Is The US Ready For An Invasion Of Eastern Europe?

[Rightguide]

What makes you think Putin respected trump?

For one thing, he didn't try any shit like this on Trump's watch. He invaded Georgia and Crimea when Obama/Biden was at the top of the national command authority.

 

[Rightguide]

Why would you bring up a fart? It's not an insult when you're as gay as you.

It's the sound you make when you post and of your master's voice.

 

[Rightguide]

If anything, Putin appreciated his puppet for being a useful idiot / asset.

Respected???

GMAFB

^^^
Room temperature IQ

 

[LukSkyFokker]

It's the sound you make when you post and of your master's voice.

Why don't you fart in English?

 

[jomar]

If anything, Putin appreciated his puppet for being a useful idiot / asset.

Respected???

GMAFB

More along the line I was thinking

For one thing, he didn't try any shit like this on Trump's watch. He invaded Georgia and Crimea when Obama/Biden was at the top of the national command authority.

Neither of those mean he respected trump.

Could be Putin and trump were scratching each other’s back.

Why do you think Russia interefered in the election in favor of trump?

 

[Rightguide]

More along the line I was thinking



Neither of those mean he respected trump.

Could be Putin and trump were scratching each other’s back.

Why do you think Russia interefered in the election in favor of trump?

Your fairy tales have all been proven wrong yet you cling to them like a two-year-old and his security blanket. Could be you're just too dishonest to admit it.

 

[pecksniff]

Your fairy tales have all been proven wrong yet you cling to them like a two-year-old and his security blanket. Could be you're just too dishonest to admit it.

Russia did interfere in Trump's favor. That is an established fact. And why on his side and not Hillary's is an important question.

 

[jomar]

Your fairy tales have all been proven wrong yet you cling to them like a two-year-old and his security blanket. Could be you're just too dishonest to admit it.

What fairy tale? Do you deny Russia interfered in the election despite every security agency we have absolutely concluding they did so?

Russia did interfere in Trump's favor. That is an established fact. And why on his side and not Hillary's is an important question.

Yep. He ignored that part of my question

 

[LupusDei]

Also, does the scholar quoted in the first post think that Ukraine is between Russia and the Baltic countries? Because ... that isn't the case.

While physically Ukraine indeed isn't between Russia and Baltic states, in the sense of certain geopolitical games it appears to be, currently. In the sense, if Putin succeeds in subjugating Ukraine as easily as certain hopes/fears are, what his next "to do" item would be? He may go on a detour back to Georgia, Moldova becomes easily snack, but at some point he may eye options to poke NATO directly, and the obvious way forward is to annex Baltic states.

That scenario writes itself. In response to renewed large scale military action in Ukraine, NATO will reinforce the eastern border, but very likely in rather limited way, constrained by lack of political will and diminished ability. Nevertheless, Russia will use that as obvious pretext to reinforce (already formidable enough) western military district even further and move even closer to the border. More, they have already declared they may use militarily action to remove perceived threats if NATO doesn't agree to fully retreat in advance, so he doesn't even need more sophisticated pretext, he may just move to remove the NATO threat.

Therefore the fight over Ukraine is fighting over Baltics by proxy.

Countries want to join NATO because of Putin. The Baltic and Scandinavian states see Putin massing troops on their border, conducting cyber warfare on their systems, and spewing out disinformation about NATO aggression.

NATO doesn't expand because it wants to. It expands because countries neighbouring Russia are afraid that Russia will invade and they need the NATO alliance to help protect themselves.

Putin is creating his own demons.

Exactly.

Speaking about demons....

Putin chooses interpretation of history that places the birthplace of Russian empire in Kiev (aka Kyiv).

(That's a prevalent interpretation, but not exclusive, there's no reason not to start it in 862, when Nevogradas (Old Norse ~ sea forts) around Ladoga invited Rurik (also Ryurik or Rorik; Old East Slavic: Рюрикъ Rjurikŭ, from Old Norse Hrøríkʀ = king) to be their king after internal unrest. It was Rurik's son's regent Oleg who took Kiev (possibly from Magyars, aka Hungarians) and moved over there. Perhaps the problem with that is, Novgorod then broke free from Kiev and established the only republic in Russian history.)

So, if Moscow, the rape child of Golden Horde, doesn't control Kiev, Putin's ruling over "all of Rus" is illegitimate.

