• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Ukraine is the Wests Fault': Mearsheimer Told Us So — In 2014

If true, then Russia is 100 miles from NATO countries. A reasonable person would suggest a summit to argree on the mutual distance from the common border that a deliverable nuclear weapon should be stored...not invading and destroying Ukraine.

You are anti-war aren't you?

Reasonable people would completely get rid of ALL nuclear weapons. They've already got rid of a lot of nuclear weapons, but they're still holding onto and 'upgrading' nuclear weapons.
 
Reasonable people would completely get rid of ALL nuclear weapons. They've already got rid of a lot of nuclear weapons, but they're still holding onto and 'upgrading' nuclear weapons.

Dodging.
 
You should google Prof Mearsheimer and check out his standing as an expert in the poli-sci field. But if you can’t waste 45 minutes of your time to understand what’s happening, you’re among the majority of posters here.
There is no indication in your OP that you watched the video either. You've not really shared any of the more salient points that were made. What were they?
 
Reasonable people would completely get rid of ALL nuclear weapons.

That isn't going to happen and you well know that it isn't going to happen.
 
If true, then Russia is 100 miles from NATO countries. A reasonable person would suggest a summit to agree on the mutual minimal distance from the common border that a deliverable nuclear weapon should be stored...not invading and destroying Ukraine.

You are anti-war aren't you?

No, Russia existed before NATO did. Before the USSR, Russia was a great power like Germany, or France, or Britain, etc. They were one out of multiple great powers in Europe and the world. All these great powers have had national interests and red lines they won't accept being crossed - that wasn't specific to Russia only. So to refer to every Russian interest as Soviet mentality is ridiculous and wrongful.

It's like you think the United States was created to fight this one other country -- that's revisionist and crazy.

yrf16aqs9jj81.jpg
 
Biden is saying, and the media is parroting, that Putin wants to rebuild the old Soviet Union. Is that true?

No, not true at all. The only expansion going on here is NATO expansion.

The US has a Geo-Political Strategy. The end-game of that strategy is for the US and Britain to gain control and carve up the eastern Russian republics for themselves (and maybe throw France and Germany a bone), because the eastern Russian republics have 2x more oil and natural gas than Central Asia and an abundance of a variety of metal ores and non-metallic minerals.

To get control of the eastern Russian republics, the US needs control of Central Asia so it bankroll "pro-Democracy" groups and smuggle weapons, equipment and supplies into the eastern Russian republics.

The Central Asian States have 5x-7x more oil and natural gas than all of the Middle East and North Africa -- which means eastern Russia has 10x-14x more oil and natural gas than the Middle East/North Africa -- and lots of metallic ores and non-metallic minerals.

To get control of the Central Asian States, the US must have unfettered air, rail and highway access from the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean Region, so the US must get control of Iran.

To get control of Iran, the US must take out Iraq and Afghanistan, which it has done.

To prevent Russia from defending itself, the US must drive Russia out of the Mediterranean Sea and pen them up in the Black Sea, which the US has done by castrating Yugoslavia to deny Russian ships access to ports in the Adriatic, and get control of Libya and Tunisia, for the same reason (and the US has control).

Syria is the only stumbling block, but really the only advantage for Russia is forward operating bases for their fighters and bombers to thwart the US plan.

Which brings us to Ukraine.

When the insurgents in eastern Russia bankrolled and supplied by the US start acting up, Russia will naturally move to put down the insurgency.

The US and Britain will insist on a No-Fly Zone and that's why the US needs Ukraine to be a NATO member-State to use air bases to enforce the No-Fly Zone.

If Belarus and Ukraine are neutral -- which is what Putin wants -- then the US/NATO cannot violate their air-space.

That means the No-Fly Zone has to be operated out of Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Central Asia.

That's why Russia took Crimea.

Russian surface groups are very good anti-ship/anti-air platforms. They will blast NATO aircraft out of the sky leaving out of Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey on their way into Russia.

Russian SAMs in Crimea will do a lot of damage, too, and then Russian fighters will interdict NATO aircraft and Russian bombers will be launching non-ballistic missiles at NATO air bases in Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey to thwart the US attempt to conquer eastern Russia.

And the reason the US needs to control eastern Russia is to keep your Standard of Living way higher than everyone else:

The costs of not implementing this strategy are clear. Failure to meet our defense objectives will result in decreasing U.S. global influence, eroding cohesion among allies and partners, and reduced access to markets that will contribute to a decline in our prosperity and standard of living.

