Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

Rate this topic


AlexL
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 11/27/2022 at 1:57 AM, whYNOT said:

... One upset young Russian woman horrified with the war found that she had no clue of true events in Eastern Ukraine... and modified her moral judgments when she heard and saw for herself.

OK, her big achievement was, according to you, to radically change her opinion. Is this a value in itself? Because a more important question is: is her new opinion true? And was her old opinion false? Or, which is also possible, maybe both her new and her old opinions were false?
You implicitly answer these questions by your choice of the video, a choice you made according to your own opinion. As such, it advances nobody’s knowledge about the Russia’s war against Ukraine. 
Moreover, it is embarrassing that her employer, John Mark Dougan, the independent journalist, made her visit only the Russia’s side of the frontline, but not also the Ukrainian side, as one would expect from an independent journalist, to find out that in a war both sides are suffering, and that, therefore, one has to go beyond suffering and see who is responsible for all that.
However, the interview is quite interesting, on different levels – if one is familiar with the conflict in Ukraine.
Now: how objective is this journalist? According to Google, John Mark Dougan is quite well known as a conspiracy theorist (e.g. about a US-funded bioWEAPONS lab in Ukraine - see here, quite interesting), but this might be a subjective view. What is not subjective is this detail in his biography: he is a US fugitive and received political asylum in… Russia… He is a frequent contributor to Russia Today, RIA Novosti/Sputnik and other such "independent" publications. 

Edited by AlexL
for clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2022 at 5:38 PM, whYNOT said:

Judge Napolitano with Ritter: "elements of the Ukraine military"? "Negotiations"?

Not a very illuminating explanation about what is this interview about, isn't it ?

However, this interview is quite illuminating for showing why the guest, Scott Ritter, is a frequent and highly appreciated contributor of Russia Today and Sputnik.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, AlexL said:

 
Moreover, it is embarrassing that her employer, John Mark Dougan, the independent journalist, made her visit only the Russia’s side of the frontline, but not also the Ukrainian side, as one would expect from an independent journalist, to find out that in a war both sides are suffering, and that, therefore, one has to go beyond suffering and see who is responsible for all that.
However, the interview is quite interesting, on different levels – if one is familiar with the conflict in Ukraine.
Now: how objective is this journalist? According to Google, John Mark Dougan is quite well known as a conspiracy theorist...

Questions for you:

Do you acknowledge the war against and killing of the Donbas civilians -"terrorists" (Zelensky) - was actually a true 8 year cycle of events ?

If so, at what stage did you find out, this year - or previously?

If so, who should have taken the major responsibility for ceasing the bombing of people by the government, as agreed by the government?

And since the treaty was not implemented by Kyiv, do you not think that any rational citizens there would forever distrust and permanently want to cut ties with their government? i.e. accede.

These are serious questions, because I know of nobody personally who knew of, followed or cared about that Ukraine civil war (which has been the lead-up to this one) and found a very few online. I knew little about it.

The only explanation, they/we weren't informed. It was kept in the dark. All to do with propagandizing the public's awareness or lack of. For what, more pointedly, whose ends?

I've commented that there are two broad groups apparent, those who believe Feb 24 was the absolute start of the conflict, i.e. the concretists, and those who know better, whom I notice tend to be conceptualists (whatever their individual ideologies) and who can hold a greater assimilated amount of information and moral judgments -- which is none too easy, given the unfolding, unpredictable nature of a war.

(Even this Russian peacenik prejudiced against her Gvt. for the apparent cause of the terrible war indicated she was shocked at the silent suffering by Donbas residents until confronted by it, and when seeing the regular bombing and its effects, esp. of Donetsk city, that continued for all that time until the present day, without any in the West concerned.)

What does it all prove?: one had better understand all sides quite well and some recent history before passing moral judgment. Then one might find the Kyiv gvt./s does not hold the moral high ground, as loudly trumpeted about - and never has, since the coup.

Fact: with the build up by NATO training and weaponizing the Ukrainian army was preparing to demolish the Donbas in the past Spring. Fact: until then, Putin was reluctant to go in, refusing pleas by the Donbas militias for direct intervention for some period. (Or didn't you know that?)