 

[LupusDei]

Your fairy tales have all been proven wrong yet you cling to them like a two-year-old and his security blanket. Could be you're just too dishonest to admit it.

I would never forget the champagne Russians drank celebrating Trump's victory, with sly smiles and laughter for their longshots success.

 

[Lazaran]

I would never forget the champagne Russians drank celebrating Trump's victory, with sly smiles and laughter for their longshots success.

Yeah, there was a reason Putin made it a national priority to get his puppet elected.

And it paid off.

Look at the damage that orange POS caused to the United States in four years.

SAD!!!

 

[mayfly13]

Countries want to join NATO because of Putin. The Baltic and Scandinavian states see Putin massing troops on their border, conducting cyber warfare on their systems, and spewing out disinformation about NATO aggression.

NATO doesn't expand because it wants to. It expands because countries neighbouring Russia are afraid that Russia will invade and they need the NATO alliance to help protect themselves.

Putin is creating his own demons.

Thanks for explaining to me things that everybody knows.

My point wasn't who is on the right side of History.
Because Russia and Putin think that They are on the right side of History, just as Ukraine, EE countries and and theWest do.

My point was: put yourself in Russia's shoes.
How would you feel if your country was surrounded by NATO bases. And on top of that Ukraine wants to join NATO too?
Wouldn't you do everything in your power to stop Ukraine from joining?
Or at least do something to weaken that power.

And as much as Russia put it's boot on Eastern Europe's neck, Russia won't bow to Nato and Western boots either.

 

[pecksniff]

. . . Moldova becomes easily snack . . .

Why doesn't Romania annex Moldova? The people are Romanian.

 

[LupusDei]

Why doesn't Romania annex Moldova? The people are Romanian.

Indeed, I have no idea why they haven't reunited. There's a small strip of Moldova (between east bank of river and Ukrainian border) under effective Russian occupation, that certainly complicates things too.

 

[mayfly13]

Speaking about demons....

Putin chooses interpretation of history that places the birthplace of Russian empire in Kiev (aka Kyiv).

(That's a prevalent interpretation, but not exclusive, there's no reason not to start it in 862, when Nevogradas (Old Norse ~ sea forts) around Ladoga invited Rurik (also Ryurik or Rorik; Old East Slavic: Рюрикъ Rjurikŭ, from Old Norse Hrøríkʀ = king) to be their king after internal unrest. It was Rurik's son's regent Oleg who took Kiev (possibly from Magyars, aka Hungarians) and moved over there. Perhaps the problem with that is, Novgorod then broke free from Kiev and established the only republic in Russian history.)

So, if Moscow, the rape child of Golden Horde, doesn't control Kiev, Putin's ruling over "all of Rus" is illegitimate.

I was wondering what you think about the quote below.
I don't know much History tbh, but I feel that currently, Putin is thinking more in the line of Imperialist tsarist Russia and not in the line of USSR.
The first was part of Russia's history, the second an artifact post-ww2.



According to Col. Doug Macgregor, ex-Pentagon advisor:

"The current borders of Ukraine never made a great deal of sense because Ukraine is essentially a multi-national state.

You have in the east, that is beyond the Dnieper River, to the south down to Odessa on the coast, what is really a Russian population.

The rest of Ukraine is actually historic Ukraine. It goes back to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and that part of Ukraine is inhabited by true Ukrainians in terms of ethnicity as well as culture and language.

Putting this together has always been problematic, particularly because Ukrainians have wanted to turn the Russians into Ukrainians. The Russians aren’t terribly excited about that prospect and have complained bitterly about it. And Putin, from the very beginning of his presidency, tried to make it clear to anyone who would listen that there were certain things that he would not tolerate as the Russian head of state, and one of those was that Ukraine become a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization."

 

[mayfly13]

Putin also outlined his rationale here:

Article by Vladimir Putin ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“
http://en.kremlin****/events/president/news/66181

It looks (to me) as if the Russia-Ukraine matter is something that would affect only Russia, Ukraine and probably Lithuania.

Putin isn't after reconstituting the USSR, but after reconstituting "mother Tsarist Russia" as he sees it (as opposed to Ukraine, Lithuania, who -legitimately- see it as Imperialusm)

NONE of the other former USSR nations would be effected.
this being only Western scaremongering propaganda, to obtain international validation for a potential intervention.
The West doesn't care about EE, as it showed after ww2. The West is after cheap access to natural resources.