[emphasis mine]


I worked on this plan while at TRADOC Headquarters. I've been telling people about it since I first joined a forum in 2008 -- so 14 years now -- but your government only published that about 3 years ago.
 
I worked on this plan while at TRADOC Headquarters. I've been telling people about it since I first joined a forum in 2008 -- so 14 years now -- but your government only published that about 3 years ago.

That's a very well put together summary. It echoes much of what Mearsheimer has been saying as well.

Of course the left will accuse you of being a Russian stooge because WaPo/NYT told them so.

Just curious if you know, what's the CIA's role in this?
 
No, not true at all. The only expansion going on here is NATO expansion.

The US has a Geo-Political Strategy. The end-game of that strategy is for the US and Britain to gain control and carve up the eastern Russian republics for themselves (and maybe throw France and Germany a bone), because the eastern Russian republics have 2x more oil and natural gas than Central Asia and an abundance of a variety of metal ores and non-metallic minerals.

To get control of the eastern Russian republics, the US needs control of Central Asia so it bankroll "pro-Democracy" groups and smuggle weapons, equipment and supplies into the eastern Russian republics.

The Central Asian States have 5x-7x more oil and natural gas than all of the Middle East and North Africa -- which means eastern Russia has 10x-14x more oil and natural gas than the Middle East/North Africa -- and lots of metallic ores and non-metallic minerals.

To get control of the Central Asian States, the US must have unfettered air, rail and highway access from the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean Region, so the US must get control of Iran.

To get control of Iran, the US must take out Iraq and Afghanistan, which it has done.

To prevent Russia from defending itself, the US must drive Russia out of the Mediterranean Sea and pen them up in the Black Sea, which the US has done by castrating Yugoslavia to deny Russian ships access to ports in the Adriatic, and get control of Libya and Tunisia, for the same reason (and the US has control).

Syria is the only stumbling block, but really the only advantage for Russia is forward operating bases for their fighters and bombers to thwart the US plan.

Which brings us to Ukraine.

When the insurgents in eastern Russia bankrolled and supplied by the US start acting up, Russia will naturally move to put down the insurgency.

The US and Britain will insist on a No-Fly Zone and that's why the US needs Ukraine to be a NATO member-State to use air bases to enforce the No-Fly Zone.

If Belarus and Ukraine are neutral -- which is what Putin wants -- then the US/NATO cannot violate their air-space.

That means the No-Fly Zone has to be operated out of Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Central Asia.

That's why Russia took Crimea.

Russian surface groups are very good anti-ship/anti-air platforms. They will blast NATO aircraft out of the sky leaving out of Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey on their way into Russia.

Russian SAMs in Crimea will do a lot of damage, too, and then Russian fighters will interdict NATO aircraft and Russian bombers will be launching non-ballistic missiles at NATO air bases in Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey to thwart the US attempt to conquer eastern Russia.

And the reason the US needs to control eastern Russia is to keep your Standard of Living way higher than everyone else:

The costs of not implementing this strategy are clear. Failure to meet our defense objectives will result in decreasing U.S. global influence, eroding cohesion among allies and partners, and reduced access to markets that will contribute to a decline in our prosperity and standard of living.

[emphasis mine]


I worked on this plan while at TRADOC Headquarters. I've been telling people about it since I first joined a forum in 2008 -- so 14 years now -- but your government only published that about 3 years ago.

Conspiracy theory. *YAWN*
 
It’s like when the guy being arrested for a domestic disturbance call tells the cop it was his wife’s fault for talking back.
No, it’s not.

You can’t boil down complex geopolitical issues to simple crimes involving two people.
 
Mearsheimer Told Us So — In 2014





The lecture is only about 40 minutes, preceded by the introduction and with a Q&A following.

I've read some critiques of Mearsheimer, but the position he lays out, especially in hindsight and in light of current events, is compelling. The summary: “The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path & the end result is Ukraine is going to get wrecked.”

Biden is saying, and the media is parroting, that Putin wants to rebuild the old Soviet Union. Is that true? Did the US lead Ukraine down the primrose path by including them in NATO drills and exercises right upon to Sept 2021 with zero intentions of including them as an article 5 nation?

It appears so. Watch this video and draw your own conclusions, but Mearsheimer appears to be speaking to the truth in this situation.

The West turning our backs on entire countries is how the USSR was formed. That was a mistake and we can't keep repeating it. We can't have peace when an evil empire is allowed to do as it pleases. Putin should have been shunned, sanctioned and isolated in 2014 if you want to use hindsight. The slap on the wrist he got emboldened him.
 