One can do better by considering and integrating loads of evidence, reality as one's only arbiter, isolated from ¬who¬ said "xyz" and ¬where¬ it was published. Forget this propensity to authoritarian reputations and superficial 'appearances'; the best can be and are disreputable/devious and the worst can sometimes be truthful. In between there are many honest men with expertise.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, AlexL said:

Not a very illuminating explanation about what is this interview about, isn't it ?

However, this interview is quite illuminating for showing why the guest, Scott Ritter, is a frequent and highly appreciated contributor of Russia Today and Sputnik.

Simple, if you missed the "explanation". 

Ritter and several other western experts have been certain throughout this war won't be won by Ukraine.

Which was glaringly apparent from the first day to anyone who is honest, realistic and knows military capabilities.

The question of what to do with that knowledge, the solution from day one: NEGOTIATE a reasonable settlement, and fast.

Ukraine would then have had to abide by Minsk by granting Donbas autonomy, or, more probably - after the invasion - lost some territory to Russia. Now that things have escalated out of sight, it stands to lose much more.
AND, obviated the unbelievable human costs which followed and still will, locally and abroad.

However, the arrogant fools and sacrificers demanded nothing short of victory over Putin...and still do.

Ritter and others actually care about those wasted lives.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Ritter and several other western experts have been certain throughout this war won't be won by Ukraine.

Which was glaringly apparent from the first day to anyone who is honest, realistic and knows military capabilities.

"Glaringly apparent from the first day", based on size of the countries, population, size of economies and volume of military equipment, was that Ukraine will crumble within weeks, if not days. And based on the announced Putin strategy: decapitate the leadership, replace it and that's it. And anyone "who is honest, realistic and knows military capabilities" could have predicted this.

But did Ritter, the big expert, warned that it may take many, many months ? That the leadership might not be decapitated ? That the Ukrainians might show themselves to be very motivated and creative, while the Russian solders will not, and its military commanders were inept and overwhelmed by the surprisingly strong resistance. That the West will supply weapons (although few and mostly outdated) and provide intelligence data ?

THIS would have been the proof of a truly professional expertise ! IOW, who would have bet on David that he will resist Goliath more then 5 minutes ?

But maybe Scott Ritter did warn "from the first day" that, although Russian victory is inevitable, it will not happen before the end of the year. I would be glad to consider your proof that he did. Otherwise he is a failed expert, no better than I am.

BTW, here is a funny quote from a statement by S. Ritter, March 13, 2022 : "neo-Nazis affiliated to Azov Battalion in Ukraine ... seized the power in the country". This echoes the then Putin's claim that he attacked Ukraine in order, among other objectives, to "denazify" it. I wonder who inspired whom... And I also wonder why this slogan disappeared from Russia's propaganda... and from Scott Ritter's vocabulary...

Now he is warning that an invincible armada is descending on Ukraine and that she would better surrender, or be crushed. I did not visit recently the "120 minutes of hatred" by Solovyov and others on the Russian TV, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear there about the invincible armada...

Edited by AlexL
Added a paragraph at the end
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the prevalence of ethno nationalistic thought in Slavic countries and cultures ? I do not know , but I assume given population levels and densities and historic emigration it is more prevalent than less ? It feels more prevalent in general in Europe , but that is my uninformed Amerikin perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the "neo-Nazis", so prevalent and condemned in articles some years back, and now sanitized by media and politicians down the  'memory hole'?? Odd when you need to find the only decent reporting from a socialist. This fellow throws light on the neo-Nazi, Right Sector, etc.,  movements he seems very familiar with, confirms a suspicion that the small number of them with racist hatred for anything Russian, including Russo-Ukrainians, violently hijacked and utilized the - undemocratic - Maidan coup from the peaceable majority of Ukrainians who simply aspired to align westwards. But their virulent power in politics and the military (and with Zelensky) is greatly disproportionate to their numbers.  If correct, Putin has a valid point - "denazification" is necessary.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, AlexL said:

"Glaringly apparent from the first day", based on size of the countries, population, size of economies and volume of military equipment, was that Ukraine will crumble within weeks, if not days. And based on the announced Putin strategy: decapitate the leadership, replace it and that's it. And anyone "who is honest, realistic and knows military capabilities" could have predicted this.