 

[LupusDei]

I was wondering what you think about the quote below.
I don't know much History tbh, but I feel that currently, Putin is thinking more in the line of Imperialist tsarist Russia and not in the line of USSR.
The first was part of Russia's history, the second an artifact post-ww2.

According to Col. Doug Macgregor, ex-Pentagon advisor:

"The current borders of Ukraine never made a great deal of sense because Ukraine is essentially a multi-national state.

You have in the east, that is beyond the Dnieper River, to the south down to Odessa on the coast, what is really a Russian population.

The rest of Ukraine is actually historic Ukraine. It goes back to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and that part of Ukraine is inhabited by true Ukrainians in terms of ethnicity as well as culture and language.

Putting this together has always been problematic, particularly because Ukrainians have wanted to turn the Russians into Ukrainians. The Russians aren’t terribly excited about that prospect and have complained bitterly about it. And Putin, from the very beginning of his presidency, tried to make it clear to anyone who would listen that there were certain things that he would not tolerate as the Russian head of state, and one of those was that Ukraine become a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization."

While Lithuanians never took Crimea, they did reach Black sea at one point, and excursions as far east as Donetsk might have taken place by some interpretations of chronicles. The Tatar horse archers Lithuanians had with them at Battle of Grunwald must have been vassals from somewhere (by intent or accident, the battle, one of if not largest in medieval Europe, was won by tactics somewhat resembling that beloved by the Horde: relatively lighter Lithuanian cavalry attacked first, then turned to run, pulling Teutonic knights in pursuit, much heavier Poles slammed into their flank, then Lithuanians returned in what was now Teutonic rear (for European battlefields of the age tactical retreat was practically unheard of)). While the match isn't perfect, the whole of Ukrainian borders can be at least somewhat explained by extent of Lithuanian alliance against thd Horde.

Controversial in current politics, but it is possible to claim there are no such thing as Ukrainian, just "western" Russians who, by the way, happen to speak dialect closer to the Old Church Russian than Muscovites. While Ukrainian can also be said to be Polish invention in nineteenth century for political purposes.

Also, it could be important to view timings of recent migration flows. I can't claim the Russian-speaking populations in Ukraine are entirely colonial resettlements by empire and Soviet Union without looking it up, but it is highly likely.

By the way, since 2014 there's between 500,000 and million people settled in Crimea from Russia despite dire water shortages in the illegally annexed peninsula.

 

[mayfly13]

While Lithuanians never took Crimea, they did reach Black sea at one point, and excursions as far east as Donetsk might have taken place by some interpretations of chronicles. The Tatar horse archers Lithuanians had with them at Battle of Grunwald must have been vassals from somewhere (by intent or accident, the battle, one of if not largest in medieval Europe, was won by tactics somewhat resembling that beloved by the Horde: relatively lighter Lithuanian cavalry attacked first, then turned to run, pulling Teutonic knights in pursuit, much heavier Poles slammed into their flank, then Lithuanians returned in what was now Teutonic rear (for European battlefields of the age tactical retreat was practically unheard of)). While the match isn't perfect, the whole of Ukrainian borders can be at least somewhat explained by extent of Lithuanian alliance against the Horde.

Controversial in current politics, but it is possible to claim there are no such thing as Ukrainian, just "western" Russians who, by the way, happen to speak dialect closer to the Old Church Russian than Muscovites. While Ukrainian can also be said to be Polish invention in nineteenth century for political purposes.

Also, it could be important to view timings of recent migration flows. I can't claim the Russian-speaking populations in Ukraine are entirely colonial resettlements by empire and Soviet Union without looking it up, but it is highly likely.

By the way, since 2014 there's between 500,000 and million people settled in Crimea from Russia despite dire water shortages in the illegally annexed peninsula.

Wow, so interesting.
Thank you so much, LupusDei, as usual you enrich our knowledge.
And Europe's History is possibly The most complicated.

 

[mayfly13]

There are two separate strains that I feel are very interesting from this crisis:

1. The Russia - Ukraine - Lithuania axis
I agree with you LupusDei, Lithuania and Ukraine are a target of Russia's imperialism.

