- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Putin’s Invasion Had the Opposite Intended Effect - Russia Now Surrounded by NATO
Posted on 2/27/24 at 8:02 am to Draconian Sanctions
Posted on 2/27/24 at 8:02 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
The war Putin is fighting started in 2014 and bigger than just Ukraine.
This war started, at the latest, in 2008 when Russia used the same playbook to invade Georgia. You can go back a little bit to include Belarus. 2006 in particular was a violent election with questionable results.
But the Georgian invasion was the same bullshite as Ukraine, using ethnic Russians and a manufactured crisis to justify invasion and occupation. You see the same talking points in Ukraine and now Moldova.
0
Posted on 2/27/24 at 8:02 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We?
The U.S. has some weird, paranoid thing about German/Russian alliance. A bunch of senators said similar things, not to mention the Nuland types. The beautiful orange man even did it in his own unique way.
quote:
"When Germany makes a massive oil and gas deal with Russia," Trump said to Stoltenberg. "We're supposed to be guarding against Russia and Germany goes out and pays billions and billions of dollars a year to Russia.
"We're protecting Germany, we're protecting France, we're protecting all of these countries. And then numerous of the countries go out and make a pipeline deal with Russia where they're paying billions of dollars into the coffers of Russia.
"So we're supposed to protect you against Russia and you pay billions of dollars to Russia and I think that's very inappropriate," Trump said at the residence of the U.S. ambassador in Brussels.
"Germany will have almost 70 percent of their country controlled by Russia with natural gas. You tell me, is that appropriate?," he asked, while Stoltenberg listened.
At one point, the former Norwegian prime minister pointed out that the NATO allies in Europe disagreed among themselves on ways to reduce the continent's reliance on Russian gas.
LINK /
Posted on 2/27/24 at 8:03 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:
Germany had nice, cheap energy to be an economic powerhouse and we f'ed them over pushing this conflict and blowing up Nord Stream. Putin was perfectly happy supplying that energy to western Europe, but we couldn't allow it
There still exists pipelines that could move gas to Germany. Germany refuse to use it.
This post was edited on 2/27/24 at 8:03 am
Posted on 2/27/24 at 8:03 am to GumboPot
quote:
What was it about then?
The EU, namely Ukraine joining it and turning its back on Russia, creating a path where Ukraine could develop into a country more economically prosperous than Russia. This is both a strategical and psychological crisis for Putin.
This post was edited on 2/27/24 at 8:04 am
Posted on 2/27/24 at 8:03 am to Bunk Moreland
What he said was just facts 
Posted on 2/27/24 at 8:04 am to GumboPot
quote:
Can you quantify that value?
Billions in trade annually.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 8:04 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
I don’t know what the number is, but if your goal is to avoid major escalation in Europe you have to make the project Putin is pursuing difficult enough for him to justify continuing without boxing him into a corner.
It can't happen. Russia holds too many things the world has to have. You cannot cut his oil off from the global market without running the price up, thus counteracting any attempts on that front. Also, who is the US to decide what value other sovereign countries can sell their assets? The oil market price cap is laughable but par for the course for our government class.
The worst thing the US did was to freeze Russian assets in the Swift systems. The whole world now fears that the same could happen to them and this foolish endeavor may threaten the dollar at some point in the future.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 8:06 am to SlowFlowPro
Vlad Vexler and Decoding GeoPolitics with Dominik Presl are good YouTube channels for this stuff. Vlad goes really long form on his chat channel.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 8:07 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:
German/Russian alliance.
Alliance is not the correct word. They were trade partners in a fungible resource.
I don't care if Germany buys Russian petro. Russia has kind of shown why they are an unreliable trade partner. I'm not even speaking of the military angle. They don't act in a way that meshes with modernity and especially modern trade/economics.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 8:08 am to meansonny
quote:
Does NATO have a recent history of invading countries?
Because Russia does.
The only way to claim this is to be completely obtuse to how many Governments the USA has toppled or sought to topple. We don't have to invade because the CIA funds and arms who they want to win (remember when we used to fund and arm Osama) but we have in fact invaded our fair share with NATO support.
Remember when Gaddafi Duck tried to switch currencies and the US didn't care for that?