But did Ritter, the big expert, warned that it may take many, many months ? That the leadership might not be decapitated ? That the Ukrainians might show themselves to be very motivated and creative, while the Russian solders will not, and its military commanders were inept and overwhelmed by the surprisingly strong resistance. That the West will supply weapons (although few and mostly outdated) and provide intelligence data ?

THIS would have been the proof of a truly professional expertise ! IOW, who would have bet on David that he will resist Goliath more then 5 minutes ?

But maybe Scott Ritter did warn "from the first day" that, although Russian victory is inevitable, it will not happen before the end of the year. I would be glad to consider your proof that he did. Otherwise he is a failed expert, no better than I am.

BTW, here is a funny quote from a statement by S. Ritter, March 13, 2022 : "neo-Nazis affiliated to Azov Battalion in Ukraine ... seized the power in the country". This echoes the then Putin's claim that he attacked Ukraine in order, among other objectives, to "denazify" it. I wonder who inspired whom... And I also wonder why this slogan disappeared from Russia's propaganda... and from Scott Ritter's vocabulary...

Now he is warning that an invincible armada is descending on Ukraine and that she would better surrender, or be crushed. I did not visit recently the "120 minutes of hatred" by Solovyov and others on the Russian TV, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear there about the invincible armada...

You've missed the main features, your opinions are based on stock, msm narrative. Identify then judge, right?

Would it have satisfied you if Russia had come in ultra-hard and blitzed everything immediately, gaining a fast victory?

But they did not. This has been a gentle approach this far. The basic rules of warfare were discarded by Russia : the conventional wisdom, one needs a 3:1 advantage over the invaded country's forces; then one - initially, not 9 months in -  pounds the civilian infrastructure (to cut the electrical grid etc. to prevent mobility and comms of enemy forces); one decapitates the enemy state by laying siege to the capital and capturing the gvt. heads; one does not go out of the way to not harm civilians; etc. etc.

Did you observe any of those tactics? Under strength and outnumbered by at least 1 : 3, and an effective and brave UAF (modernly equipped and officers trained by NATO, after all), it's quite surprising how well Russia did in mostly securing the Donbas and other territories.

The big BUT, that no one ever mentioned, is this "SMO" is a tiny fraction of the forces Russia could put in the field, if and when they chose to do so.  It was commanded with disciplined restraint by their generals, seeking one infers, an early ceasefire and talks. (And don't believe the inflated casualty figures, the Russian army has been highly conservative about risking their men, pulling them back where their position is weak - which - further emboldens the expert idiots you read in e.g. the Telegraph: our boys are soon going to drive them out! ).

Therefore, ultimately Ukraine alone can't ever win a war against Russia and will destroy itself trying..

That had to be the deciding criterion from the start, what will opposing Russia gain Ukraine? If they'd known they could not win, would they have gone this far? Only martyrs and suicides would assert they'd still be willing.

Phase two begins shortly with about 300k reservists now entering the rear echelons and into the front lines. . Russia will be taking the gloves off.

 

The propagandists pulled the psy-ops off brilliantly, you create alarm and panic in neighboring countries by assuring them they and all Europe are also in danger from a powerful, marauding  Russia - to induce them to come on board with self-damaging sanctions and parting with endless military supplies and cash to Ukraine - at the same time, your military 'experts' inform everyone that the Russia army is weak and inept, to induce Ukr troops to fight and be killed until their inevitable victory. In that mental confusion nobody thinks straight.

Critical thinkers would have seen the self-contradiction: Is Russia so strong - or, so weak?

The Law of Identity "... at the same time and in the same respect" both those can't be true.  But indoctrination depends on uncritical thinkers.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The basic rules of warfare were discarded by Russia : the conventional wisdom, one needs a 3:1 advantage over the invaded country's forces; then one - initially, not 9 months in -  pounds the civilian infrastructure (to cut the electrical grid etc. to prevent mobility and comms of enemy forces); one decapitates the enemy state by laying siege to the capital and capturing the gvt. heads; one does not go out of the way to not harm civilians; etc. etc.

