, the imaging scopes and explosive/reactive tiles from tanks have been stolen, equipment hasn't been maintained and lied about, and so on...

 

[Hughinn]

Your libertarian colonel's theme, that he's been promoting for about a year now, is that Russia's military really is as strong as we thought they are. And he's always saying they've got something else up their sleeve that will change their fortunes, whether it's the mobilization bringing extra troops or more artillery rounds are coming or hitting infrastructure or they're holding back or whatever. No one his rank or higher in any military agrees with him.

After a year of war -- Russia losing at Kiev, Kharkiv, and Kherson -- the mobilization, the winter where nobody gained ground, the Spring offensive now culminating, and probably 150,000 Russian casualties, we know he's wrong. You can't sit there and still say Russia is as strong as we thought they were, there's a point where you objectively have to say he's full of crap but MacGregor is a guy who never got promoted because he won't admit when he's wrong.

General Ben Hodges and General Mark Hertling commanded US Army Europe when there was a period of friendship and cooperation with Russia with the NATO-Russia joint council. As Hertling says:
"Over the course of nearly four decades, I spent a lot of time either engaging or working with the two armies now engaged in a bitter struggle in Ukraine. I met their leaders, observed their maneuvers, and watched their development closely either up close or through reading intelligence reports. Strangely, one memory that stands out had more to do with trumpets and rim-shots than tanks and rifles."

I Commanded U.S. Army Europe. Here's What I Saw in the Russian and Ukrainian Armies.

The two armies at war today couldn’t be more different.

www.thebulwark.com

They say the corruption in both the Ukrainian and Russia militaries was unbelievable, but the Ukrainians were more willing to reform. And Russia's military reminded them of a potemkin village, whose sole purpose is to provide an external façade to a country that is faring poorly, making people believe that the country is faring better. Everything about Russia's military was all show and no substance, so this performance comes as no surprise to them.

"The Russian barracks were spartan, with twenty beds lined up in a large room similar to what the U.S. Army had during World War II. The food in their mess halls was terrible. The Russian “training and exercises” we observed were not opportunities to improve capabilities or skills, but rote demonstrations, with little opportunity for maneuver or imagination. The military college classroom where a group of middle- and senior-ranking officers conducted a regimental map exercise was rudimentary, with young soldiers manning radio-telephones relaying orders to imaginary units in some imaginary field location. On the motor pool visit, I was able to crawl into a T-80 tank—it was cramped, dirty, and in poor repair—and even fire a few rounds in a very primitive simulator."

"their staged maneuvers, lack of leadership development, absence of a logistics plan to support operations, inability to coordinate and conduct air-ground-sea joint operations and continued use of conscript soldiers in critical missions—all indicate a larger failure to modernize their army"
"I later learned Chirkin did not keep his promises, partially because Putin fired him in December 2013. He had been convicted on bribery charges (accused of taking a bribe from a subordinate officer who asked for help in getting a Moscow apartment from the Defense Ministry), stripped of his rank and most of his state awards, and sentenced to five years in a labor colony."

I Commanded U.S. Army Europe. Here's What I Saw in the Russian and Ukrainian Armies.

The two armies at war today couldn’t be more different.

www.thebulwark.com

What Russia has found is the plates from bulletproof vests have been stolen, the imaging scopes and explosive/reactive tiles from tanks have been stolen, equipment hasn't been maintained and lied about, and so on...

You missed the entire point, and posted a bunch of bullshit propoganda just like a stupid person would.

I'm not arguing semantics over the strength of the Russian military. It's not the point, and never was.

Irregardless of your horseshit propoganda and relentless denial of the facts. Ukraine is losing, they're being pounded into dust and their army has been destroyed at least twice now.

So you can puss and moan like a little bitch with hurt feelings all you want. I don't care. And I'm not interested in arguing petty details about either army other than to say that Ukraine cannot win.

If Washington gave a damn about the ukranian people, they would have prevented this from even happening. but now that it has, and Ukraine is being pounded into rubble, they should be trying to end this now with diplomacy that could at least save something of the Ukrainian people.

You've showed openly that you don't give a damn about their suffering as long as it helps Washington and hurts Russia.

Well it's hurt Russia and devastated Ukraine. That's the facts

Enough already.

And if you really have a damn about the future of the regime in Washington and it's standing in the world, you would understand that in the eyes of much of the world, Russia by itself has defeated the mighty NATO alliance in Ukraine on a world stage. They will be taking notes and sharpening thier own swords now more than ever as the US banking system crashes.

 

[Hughinn]

And as far as your petty insults of Colonel macgregor, your wrong.
Nobody in Washington openly admits to agreeing with him maybe. And maybe not even in NATO.

But Washington/NATO are losing, and much of the world outside of the bubble does agree with him.

Countries who are rising, like China, Brazil, India and others are lining up to do business with Russia. Because Washington's stupid decisions and policies are making Russia out to be heroes of much of the world

Thier arrogance and ignorance has got them into a mess they're not going to get out of without losing face and respect. Not to mention trade and cooperation from the world outside of the bubble

 

[Fautquejyaille]

Nice try. Hugh would never accept Julia Ioffe. She makes sense. I like her view on the trump -putin dynamic.

You have a wingman I've noticed. He has interesting views on the holocaust, Kim Jong-un, the use of nuclear weapons to end the second world war and the bombing of Dresden.

Love from North Korea

 

[hometeam]

In other words, the stealing, lying and corruption of our own military is not unique, Russia has a similar problem. Most large militaries do.

"It’s legendary the stealing that they do,” says retired Army Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges

https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2022-08-31/how-russian-corruption-is-foiling-putins-army-in-ukraine

There was a Russian general dismissed for selling UN fuel while deployed to Kosovo, and reports of Russian soldiers deployed to Chechnya selling their weapons to Chechen fighters.

"However, there is evidence that vital elements of the Ratnik system did not reach their intended destination. The Ratnik body armour, known as 6B45, could be bought on Avito (Russia’s eBay) at a cost of $200–250. A full vest with a helmet could be bought for around $300, and a pair of plates for $100–150. ‘All those “Granite” plates that cost 10,000 roubles per pair – they were stolen from warehouses by ensigns and sold online’, wrote one blogger on 6 April."

Corruption in the Russian Armed Forces

Corruption is endemic in Russia and is pervasive within its defence industrial sector and armed forces. Evidence from Ukraine suggests that it is costing Russian lives.

rusi.org

General Shoigu has an $18 million mansion.

So, it's a bit different than the corruption in the US. As General Hertling says, Ukrainians were caught siphoning off gas from the military trucks in Iraq. And we have recent reports that the offensive on Kiev stalled because the Russians siphoned off gas from their vehicles and sold it in Belarus for vodka.

'They Drink A Lot, Sell Their Fuel': Belarusians Give Low Marks To Russian Troops Deployed For Drills

Russian soldiers in southeastern Belarus "settled in the surrounding forests," one local resident said. "They drink a lot and sell a lot of their diesel fuel."

www.rferl.org

Sold their dry rations and kerosine too:

‘They Sold Dry Rations And Kerosine To Get A Box Of Vodka’

The true moral image of a Russian tourist.

charter97.org

Captured Russian tanks were found with foam tiles instead of explosive ones:

and cardboard egg trays:

They're finding dead Russian soldiers that had their vest plates replaced with cardboard or whatever:

They've found food rations that expired in 2015:

Julia isn't exaggerating things, but you are when you start equating it to the US.