This post was edited on 2/27/24 at 8:14 am
Posted on 2/27/24 at 8:09 am to TigerDog83
quote:
The worst thing the US did was to freeze Russian assets in the Swift systems. The whole world now fears that the same could happen to them
The "whole world"?
Countries worried about being bad actors, perhaps. There aren't that many of them, and many of them hold economic positions that Russia pretends it does (like Saudi Arabia, who can do whatever the frick it wants without any real fear of retribution).
quote:
and this foolish endeavor may threaten the dollar at some point in the future.
And now you're LARPing
Posted on 2/27/24 at 8:09 am to stout
Posted on 2/27/24 at 8:11 am to TigerDog83
Without a viable alternative the dollar isn’t going anywhere as a reserve currency.
I didn’t suggest cutting Russian oil off completely is possible or even needed to dissuade Putin from his larger goals outside of Ukraine.
You’ve got to just, for now, force him to continue to throw his industrial capacity into keeping the current conflict more or less frozen. While the Russian economy is doing much better than expected today, it’s not at all clear that will continue into 2025 and beyond.
If you give him the opportunity to regroup, he will challenge NATO directly within a few years. That’s where the real danger is at this moment.
I didn’t suggest cutting Russian oil off completely is possible or even needed to dissuade Putin from his larger goals outside of Ukraine.
You’ve got to just, for now, force him to continue to throw his industrial capacity into keeping the current conflict more or less frozen. While the Russian economy is doing much better than expected today, it’s not at all clear that will continue into 2025 and beyond.
If you give him the opportunity to regroup, he will challenge NATO directly within a few years. That’s where the real danger is at this moment.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 8:12 am to RFK
Ha ha. NATO has already been invaded, and the invaders are not Russian. They'll play hell keeping their noses above water, much less attacking Russia over Ukraine, which is half Russian anyway.
And Putin admitted to Tucker that Russian is logistically unable to launch any kind of attack on NATO Nations. But Russia is loaded with nukes and can take NATO Europe out in the space of an hour if were to come to that.
The Aliens riding around in those UFOs must be banging their heads against the wall.
Or perhaps this is the Universal norm. Fermi Paradox btw.
And Putin admitted to Tucker that Russian is logistically unable to launch any kind of attack on NATO Nations. But Russia is loaded with nukes and can take NATO Europe out in the space of an hour if were to come to that.
The Aliens riding around in those UFOs must be banging their heads against the wall.
Or perhaps this is the Universal norm. Fermi Paradox btw.Posted on 2/27/24 at 8:13 am to stout
quote:
The only way to claim this is to be completely obtuse to how many Governments the USA has toppled or sought to topple.
The US isn't "NATO".
Also, post Cold War, this number is extremely limited. There is Iraq, and I think everyone who criticized me on here in 2004 now admits I was right about Iraq, so we don't need to litigate that one.
Now, if you want to claim the US is NATO, then we have to focus on Europe. Which countries in the sphere of NATO has the "USA toppled or sought to topple"?
quote:
Remember when Gaddafi Duck tried to switch currencies and the US didn't care for that?
C'mon.
Also, the UNSC passed a resolution on that. Libya was a UN thing, not NATO. Pretty much anytime NATO ever has been used, it's been at the request of the UN (via the UNSC).
Posted on 2/27/24 at 8:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Oh FFS
This aggression was never actually about NATO.
Here are three accounts of the April 2022 peacetalks status before the UK/US scuttled them. NATO was the primary concern according to EVERYONE. The thing speaks for itself.
quote:
All sources show a similar Ukraine vision of a peace deal. Key elements of it are outlined below.
(1) The peace treaty applies after the Russian army withdraws from the territory of Ukraine, except Crimea and the occupied Donbas area.
(2) Ukraine expects a group of world powers to offer security guarantees. Kyiv proposed the following guarantors' list: Russia, China, the U.S., Great Britain, France, Turkey, Germany, Canada, Italy, Poland, and Israel. However, not all of them have so far agreed to that. Details of this role are even less clear. Ukraine insists that the guarantors should pledge protection equal to Art. 5 of the NATO Washington Treaty, but it's rather unreal.
(3) These guarantees do not apply to the occupied Crimea and the occupied Donbas area. This would allow guarantor states not to be involved in the war on the first day after the ratification of the treaty.