And still not really an excuse for a preemptive attack on a civilian population.
Dumb lefties: “Ukraine will resist to the last man, 20 year insurgency! Slavya Ukrana! My hot pockets are ready, good luck Azov!

Also lefties: how dare Russia attack a nation that’s 100% civilians!
 
No, not true at all. The only expansion going on here is NATO expansion.

The US has a Geo-Political Strategy. The end-game of that strategy is for the US and Britain to gain control and carve up the eastern Russian republics for themselves (and maybe throw France and Germany a bone), because the eastern Russian republics have 2x more oil and natural gas than Central Asia and an abundance of a variety of metal ores and non-metallic minerals.

To get control of the eastern Russian republics, the US needs control of Central Asia so it bankroll "pro-Democracy" groups and smuggle weapons, equipment and supplies into the eastern Russian republics.

The Central Asian States have 5x-7x more oil and natural gas than all of the Middle East and North Africa -- which means eastern Russia has 10x-14x more oil and natural gas than the Middle East/North Africa -- and lots of metallic ores and non-metallic minerals.

To get control of the Central Asian States, the US must have unfettered air, rail and highway access from the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean Region, so the US must get control of Iran.

To get control of Iran, the US must take out Iraq and Afghanistan, which it has done.

To prevent Russia from defending itself, the US must drive Russia out of the Mediterranean Sea and pen them up in the Black Sea, which the US has done by castrating Yugoslavia to deny Russian ships access to ports in the Adriatic, and get control of Libya and Tunisia, for the same reason (and the US has control).

Syria is the only stumbling block, but really the only advantage for Russia is forward operating bases for their fighters and bombers to thwart the US plan.

Which brings us to Ukraine.

When the insurgents in eastern Russia bankrolled and supplied by the US start acting up, Russia will naturally move to put down the insurgency.

The US and Britain will insist on a No-Fly Zone and that's why the US needs Ukraine to be a NATO member-State to use air bases to enforce the No-Fly Zone.

If Belarus and Ukraine are neutral -- which is what Putin wants -- then the US/NATO cannot violate their air-space.

That means the No-Fly Zone has to be operated out of Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Central Asia.

That's why Russia took Crimea.

Russian surface groups are very good anti-ship/anti-air platforms. They will blast NATO aircraft out of the sky leaving out of Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey on their way into Russia.

Russian SAMs in Crimea will do a lot of damage, too, and then Russian fighters will interdict NATO aircraft and Russian bombers will be launching non-ballistic missiles at NATO air bases in Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey to thwart the US attempt to conquer eastern Russia.

And the reason the US needs to control eastern Russia is to keep your Standard of Living way higher than everyone else:

The costs of not implementing this strategy are clear. Failure to meet our defense objectives will result in decreasing U.S. global influence, eroding cohesion among allies and partners, and reduced access to markets that will contribute to a decline in our prosperity and standard of living.

[emphasis mine]


I worked on this plan while at TRADOC Headquarters. I've been telling people about it since I first joined a forum in 2008 -- so 14 years now -- but your government only published that about 3 years ago.

So....

Russia didn't annex Crimea?

Russia didn't assist Donbass?

Russia isn't pushing at the border of Georgia?
 
Mearsheimer Told Us So — In 2014





The lecture is only about 40 minutes, preceded by the introduction and with a Q&A following.

I've read some critiques of Mearsheimer, but the position he lays out, especially in hindsight and in light of current events, is compelling. The summary: “The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path & the end result is Ukraine is going to get wrecked.”

Biden is saying, and the media is parroting, that Putin wants to rebuild the old Soviet Union. Is that true? Did the US lead Ukraine down the primrose path by including them in NATO drills and exercises right upon to Sept 2021 with zero intentions of including them as an article 5 nation?

It appears so. Watch this video and draw your own conclusions, but Mearsheimer appears to be speaking to the truth in this situation.

He does make a compelling argument.

But I don't know that he is correct.

I tend to think it's a both sides thing - each has done something to contribute to the issue, it's not one-sided.
 
No, Russia existed before NATO did. Before the USSR, Russia was a great power like Germany, or France, or Britain, etc. They were one out of multiple great powers in Europe and the world. All these great powers have had national interests and red lines they won't accept being crossed - that wasn't specific to Russia only. So to refer to every Russian interest as Soviet mentality is ridiculous and wrongful.

It's like you think the United States was created to fight this one other country -- that's revisionist and crazy.

yrf16aqs9jj81.jpg
The fact is that Russia started a war and made our military bases relevant again. Never again can Putin's Russia be accepted in the world of nations. They must be shunned until they rid themselves of their power hungry madman.
 