Oh, and you say that they did not do this and preferred "a gentle approach" ! Ah, the humanists ! They did not send a true army, they send first the Salvation Army in order to gently prepare the Ukrainians for the war, to give them time to wake up, organize, get weapons from abroad, to train them in combat (thus sacrificing <chose your preferred number of Russian combat victims> and so on.

And to only afterwards, after about a year, when the Ukrainians are hardened enough, The Salvation Army is pulled off and

Quote

"phase two begins, Russia will be taking the gloves off ... with about 300k reservists now entering the rear echelons and into the front lines."

[BTW, Scott Ritter mentioned 200k, but it's only a detail 😁]

And these 2-300k new enlisted are supposed to be much more motivated that the previous ones, much better trained, with completely different, now competent officers and far better equipment and weapons, more talented generals - who will suddenly start to care, together with V.V. Putin, for their troops, unlike what one saw anytime before, for at least 100 years !

Quote

Critical thinkers...The Law of Identity

Enough preaching, start practicing - but you are unable too, and never will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, whYNOT said:
 

This has been a gentle approach this far...

The big BUT, that no one ever mentioned, is this "SMO" is a tiny fraction of the forces Russia could put in the field, if and when they chose to do so.  It was commanded with disciplined restraint by their generals, seeking one infers, an early ceasefire and talks. (... the Russian army has been highly conservative about risking their men, pulling them back where their position is weak). [BS/AlexL!]

Phase two begins shortly with about 300k reservists now entering...

I forgot to mention that this theme - "we (Putin's Russia) didn't even begin fighting, but now etc. etc." - started to be broadcast about a month, a month and a half ago on the Russia's governmental media.

I had the curiosity to check if whYNOT shared here this theme earlier than that, but could find nothing. I'll assume, for the time being, that it is simply a coincidence and whYNOT held this idea from the very beginning of this large-scale stage of the war (Feb. 2022)...

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2022 at 4:39 AM, whYNOT said:

Questions for you:

Do you acknowledge the war [is 8 years old] ?

If so, at what stage did you find out, this year - or previously?

[...]

These are serious questions, because I know of nobody personally who knew of, followed or cared about that Ukraine civil war (which has been the lead-up to this one) and found a very few online. I knew little about it.

That is: you want to know if I am as clueless as you are ? No, I am not.

On 11/29/2022 at 4:39 AM, whYNOT said:

The only explanation, they/we weren't informed. It was kept in the dark.

No, I "kept" - myself - in the light - from February 21, 2014 on.

On 11/29/2022 at 4:39 AM, whYNOT said:

(Even this Russian peacenik prejudiced against her Gvt. for the apparent cause of the terrible war indicated she was shocked at the silent suffering by Donbas residents until confronted by it, and when seeing the regular bombing and its effects, esp. of Donetsk city, that continued for all that time until the present day, without any in the West concerned.)

If one listen her testimony eyes wide open, one sees how gullible and manipulable she was (as a anti-war activist and on).

On 11/29/2022 at 4:39 AM, whYNOT said:

Fact: with the build up by NATO training and weaponizing the Ukrainian army was preparing to demolish the Donbas in the past Spring.

Fact: until then, Putin was reluctant to go in, refusing pleas by the Donbas militias for direct intervention for some period. (Or didn't you know that?)

Oh, here you made again a big mistake: you know how much I love your "facts" 😁 and you were warned that I will ask you to prove them. Start with the first:

Quote

with the build up by NATO training and weaponizing the Ukrainian army was preparing to demolish [?] the Donbas in the past Spring

("demolish" - you mean literally demolish, or simply recapture?)

I am skeptical about such an intention, because

  • Russia was still there, it didn't disappear,
  •  NATO was not, obviously, willing to confront the Russians (as they aren't now)
  • and the Ukrainians weren't confident of a victory

 They are fighting now because they didn't/don't have a choice - they were attacked.

So: your come up with your proof.

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AlexL said:

I forgot to mention that this theme - "we (Putin's Russia) didn't even begin fighting, but now etc. etc." - started to be broadcast about a month, a month and a half ago on the Russia's governmental media.

I had the curiosity to check if whYNOT shared here this theme earlier than that, but could find nothing. I'll assume, for the time being, that it is simply a coincidence and whYNOT held this idea from the very beginning of this large-scale stage of the war (Feb. 2022)...

