Is Russia just about to invade Ukraine?

[DEADPOOL]

Facts? How about a question isn't the same as a prediction? How about no one thought you were a madman regarding Russia and Ukraine, the jibes were about your Biden bashing antics at a time when you were derailing every other thread in the same manner? (The actual topic subject barely got a mention until the invasion started).
How about your prediction (when the invasion began) that 'by the time you finish reading this it will all be over'. Or your prediction that 'Russia will have full control of Ukraine'? Not to mention your prediction that China would invade Taiwan (is there an infinite timespan for these predictions?)

Yes you’re right, I didn’t think Europe and the USA would engage in a proxy war. Apart from the tens of billions that the Biden admin are pumping into this “exercise”. But I forget, this has “nothing to do with” the Biden mafia, despite all the millions his family have been syphoning out of Ukraine for YEARS.

Genuine question; are you suggesting the Biden administration have NOTHING to do with the situation in Ukraine?

China is interesting because their unique mix of capitalism and communism has developed such deep corruption that their military, despite being huge, is relatively weak. The belt and road initiative is failing and China is going bust.

So that’s a weak China, a weak Russia and a weak USA. I honestly have no idea how that pans out. My assumption is an exponential transfer of wealth to the super rich as the world tumbles into a deep economic depression. Followed by a good old fashioned war. When you have nothing to lose, you might as well risk everything.

[irie]

Putin has used lots of dubious history to justify what he's doing, in his eyes every country that was in the USSR belongs to Russia.

Now we’re getting somewhere. Yes he has made it his mission to restore the former Soviet Bloc. We have known that for some time and our politicians too.

Either our political leaders have made a huge mistake or they took a calculated risk, knowing the effect that might have on Europe, The West and without being over dramatic, the world economy. They made a mistake that we all get to pay for. None of those responsible will have to endure the hardship we suffer due to their mistake.

It was Germany which made a huge mistake in not taking sides against the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 and furthermore continuing with Nordstream 2. Germany was repeatedly warned about the geostrategic and economic risks of becoming dependent on Russian energy but continued all the same.

You are right that those responsible will not have to endure the hardship that will have to be suffered due to their mistake.

The alternative is capitulation to Putin's ambitions which he wrote about in 12.07.2021 in "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“.

Not an option.

[slowsider]

This should have Irie frothing to the point of oblivion

"Germany’s domestic intelligence agency is investigating allegations that two senior civil servants working in the economy ministry could have been spying for Russia"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... for-russia

[DEADPOOL]

It was Germany which made a huge mistake in not taking sides against the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 and furthermore continuing with Nordstream 2. Germany was repeatedly warned about the geostrategic and economic risks of becoming dependent on Russian energy but continued all the same.

You are right that those responsible will not have to endure the hardship that will have to be suffered due to their mistake.

The alternative is capitulation to Putin's ambitions which he wrote about in 12.07.2021 in "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“.

Not an option.

Agreed. All I am saying is there really was every opportunity for a political solution. Isn't that why we have politicians in the first place?

The West did virtually nothing after Russia invaded the Crimea. And yes, if it wan't obvious what Putins ambitions were, he has written a book about it!

[irie]

It was Germany which made a huge mistake in not taking sides against the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 and furthermore continuing with Nordstream 2. Germany was repeatedly warned about the geostrategic and economic risks of becoming dependent on Russian energy but continued all the same.

You are right that those responsible will not have to endure the hardship that will have to be suffered due to their mistake.

The alternative is capitulation to Putin's ambitions which he wrote about in 12.07.2021 in "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“.

Not an option.

Agreed. All I am saying is there really was every opportunity for a political solution. Isn't that why we have politicians in the first place?

The West did virtually nothing after Russia invaded the Crimea. And yes, if it wan't obvious what Putins ambitions were, he has written a book about it!

Germany is not "The West".

By promoting the creation of the Nordstream 2 pipeline Germany implicitly legitimised the Russian annexation of Crimea, which in turn left to the current Russian invasion of Ukraine.

"Wandel durch Handel" was always nothing other than a term for Germany's expedient short sighted greed.

