NY Times just casually dropped that the official U.S. intelligence assessment has always been that Putin didn't want to expand the Ukraine conflict beyond Ukraine
NY Times just casually dropped that the official U.S. intelligence assessment has always been that Putin didn't want to expand the Ukraine conflict beyond Ukraine
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm not trying to get flamed as a lib here, but there's a gulf of difference between "not wanting to expand the war" and "having no further ambition once the war is over"
There is no indication that Russia has any military ambitions past Ukraine, and it's pretty clear that Russia tried very hard to prevent the situation in Ukraine from devolving into a war.
I'm not arguing either of these points, I'm just pointing out that all NYT is saying here is that US officials have always believed that Russia wants this war to stay contained to Ukraine. Not that they think Russia didn't want this war or that Russia doesn't have other interests it will pursue external to this war.
All I'm saying is NYT didn't really reveal anything here.
There are plenty of people running around saying that once Russia wins in Ukraine than it's going to go on a conquest of Europe. This has been one of the major justifications for continuing the war lately.
That's true, but that does imply that this war would conclude first. Which is consistent with saying Russia does not want this conflict to expand beyond Ukraine.
yeah for sure
I mean... That's true in that Russia tried to win before Ukraine could mount a significant resistance. Attacking in the first place was pretty clearly an act of war, though, so it feels a bit disingenuous to claim Russia wanted to avoid a war when they... Started... A war...
All it really says is that Russia thought they were strong enough to steamroll Ukraine. Actually wanting to avoid a war would look a lot more like never attacking in the first place or retreating when faced with actual resistance.
Actually wanting to avoid a war would look a lot more like never attacking in the first place
Okay, so, consider this: the most prolific aggressor in the world, one which has been carrying out invasions around the world, inducing crises, enacting coups, killing millions, and which has broken its promise to not expand to your border, carried out a coup in a neighbouring country and is trying to set up a military force there against you in a blatant act of aggression. What do you do?
Apparently, you invade with ineptitude that would be hilarious if not for the bloodshed, embarrass yourself on the world stage, commit a whole bunch of war crimes, and drive several of your neighbors into the arms of this enemy. It's not what I'd do, but Putin seemed to think it was the move to make.
Apparently, you invade with ineptitude that would be hilarious if not for the bloodshed, embarrass yourself on the world stage, commit a whole bunch of war crimes, and drive several of your neighbors into the arms of this enemy
I'm sorry, I thought that you weren't this delusional about Afghanistan somehow fitting the description I provided. No, kid, Afghanistan didn't expand to any US border, and is not the word's most prolific aggressor that killed millions of people during its second invasion of Iraq alone.
In any case, I'm going to note that you did refuse to give an answer to the question, are fine with committing war crimes (in particular, with Ukraine using cluster bombs on its own populated areas), and you seem to think that Sweden and Finland weren't already de facto NATO states, despite their prior participation in NATO atrocities.
It's not what I'd do
Well, we are still waiting for you to tell us what you would do. After all, you seem to think that you are qualified to tell the rest of the world how it should resist you and how it should react to your aggression.
I’m sorry, I thought that you weren’t this delusional about Afghanistan somehow fitting the description I provided. No, kid, Afghanistan didn’t expand to any US border, and is not the word’s most prolific aggressor that killed millions of people during its second invasion of Iraq alone.
I'm sorry, I thought you understood we were talking about Ukraine, so I interpreted your comment through that lens. I've heard claims that the 2014 was western-backed, though I've never seen anyone attempt to substantiate that claim, so I assumed that was what you meant. You know, because it's relevant to the discussion at hand, unlike Afghanistan.
Well, we are still waiting for you to tell us what you would do. After all, you seem to think that you are qualified to tell the rest of the world how it should resist you and how it should react to your aggression.
Go ahead and quote the part where I said anything about how they should or shouldn't resist. I never did, nor was that the topic at hand. Attempting to force me to answer it is nothing but an attempt at grandstanding.
The discussion at hand, since you seem to be struggling to grasp that, was whether or not Russia was trying to prevent war in Ukraine. Ukraine being the country they invaded. Voluntarily. Arguably for imperialist reasons. Unless, of course, you think it's pure coincidence that Russia would stand to gain ports, natural gas (or is it oil? I think natural gas), and a ton of food production.
I'm sorry, I thought you understood we were talking about Ukraine
We were, but you decided to talk about your embarrassment and atrocities in Afghanistan, for some reason.
I've heard claims that the 2014 was western-backed, though I've never seen anyone attempt to substantiate that claim
The Nuland-Pyatt correspondence where they discussed whom to put on the throne in Ukraine instead of the then-current leader were leaked in early February of 2014, before the coup. She also bragged about how much the US spent on influencing the Ukrainian government. And, of course, the leaders of the coup were politicians - it was not a grassroots movement.
Go ahead and quote the part where I said anything about how they should or shouldn't resist
You keep talking about how Russia is bad for resisting you, for example.