Former secretary of defense Leon Panneta said in Oct that Putin never had enough of a force to invade and control the whole country of Ukraine with only 200k ground troops. 

https://news.yahoo.com/opinion-military-force-only-effective-083000912.html

Given that he is a politico and not to my knowledge a military expert , it would seem this is probably a fairly common belief /opinion among people with a modicum of scrutiny into military capabilities and a general sense of raw numbers. But maybe everything people know about military strategies and technicalities are really just Russian propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Craig24 said:

I think it would have satisfied almost everyone here if this stupid war NEVER HAPPENED!

You got it in one. There were several opportunities for a way out, no one took them up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Former secretary of defense Leon Panneta said in Oct that Putin never had enough of a force to invade and control the whole country of Ukraine with only 200k ground troops. 

https://news.yahoo.com/opinion-military-force-only-effective-083000912.html

Given that he is a politico and not to my knowledge a military expert , it would seem this is probably a fairly common belief /opinion among people with a modicum of scrutiny into military capabilities and a general sense of raw numbers. But maybe everything people know about military strategies and technicalities are really just Russian propaganda.

Panneta is right. That was western propaganda at work, to terrify everyone into compliance. There was never the early intention to occupy and overthrow, it was logically apparent at the start. How far the RF decides to go now, since the West and Ukraine raised the stakes to zero-sum, let's roll the dice, win/lose - nobody can tell.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, AlexL said:

I forgot to mention that this theme - "we (Putin's Russia) didn't even begin fighting, but now etc. etc." - started to be broadcast about a month, a month and a half ago on the Russia's governmental media.

I had the curiosity to check if whYNOT shared here this theme earlier than that, but could find nothing. I'll assume, for the time being, that it is simply a coincidence and whYNOT held this idea from the very beginning of this large-scale stage of the war (Feb. 2022)...

I explained my initial position mainly in the Ukraine thread at OL and it hasn't changed. The culpability for the conflict was on all sides. So end this war before it escalates, send in the diplomats, apply pressure to freeze hostilities. A potential deal was on the table. But by March/April the west sensed the smell of victory over Russia and nothing was going to stop them.  (Again, in September, after a few temporary withdrawals by Russian forces there was the brief window for Ukraine to negotiate from a better bargaining position - but no, the idiots advised it was "the beginning of the end" for Russia). I will never forgive those self-aggrandizing, warmongering political leaders and military experts and world media who sought 'triumph' above the lives lost to (never) achieve it (short of total war).

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, AlexL said:

And these 2-300k new enlisted are supposed to be much more motivated that the previous ones, much better trained, with completely different, now competent officers and far better equipment and weapons, more talented generals - who will suddenly start to care, together with V.V. Putin, for their troops, unlike what one saw anytime before, for at least 100 years !

 

I detect some sour grapes. The freshly enlisted don't have to be any better than the previous, they only have to adequately man many more artillery pieces, tanks, missile launchers. Ukraine forces and weapons have already been severely depleted. The reference to Russian history has been what esp. scholars relied upon to make their fallacious war intentions and "Russian imperialism" predictions: What went before indicates what happens in future is basic determinism. Do you believe generals can never learn from past mistakes? This time round, it's evident that their troops were pulled back from difficult positions, seldom engaging concentrated enemy forces. Short of numbers, their long front lines have been thinly stretched. The war policy was clearly saving soldiers' lives before immediate land gains, and taking up strong defensive positions to wait for the Ukrainians to come into range and a slow "war of attrition". Russian casualty figures estimated by the West greatly exaggerated, another propaganda exercise.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, AlexL said:

That is: you want to know if I am as clueless as you are ? No, I am not.

No, I "kept" - myself - in the light - from February 21, 2014 on.

 

You knew from the start all about that coup, the treatment of Russian ethnicity-speakers, a civil war and broken agreements but have ventured no opinion or even moral judgment? More clueless than I was.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, AlexL said:

("demolish" - you mean literally demolish, or simply recapture?)

I am skeptical about such an intention, because

  • Russia was still there, it didn't disappear,
  •  NATO was not, obviously, willing to confront the Russians (as they aren't now)
  • and the Ukrainians weren't confident of a victory

 They are fighting now because they didn't/don't have a choice - they were attacked.