(4) Instead, Ukraine limits its sovereignty in Security and Defence. Kyiv pledges non-accession to NATO or other military alliances and to change the Constitution for this purpose (now Ukraine). Ukraine appears ready to take much stronger obligations than just non-alignment. In particular, Kyiv proposes a ban on any foreign military contingent in Ukraine. Ukraine can conduct any joint military exercises on its soil and sea only with the consent of the guarantor states (including Russia).
(5) In exchange for giving up NATO, the EU Member States present among the guarantors (including Germany and France) guarantee Ukraine's assistance in joining the European Union.
(6) Ukraine and Russia are starting negotiations on the status of Crimea, which will last for 15 years. At the same time, the negotiators emphasize that the issues of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol will be considered separately (probably assuming a different agreement with Russia on them). Instead, Ukraine promises not to return Crimea by military means, but there is no such promise for Donbas.
(7) All this will work only if such an agreement is approved by referendum, ratified by Verkhovna Rada and the guarantor states. The process will begin only after the withdrawal of troops, as referred to in paragraph 1, but may fail at each stage of ratification.
European Pravda - 30 March 2022
Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder weighed in:
quote:
Schröder says that in 2022 he received a request from Ukraine with an offer to act as a mediator between Russia and Ukraine, conveying a message to Putin. According to the ex-chancellor, the current Minister of Defense Rustem Umerov participated in this process.
Schroeder said that then the negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow consisted of five main points:
1. Refusal of Ukraine's membership in NATO.
2. Abolition of Ukrainization laws prohibiting the Russian language in the public sphere. Ukraine was ready to discuss the return of the Russian language to Donbass.
3. Donbass remains part of Ukraine, but becomes an autonomy based on the model of South Tyrol in Italy (autonomy with special status).
4. Ukraine receives security guarantees from the UN Security Council and Germany (according to the “5+1” formula, which was supported, according to Schroeder, by Umerov)
5. Crimea, judging by Schroeder’s wording, remains with the Russian Federation: “Crimea for Russia is not just a piece of land, it is part of its history.” But the Ukrainians, he said, demanded negotiations on the status of the peninsula.
According to Schroeder, it was not possible to reach an agreement because “everything was decided in Washington.”
"I think that the Americans did not want a compromise between Ukraine and Russia. The Americans think that the Russians can be contained.
LINK
quote:
The war could have ended in the spring of 2022 if Ukraine had agreed to a neutral status - Arakhamia
November 24, 2023
The war could have ended in the spring of 2022 if Ukraine had agreed to neutrality.
This statement was made by the leader of the Servant of the People faction, David Arakhamia, on air with journalist Natalya Moseychuk.
“Russia’s goal was to put pressure on us so that we would accept neutrality. This was the main thing for them: they were ready to end the war if we accepted neutrality, like Finland once did. And we would give an obligation that we would not join NATO. This is the main thing,” – said Arakhamia.
When asked why Ukraine did not agree, he replied that for this, firstly, it was necessary to change the Constitution, and secondly, there is no trust in the Russians that they will do this. He also said that Boris Johnson came to Kyiv then and said that he did not want to sign anything with the Russians and “let’s just fight.”
It should be noted that the media previously repeatedly reported that the Ukrainian authorities refused to sign the agreement in the spring of 2022 after negotiations with Johnson. And now, as we see, Arakhamia has actually confirmed this.
Let us recall that according to media reports, Putin in the spring of 2022 was ready to withdraw troops to the line on February 24 in exchange for the neutral status of Ukraine. And former German Chancellor Schröder, who participated in the negotiations , stated that Putin even agreed to return Donbass to Ukraine with a special status.
LINK
Posted on 2/27/24 at 8:14 am to RCDfan1950
quote:
And Putin admitted to Tucker that Russian is logistically unable to launch any kind of attack on NATO Nations
Today.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 8:16 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Oh FFS
If the EU wasn't important, then why did Putin, via Yanukovych, pull the rug out in November of 2013?
This literally was the match that lit the fuse on this whole conflict, b/c the people of Ukraine had a civil uprising in response b/c they were so pissed.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 8:16 am to RFK
Yes, and you as an American taxpayer get to pay for it. What a deal!
Rodo
Rodo
Page 4 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News