[DEADPOOL]

I am suggesting "The West" (which includes Germany of course) did little to object to Russia invading the Crimea.

As if it never happened. If that wasn't a green light for Putin to carry on with his stated plan then I don't know what is.

[Hoonercat]

Thanks for asking. No I think NATO should have taken Putin seriously when he strongly objected to having a potential NATO member on a highly contentious border.

I am suggesting "The West" (which includes Germany of course) did little to object to Russia invading the Crimea.

As if it never happened. If that wasn't a green light for Putin to carry on with his stated plan then I don't know what is.

Like Yambol, I'm struggling to understand your stance here. Maybe I'm mistaken, but the first post seems to suggest appeasement on NATO's part while the second suggests a more forceful response. Do you think the two situations deserved different responses? I agree with the second, but not sure what you expected from NATO in your first comment?

[DEADPOOL]

Thanks for asking. No I think NATO should have taken Putin seriously when he strongly objected to having a potential NATO member on a highly contentious border.

I am suggesting "The West" (which includes Germany of course) did little to object to Russia invading the Crimea.

As if it never happened. If that wasn't a green light for Putin to carry on with his stated plan then I don't know what is.

Like Yambol, I'm struggling to understand your stance here. Maybe I'm mistaken, but the first post seems to suggest appeasement on NATO's part while the second suggests a more forceful response. Do you think the two situations deserved different responses? I agree with the second, but not sure what you expected from NATO in your first comment?

I don’t know either, I am not a politician. By “appeasement” you suggest I expected NATO to capitulate? No. I expected our politicians to come up with something that would not involve plunging Europe into war. Ask yourself what it is they actually did to mitigate the overt threat from a lunatic like Putin.

Also, what is worse than the situation right now? A prolonged proxy war with taxpayers money being pumped into arms supporting a copycat Russian style mafia oligarchy while at the same time plunging half the population into fuel poverty. Throw in the acceleration of the transfer of wealth into the hands of the super rich and you have a perfect storm.

The current situation could arguably be improved if the Earth was suddenly threatened by a giant asteroid strike. I’m not even kidding.

[irie]

. I expected our politicians to come up with something that would not involve plunging Europe into war. Ask yourself what it is they actually did to mitigate the overt threat from a lunatic like Putin.

Given that Gemany, by proceeding with Nordstream 2 even after Russia's annexation of Crimea, actively encouraged Russia's ambitions, perhaps you would suggest what measures you consider that other European nations could have undertaken which would have dissuaded Germany from continuing with the Nordstream 2 project?

[Horse]

Also, what is worse than the situation right now?

Putin throws in nuclear weapons and the west retaliates.

[Hoonercat]

Thanks for asking. No I think NATO should have taken Putin seriously when he strongly objected to having a potential NATO member on a highly contentious border.

I am suggesting "The West" (which includes Germany of course) did little to object to Russia invading the Crimea.

As if it never happened. If that wasn't a green light for Putin to carry on with his stated plan then I don't know what is.

Like Yambol, I'm struggling to understand your stance here. Maybe I'm mistaken, but the first post seems to suggest appeasement on NATO's part while the second suggests a more forceful response. Do you think the two situations deserved different responses? I agree with the second, but not sure what you expected from NATO in your first comment?

I don’t know either, I am not a politician. By “appeasement” you suggest I expected NATO to capitulate? No. I expected our politicians to come up with something that would not involve plunging Europe into war. Ask yourself what it is they actually did to mitigate the overt threat from a lunatic like Putin.

Also, what is worse than the situation right now? A prolonged proxy war with taxpayers money being pumped into arms supporting a copycat Russian style mafia oligarchy while at the same time plunging half the population into fuel poverty. Throw in the acceleration of the transfer of wealth into the hands of the super rich and you have a perfect storm.

The current situation could arguably be improved if the Earth was suddenly threatened by a giant asteroid strike. I’m not even kidding.

So basically, "NATO should have taken Putin seriously"
"In what way should they have taken him seriously"
"I don't know"
Maybe you could explain how NATO didn't him seriously?