So: your come up with your proof.

Of course they would be "confident of a victory"! This was a recently resuscitated and very large UAF, built up by NATO expertise and arms (and now incorporating neo-Nazi battalions).

Up until then, there was only the ( while very effective) Donbass militia to defend the Donbass.

For evidence, look at the tough time the UAF has given the SMO Russian force - plus the militia. Ukraine would obviously have thrashed the Donbass with great loss of life and uprooting of the civilians (into Russia, where Kyiv believes they belong).

You need to make these deductions for yourself.

"They were attacked". Oh right, the poor innocents, going about their normal daily war business. Who'd have guessed Russia would come in to help out...

Somebody had to stop the fight, but no one else turned up. See no evil, hear no evil, that was the EU and NATO.

And btw, why should NATO, if that were possible, have to get its hands dirty when Ukraine would do it for them?

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Former secretary of defense Leon Panneta said in Oct that Putin never had enough of a force to invade and control the whole country of Ukraine with only 200k ground troops. 

What claim of mine does this disprove ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:
19 hours ago, AlexL said:

I forgot to mention that this theme - "we (Putin's Russia) didn't even begin fighting, but now etc. etc." - started to be broadcast about a month, a month and a half ago on the Russia's governmental media.

I had the curiosity to check if whYNOT shared here this theme earlier than that, but could find nothing. I'll assume, for the time being, that it is simply a coincidence and whYNOT held this idea from the very beginning of this large-scale stage of the war (Feb. 2022)...

I explained my initial position mainly in the Ukraine thread at OL and it hasn't changed. The culpability for the conflict was on all sides. So end this war before it escalates, send [...]

What does this have to do with what I wrote - that the theme - "we (Putin's Russia) didn't even begin fighting, but now etc. etc." is new for you and appeared after it started to be developed on the Russia's governmental media ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

What claim of mine does this disprove ?

It pertains to an inference about your comment regarding the Russian talking point that they had yet to fight , for real and that that point was new and only generated as RT propaganda.

Biden said basically a small(ish?) military incursion into Ukraine territory by Russia would not be met with any push back from the west in Feb.

Putin has been calling the invasion a smallish special military operation , always downplaying the significance of the force on the ground, not perhaps the significance but the idea that whatever level of troops in Ukraine , it has yet to reach the amount that may be deployed.

Do you think Putin planned to invade and occupy Ukraine with less than 200K troops? It doesn't seem like anyone really thought this particular phase of the invasion is an 'all-out' war operation or 'total war' situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AlexL said:

What does this have to do with what I wrote - that the theme - "we (Putin's Russia) didn't even begin fighting, but now etc. etc." is new for you and appeared after it started to be developed on the Russia's governmental media ???

The necessity, given the West's ferocity of Ukrainian support, to increase Russia's troop strength and adopt a less restrained policy is unsurprising. That ferocity actually proves Putin's case of NATO etc. posing an existential threat to Russia ("it is not paranoia if someone is actually out to get you"). At first, I remarked, it's near certainty Putin thought - wrongly - a show of strength would be enough to pressure Kyiv into the talks and preclude more fighting. Without meddling outsiders it should have worked.

There's no other logical explanation for invading with minimal forces or not first wiping out the grid, etc.-etc. The Press built it up as a comprehensive war to brutalize, defeat and occupy Ukraine, like with you the spin was globally consumed, consistent with general fear and contempt for Russians.

You are fixated on Russian media, told you my sources are diverse. That the same few writers and speakers crop up often, is a testament to the small numbers who aim for the truth and reality.Who understand that liars and propagandists create a fantasy which gets people unnecessarily killed. e.g. I found this a minute ago:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/washingtons-carthaginian-peace-collides-with-reality/

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The necessity to increase Russia's troop strength and adopt a less restrained policy was predictable...

It was so predictable that you mentioned this only a few days ago, 9 months after the beginning ! And, coincidentally, only a few weeks after Russia's governmental media started to broadcast the same justification: "we (Putin's Russia) didn't even begin fighting, we were just kidding, but now we will show them etc. etc. !".

Quote

There's no other logical explanation for invading with minimal forces

Then prove that there can be no other explanation.

Edited by AlexL
rewording
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...