The fact is that Russia started a war and made our military bases relevant again. Never again can Putin's Russia be accepted in the world of nations. They must be shunned until they rid themselves of their power hungry madman.
Virtually every nation accepts Putin’s Russia. China, Mexico, Brazil, India, and South Africa are not going along with sanctions, virtually none of Africa is, and even European countries are only going with sanctions on appearances while approving massive carve outs for themselves. Copium is bad for you.
 
Crimea was rightfully Russian.

Was France morally wrong to assist us in our revolution?

They’re not, they’re reinforcing the traditional homeland of the Ossetian people

Incorrect. The Naval base at Sebastopol was Russian. Since you can't even get that right the rest of your post is rejected.
 
Incorrect. The Naval base at Sebastopol was Russian. Since you can't even get that right the rest of your post is rejected.
Crimea was entirely Russian since the 17th century. I do not deny that a mistake of geography was made in the breakup of the Soviet Union, but Vladimir Putin has corrected that mistake and Crimea has been reunified. Not annexed, but reunified to its rightful country. The Ukes are never ever getting their SS tattooed hands back on it
 
Crimea was entirely Russian since the 17th century. I do not deny that a mistake of geography was made in the breakup of the Soviet Union, but Vladimir Putin has corrected that mistake and Crimea has been reunified. Not annexed, but reunified to its rightful country. The Ukes are never ever getting their SS tattooed hands back on it

So what?

Since the 17th century India was British. Until it wasn't . Finland was Russia. Until it wasn't. The US colonies were British. Until we weren't.

It wasn't a mistake to give it to Ukraine.
 
So what?

Since the 17th century India was British.
No, India was never part of United Kingdom, it was a client State.
Until it wasn't . Finland was Russia.
No, Finland was never Russia. Clearly you are fairly ignorant of history. Finland was a piece of land governed under the Russian empire, but which was near autonomously governed by Finns
Until it wasn't. The US colonies were British. Until we weren't.
Ok. So apply this to DNR and LNR
It wasn't a mistake to give it to Ukraine.
Yes, it was a giant mistake, the Ukranian SSR should’ve been carved into a Rump western side where actual Ukranians lived.

But that aside, unlike your previous examples, Crimea was an integral part of the Russian state who’s residents were Russian.

Maybe they lived in Ukraine, but then in your words “until they weren’t”
 
No, India was never part of United Kingdom, it was a client State.

No, Finland was never Russia. Clearly you are fairly ignorant of history. Finland was a piece of land governed under the Russian empire, but which was near autonomously governed by Finns

Ok. So apply this to DNR and LNR

Yes, it was a giant mistake, the Ukranian SSR should’ve been carved into a Rump western side where actual Ukranians lived.

But that aside, unlike your previous examples, Crimea was an integral part of the Russian state who’s residents were Russian.

Maybe they lived in Ukraine, but then in your words “until they weren’t”

The Raj never existed?

🤣

Finland was never part of the Russian Empire?

🤣

It is as if you are trying to be wrong.
 
The Raj never existed?

🤣
The Raj was not part of Britain.
Finland was never part of the Russian Empire?

🤣
Lol, you are showing you never read what you quoted. Being nominally within the Russian empire does not mean Finland was part of Russia. Russian law did not apply in Finland, most Russian taxes did not apply in Finland, the Russian police had no jurisdiction in Finland, Finnish men were not subject to conscription, in fact there is a reason that a lot of the communist revolutionaries like Lennon spent a lot of time in Finland, because the Secret police of the Russian emperor could not surveille them in Finland.
It is as if you are trying to be wrong.
I don’t know why you are pretending to be illiterate
 
The Raj was not part of Britain.

Lol, you are showing you never read what you quoted. Being nominally within the Russian empire does not mean Finland was part of Russia. Russian law did not apply in Finland, most Russian taxes did not apply in Finland, the Russian police had no jurisdiction in Finland, Finnish men were not subject to conscription, in fact there is a reason that a lot of the communist revolutionaries like Lennon spent a lot of time in Finland, because the Secret police of the Russian emperor could not surveille them in Finland.

I don’t know why you are pretending to be illiterate

The Raj.

The British Raj (/rɑːdʒ/; from Hindi rāj: kingdom, realm, state, or empire[2][a]) was the rule of the British Crown on the Indian subcontinent from 1858 to 1947.[4][5][6][7] The rule is also called Crown rule in India,[8] or direct rule in India.
 
Back
Top Bottom