I never did, nor was that the topic at hand
It's literally the topic at hand. You started it by talking about how Russia shouldn't have resisted your aggression the way Russia did.
Attempting to force me to answer it is nothing but an attempt at grandstanding
Cool. So, what you said is that Russia responded correctly to your aggression. Good to know that you will now delete your cold comments now that you realise that you were in the wrong.
The discussion at hand, since you seem to be struggling to grasp that, was whether or not Russia was trying to prevent war in Ukraine
War with NATO more generally.
And yeah, Russia did try to resolve it otherwise. Russia did not just do an overt full-scale invasion in 2014.
Ukraine being the country they invaded
After NATO did a coup in Ukraine and set up a puppet government there that was attempting to bring NATO's weapons to the Russian border.
Voluntarily
Cool. So what would you do? Let the most prolific aggressor in the world harass and attack you? Lol.
Notably, you are fine with voluntarily invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Vietnam, Korea, committing genocides, including the one in the occupied Palestine, known torture sites, coups, etc.
I’m sorry, I thought you understood we were talking about Ukraine
We were, but you decided to talk about your embarrassment and atrocities in Afghanistan, for some reason.
Cute. Downright adorable. You knew full well what I was talking about, you just elected to change the subject. Which suggests you're not arguing in good faith and just wanted a smug put down.
I’ve heard claims that the 2014 was western-backed, though I’ve never seen anyone attempt to substantiate that claim
The Nuland-Pyatt correspondence where they discussed whom to put on the throne in Ukraine instead of the then-current leader were leaked in early February of 2014, before the coup. She also bragged about how much the US spent on influencing the Ukrainian government. And, of course, the leaders of the coup were politicians - it was not a grassroots movement.
I haven't heard of this before, so I'll check it out.
Go ahead and quote the part where I said anything about how they should or shouldn’t resist
You keep talking about how Russia is bad for resisting you, for example.
I can't believe your reading comprehension is genuinely that poor. You know what I actually meant, and this is just a poor attempt to change the subject to one you find more favorable.
I never did, nor was that the topic at hand
It’s literally the topic at hand. You started it by talking about how Russia shouldn’t have resisted your aggression the way Russia did.
Look, there's the discussion you want to have, and there's the discussion the rest of us who are paying attention are trying to have. Try to stay on topic. No, I did not mention Afghanistan, even if the description is relevant to more than what we're talking about. No, it wasn't a genuine mistake to misinterpret it that way. Don't try to play smug and stupid at the same time.
The discussion at hand, since you seem to be struggling to grasp that, was whether or not Russia was trying to prevent war in Ukraine
War with NATO more generally.
And yeah, Russia did try to resolve it otherwise. Russia did not just do an overt full-scale invasion in 2014.
Full-scale? No. Invasion? Yes. Russia tried to deny troop presence, but I recall several instances of soldiers accidentally revealing their presence.
Notably, you are fine with voluntarily invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Vietnam, Korea, committing genocides, including the one in the occupied Palestine, known torture sites, coups, etc.
You know, I don't recall ever mentioning those things. Don't see them in this thread anywhere. Do you assume the worst of everyone who disagrees with you, or am I just special?
Which suggests you're not arguing in good faith and just wanted a smug put down
Oh? Were you arguing in good faith when you refused to elaborate on how you think Russia should have reacted to your aggression, then?
You know what I actually meant
That the rest of the world shouldn't resist you? Nah, I got that. I'm just trying to get you to say that overtly. Or, as an alternative, to get you to admit to having been in the wrong and doing better in the future.
Full-scale? No. Invasion? Yes.
And then Ukraine and NATO had years to cease the aggression against Russia.
You know, I don't recall ever mentioning those things. Don't see them in this thread anywhere. Do you assume the worst of everyone who disagrees with you, or am I just special?
Do you agree that what you keep doing is monstrous and that you need to be stopped, then? Do you agree with Russia's course of action or can you suggest an alternative?
Which suggests you’re not arguing in good faith and just wanted a smug put down
Oh? Were you arguing in good faith when you refused to elaborate on how you think Russia should have reacted to your aggression, then?
Given that it isn't the discussion I was initially involved in and attempted to stay out of it because I won't claim to have simplistic solutions to complex problems, yeah, I'd say I was. There's the right thing to do, and there's the thing you can actually convince all involved parties to do. Unfortunately, telling everyone to leave each other the fuck alone and play nicely won't do anything meaningful, and I don't pretend to be a foreign policy expert capable of discerning what all parties will begrudgingly agree to. I just was able to recognize an armed invasion as an act of war when the discussion was on whether or not Russia was trying to avoid war.
The rest of this is mostly just you attempting to shove words in my mouth. Nobody should be invading anyone. Nobody should be genociding anyone. Yes, I am capable of understanding when when western countries do fucked up things. Yes, I think they should knock it off. Yes, that applies to Russia, too.
Reads like projection, especially considering how the NATO freaks have been publicly salivating over those dumbassed balkanized Russia maps and publicly posting their plans via military think tanks