And no, the mention of appeasement wasn't a suggestion if capitulation. Taking Putin seriously could mean either appeasement or a show of strength, I was merely asking which (if either) you had in mind.
As for 'our' politicians, there was plenty of dialogue before the invasion, but you appear to be blaming 'our' politicians for not being able to stop someone that you describe as a 'lunatic' from going to war.

[DEADPOOL]

Well this has taken a interesting turn.

We started off with my suggesting Putin was going to invade another country. Again.
Not a single person appears to agree, quite the opposite.
Then follows an extended period where I attempt to explain my reasonings which are universally criticised as the ramblings of a madmen.
It appears my reasoning is seen as irrelevant (weak/corrupt USA, Biden mafia involvement in Ukraine/China etc.)
Putin does actually invade and the criticism becomes "yeah but if you wait long enough, anything could happen"
Finally it is now somehow MY FAULT because I was not able to proffer a political solution.

Tough crowd.

[DEADPOOL]

. I expected our politicians to come up with something that would not involve plunging Europe into war. Ask yourself what it is they actually did to mitigate the overt threat from a lunatic like Putin.

Given that Gemany, by proceeding with Nordstream 2 even after Russia's annexation of Crimea, actively encouraged Russia's ambitions, perhaps you would suggest what measures you consider that other European nations could have undertaken which would have dissuaded Germany from continuing with the Nordstream 2 project?

I am sure with the benefit of hindsight someone will come up with a brilliant plan.

Too late now.

The underlying reason is political corruption and "government by proxy" where the world is now effectively controlled by global corporate interests and super rich asset management companies. These entities do not make decisions which benefit mankind, they are only interested in their own personal wealth and yet this too is being criticised as conspiratorial and not "on topic".

[Hoonercat]

Like Yambol, I'm struggling to understand your stance here. Maybe I'm mistaken, but the first post seems to suggest appeasement on NATO's part while the second suggests a more forceful response. Do you think the two situations deserved different responses? I agree with the second, but not sure what you expected from NATO in your first comment?

I don’t know either, I am not a politician. By “appeasement” you suggest I expected NATO to capitulate? No. I expected our politicians to come up with something that would not involve plunging Europe into war. Ask yourself what it is they actually did to mitigate the overt threat from a lunatic like Putin.

Also, what is worse than the situation right now? A prolonged proxy war with taxpayers money being pumped into arms supporting a copycat Russian style mafia oligarchy while at the same time plunging half the population into fuel poverty. Throw in the acceleration of the transfer of wealth into the hands of the super rich and you have a perfect storm.

The current situation could arguably be improved if the Earth was suddenly threatened by a giant asteroid strike. I’m not even kidding.

So basically, "NATO should have taken Putin seriously"
"In what way should they have taken him seriously"
"I don't know"
Maybe you could explain how NATO didn't him seriously?

And no, the mention of appeasement wasn't a suggestion if capitulation. Taking Putin seriously could mean either appeasement or a show of strength, I was merely asking which (if either) you had in mind.
As for 'our' politicians, there was plenty of dialogue before the invasion, but you appear to be blaming 'our' politicians for not being able to stop someone that you describe as a 'lunatic' from going to war.

Well this has taken a interesting turn.

We started off with my suggesting Putin was going to invade another country. Again.
Not a single person appears to agree, quite the opposite.
Then follows an extended period where I attempt to explain my reasonings which are universally criticised as the ramblings of a madmen.
It appears my reasoning is seen as irrelevant (weak/corrupt USA, Biden mafia involvement in Ukraine/China etc.)
Putin does actually invade and the criticism becomes "yeah but if you wait long enough, anything could happen"
Finally it is now somehow MY FAULT because I was not able to proffer a political solution.

Tough crowd.

I didn't ask you for a solution, I asked you to clarify why you felt NATO didn't take Putin's objections seriously, and whether you felt NATO were being too confrontational or too weak (as not taking him seriously could mean either) regarding his objections to Ukraine joining NATO. I didn't say it was your fault for not coming up with a political solution, that's just daft.