2. Britain's and America's colonial discourses.

Because I was reading Edward Said who said that unlike Russia's imperialism, which targetted neighbouring territories, British and US imperialism targetted far away countries. Therefore, their colonial modus operandi had to be far more subtle and conniving, which is why they also invented political correctness.
-- As I see it, The Russia-Ukraine conflict interests US/Britain also for security reasons, but even more so for economic resource reasons (in a sense colonialism).
They don't care two shits about Eastern Europe, they see it as primitive and barbaric as they view Iranians and the Middle East, that's why they tested Uranium-depleted bombs in those territories.

 

[mayfly13]

The American and British politicians who portray their countries as 'saviors' of EE from Russia read as stupid.

Didn't They hand those countries on a platter to Stalin, when they could have easily negociated for independence?
Didn't They escalate the Ukrainian conflict too?

 

[LupusDei]

Putin also outlined his rationale here:

Article by Vladimir Putin ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“
http://en.kremlin****/events/president/news/66181

It looks (to me) as if the Russia-Ukraine matter is something that would affect only Russia, Ukraine and probably Lithuania.

Putin isn't after reconstituting the USSR, but after reconstituting "mother Tsarist Russia" as he sees it (as opposed to Ukraine, Lithuania, who -legitimately- see it as Imperialusm)

NONE of the other former USSR nations would be effected.
this being only Western scaremongering propaganda, to obtain international validation for a potential intervention.
The West doesn't care about EE, as it showed after ww2. The West is after cheap access to natural resources.

It's a rather narrow history lesson that deteriorated in a rant by the end under the weight of its own spin, but it's solely on one subject, Ukraine, just as the headline promises. The historical facts aren't wrong, up to a point, but the teacher is biased and has an agenda he doesn't even try to hide. History is a battleground around these lands; the same events can be told from different viewpoints with radically different implied or explicit conclusions.

Note how nothing at all is Russia fault, and whole Ukrainian "project" a work of mysterious "outside" forces with the sole objective to be hostile towards Russia, with is "robbed" by very existence of Ukraine as independent country.

The clearest indication one had been in power too long is when they start seeing their country as their private property.

Well, it is his rationale for this round of restoration/expansion. The empire would be somewhat incomplete without the Baltic provinces, Peter the Great may be now branded almost a traitor and agent of the West, but his accusations shouldn't be forgotten, so that would come up at some point later. And Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are NATO (however much some might resent that strategic mistake), so...

 

[LupusDei]

The American and British politicians who portray their countries as 'saviors' of EE from Russia read as stupid.

Didn't They hand those countries on a platter to Stalin, when they could have easily negociated for independence?

People on the ground was led to believe, Brothers of the Forest kept up resistance till 1953 waiting for Americans that never came. So yes, it's seemingly stupid to trust the same who betrayed us once again. But life would be so much easier if Russia was somewhat reasonable and not a country level conspiracy theory nutcase. Alas, they always had been.

Didn't They escalate the Ukrainian conflict too?

There's a theory around about the "Last war of Russia" that there's one and only left in them. Or, at least, that most sure way there's regime change in Russia, is after a lost war. The window is short where attacking Ukraine may seem enticing enough to try, while there's might already be resistance stiff enough to eventually prevail (after long time and horrible losses no doubt). That's a very dangerous calculation. Then, keeping the tension just where it is indefinitely hurts only Germany.

And hopefully, there's snow in Crimea.

 

[pecksniff]

This is a part of the world where people can hold a grudge from a battle in the 15th Century.

 

[colddiesel]

America should continue with its hitherto successful policy towards European wars, a policy of appeasement.

In WWI it was successful in keeping America from an effective part for all but the last 6 months, whist busily supplying arms to, and making money from both sides.

In WWII The US was again late to the party and wisely left the heavy lifting to the USSR. Again, made heaps of money and was able to buy up a lot of competitors at bargain prices post 1945.

America should stick to small local wars, ones that it can win - like Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

The one war which the USA should definitely have is with Mexico. Create a scorched earth zone 50 miles wide south of the border, a lot more effective than a wall.

 

[Champakian]

There are still Jews there? They didn't all leave for Israel?

Good lord, you have to be being purposely ignorant as part of a comedy schtick
or you have to be completely ignorant to the realities of current geopolitics...

Either way, I am amused and appalled by your inability to argue reasonably.