[irie]

. I expected our politicians to come up with something that would not involve plunging Europe into war. Ask yourself what it is they actually did to mitigate the overt threat from a lunatic like Putin.

Given that Gemany, by proceeding with Nordstream 2 even after Russia's annexation of Crimea, actively encouraged Russia's ambitions, perhaps you would suggest what measures you consider that other European nations could have undertaken which would have dissuaded Germany from continuing with the Nordstream 2 project?

I am sure with the benefit of hindsight someone will come up with a brilliant plan.

Too late now.

[rant]

As soon as Germany went ahead with Nordstream 2 it was too late.

[DEADPOOL]

I didn't ask you for a solution, I asked you to clarify why you felt NATO didn't take Putin's objections seriously, and whether you felt NATO were being too confrontational or too weak (as not taking him seriously could mean either) regarding his objections to Ukraine joining NATO. I didn't say it was your fault for not coming up with a political solution, that's just daft.

You were asking me what do I think NATO (et. al.) should have done and I suggest they should have negotiated a political solution. That is what politicians do and if NATO aren't going to defend a non-NATO country by force then they too should have made efforts to avoid armed conflict.

Clearly the political process has failed.

I was merely asking which (if either) you had in mind.

Don't ask me, I'm just making observations on what has occurred and making suggestions as to why. It seems obvious to me that while Russia clearly is an oligarchy, robbing the country blind to make personal fortunes for their political accomplices, the USA are doing the same in Ukraine. The Biden mafia, Pelosi, in fact I wouldn't be surprised to discover many more US politicians with their fingers in that pie.

Apparently that has nothing to do with the war... Yeah right.

As soon as Germany went ahead with Nordstream 2 it was too late.

Can't argue with that, it certainly didn't help.

[Hoonercat]

I didn't ask you for a solution, I asked you to clarify why you felt NATO didn't take Putin's objections seriously, and whether you felt NATO were being too confrontational or too weak (as not taking him seriously could mean either) regarding his objections to Ukraine joining NATO. I didn't say it was your fault for not coming up with a political solution, that's just daft.

You were asking me what do I think NATO (et. al.) should have done and I suggest they should have negotiated a political solution. That is what politicians do and if NATO aren't going to defend a non-NATO country by force then they too should have made efforts to avoid armed conflict.

Clearly the political process has failed.

Again, I asked you in what way you felt NATO didn't take Putin seriously with regards to Ukraine joining NATO. That's a completely seperate subject to Russia invading Ukraine - in his speech attempting to justify the invasion, he made no mention of Ukraine joining NATO.

[DEADPOOL]

Again, I asked you in what way you felt NATO didn't take Putin seriously with regards to Ukraine joining NATO. That's a completely seperate subject to Russia invading Ukraine - in his speech attempting to justify the invasion, he made no mention of Ukraine joining NATO.

No it is not a separate subject. Not at all. In fact I think it is the entire reason for the invasion.

I do not take Putin at his word.

[Mussels]

Russia invaded Ukraine soon after Ukraine agreed not to join NATO so the argument about NATO being too close to Russia was rubbish. Russia wants weak neighbors it can push around and Ukraine was rapidly becoming a force to be reckoned with even without direct NATO membership.

[Hoonercat]

Again, I asked you in what way you felt NATO didn't take Putin seriously with regards to Ukraine joining NATO. That's a completely seperate subject to Russia invading Ukraine - in his speech attempting to justify the invasion, he made no mention of Ukraine joining NATO.

No it is not a separate subject. Not at all. In fact I think it is the entire reason for the invasion.

I do not take Putin at his word.

But western politicians failed in their duty to negotiate a peaceful solution with someone who's word you don't trust, and describe as a lunatic...
Read or listen to Putin's speech, he says that war with Ukraine was 'inevitable', as if to suggest he might as well do it now rather than later. It was going to happen regardless of negotiations.

Zelensky made a statement shortly after the invasion began aknowledging that NATO would never accept Ukraine, and stated that Ukraine would no longer press the subject. He also offered to make concessions over Donbas. Putin continued with the invasion regardless.