• 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!

west will fight to the last Ukrainian

anatta

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
35,157
Reaction score
16,495
Location
daily dukkha
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
the causes of this war have been known for decades, which mainly has to do with Russian security concerns which the West continuously ignored. We ignored the advice of George Kennan in the 1990s in bringing NATO right up to Russia’s door. He predicted that would be a tragic mistake that would end in hostilities. We ignored the advice of our own ambassador to Moscow in 2008, Bill Burns, who is now the CIA director, who told us that expanding NATO to Ukraine was a red line for the Russians, not just Putin, but the entire Russian elite. It was absolutely a red line for Gorbachev and Yeltsin, as well as various liberal reformers inside of Russia. We ignored the advice of Kissinger and Mearsheimer, Professor Mearsheimer in 2014 who warned us we were headed for this war unless we agree to make Ukraine a neutral country.

And instead, we ignored all of this advice for many years, and we persisted in this crusade to bring Ukraine into NATO and basically turn it into a giant military base on Russia’s most vulnerable border. And not surprisingly, Russia reacted quite negatively to this, as was predicted many times over the years by all the experts I mentioned, including many others.


I think the administration was pinning its hopes on a successful counteroffensive. Remember the narrative we were told for the whole last year, or at least certainly since the fall of Kharkiv, was that we were going to arm the Ukrainians. We appropriated over $100 billion dollars to them. And the idea was that we would have this successful spring counteroffensive. The Ukrainians, with the help of American armor and weapons, would punch through the Russian lines. They would scatter. They would turn tail and run. They would be disorganized. They were demoralized and ineffective and corrupt, and that within a period of even three to four days, that you’d see significant progress. And within a couple of months, the Ukrainians would be at the Sea of Azov. They would cut off the land bridge to Crimea, and the Russians would have to sue for peace, and that was going to be the end of this whole matter.

Well, obviously that hasn’t worked out. Where things stand today is that the counteroffensive has moved incredibly slowly. Even publications like CNN and the Washington Post, which are incredibly pro-Ukraine, are admitting that the reports from the battle lines are sobering, that the losses have been staggering, that the Ukrainians have made little progress. And there is no serious prospect for them making serious, for retaking territory in a serious way.

So what you’re starting to hear now are words like quagmire. You’re starting to, you know, hear words like this is going to be a multiyear war. They’re already giving up on this year, that now they’re planning for next year
 
causes of this war have been known for decades, which mainly has to do with Russian security concerns which the West continuously ignored.

Bingo!

Its sad how people simply can't look at things honestly.
 
the causes of this war have been known for decades, which mainly has to do with Russian security concerns which the West continuously ignored. We ignored the advice of George Kennan in the 1990s in bringing NATO right up to Russia’s door. He predicted that would be a tragic mistake that would end in hostilities. We ignored the advice of our own ambassador to Moscow in 2008, Bill Burns, who is now the CIA director, who told us that expanding NATO to Ukraine was a red line for the Russians, not just Putin, but the entire Russian elite. It was absolutely a red line for Gorbachev and Yeltsin, as well as various liberal reformers inside of Russia. We ignored the advice of Kissinger and Mearsheimer, Professor Mearsheimer in 2014 who warned us we were headed for this war unless we agree to make Ukraine a neutral country.

And instead, we ignored all of this advice for many years, and we persisted in this crusade to bring Ukraine into NATO and basically turn it into a giant military base on Russia’s most vulnerable border. And not surprisingly, Russia reacted quite negatively to this, as was predicted many times over the years by all the experts I mentioned, including many others.


I think the administration was pinning its hopes on a successful counteroffensive. Remember the narrative we were told for the whole last year, or at least certainly since the fall of Kharkiv, was that we were going to arm the Ukrainians. We appropriated over $100 billion dollars to them. And the idea was that we would have this successful spring counteroffensive. The Ukrainians, with the help of American armor and weapons, would punch through the Russian lines. They would scatter. They would turn tail and run. They would be disorganized. They were demoralized and ineffective and corrupt, and that within a period of even three to four days, that you’d see significant progress. And within a couple of months, the Ukrainians would be at the Sea of Azov. They would cut off the land bridge to Crimea, and the Russians would have to sue for peace, and that was going to be the end of this whole matter.

Well, obviously that hasn’t worked out. Where things stand today is that the counteroffensive has moved incredibly slowly. Even publications like CNN and the Washington Post, which are incredibly pro-Ukraine, are admitting that the reports from the battle lines are sobering, that the losses have been staggering, that the Ukrainians have made little progress. And there is no serious prospect for them making serious, for retaking territory in a serious way.

So what you’re starting to hear now are words like quagmire. You’re starting to, you know, hear words like this is going to be a multiyear war. They’re already giving up on this year, that now they’re planning for next year

This whole "concern with NATO expansion" has been an excuse the Russians have been using to invade anywhere they like. Under Medvedev in 2008, there were discussions with Russia to join both the EU and even NATO. It was not an issue then.

But Putin's paranoia about NATO has put an end to that- it was a self-fulfilling prophecy. He will not feel safe until Russia has control over all Europe and large parts of the middle east. That cannot be allowed to happen. It's an excuse for Russian expansionism and trying to resurrect the glory of Tzarist Russia and imperialism.
 
the causes of this war have been known for decades, which mainly has to do with Russian security concerns which the West continuously ignored. We ignored the advice of George Kennan in the 1990s in bringing NATO right up to Russia’s door. He predicted that would be a tragic mistake that would end in hostilities. We ignored the advice of our own ambassador to Moscow in 2008, Bill Burns, who is now the CIA director, who told us that expanding NATO to Ukraine was a red line for the Russians, not just Putin, but the entire Russian elite. It was absolutely a red line for Gorbachev and Yeltsin, as well as various liberal reformers inside of Russia. We ignored the advice of Kissinger and Mearsheimer, Professor Mearsheimer in 2014 who warned us we were headed for this war unless we agree to make Ukraine a neutral country.

And instead, we ignored all of this advice for many years, and we persisted in this crusade to bring Ukraine into NATO and basically turn it into a giant military base on Russia’s most vulnerable border. And not surprisingly, Russia reacted quite negatively to this, as was predicted many times over the years by all the experts I mentioned, including many others.


I think the administration was pinning its hopes on a successful counteroffensive. Remember the narrative we were told for the whole last year, or at least certainly since the fall of Kharkiv, was that we were going to arm the Ukrainians. We appropriated over $100 billion dollars to them. And the idea was that we would have this successful spring counteroffensive. The Ukrainians, with the help of American armor and weapons, would punch through the Russian lines. They would scatter. They would turn tail and run. They would be disorganized. They were demoralized and ineffective and corrupt, and that within a period of even three to four days, that you’d see significant progress. And within a couple of months, the Ukrainians would be at the Sea of Azov. They would cut off the land bridge to Crimea, and the Russians would have to sue for peace, and that was going to be the end of this whole matter.

Well, obviously that hasn’t worked out. Where things stand today is that the counteroffensive has moved incredibly slowly. Even publications like CNN and the Washington Post, which are incredibly pro-Ukraine, are admitting that the reports from the battle lines are sobering, that the losses have been staggering, that the Ukrainians have made little progress. And there is no serious prospect for them making serious, for retaking territory in a serious way.

So what you’re starting to hear now are words like quagmire. You’re starting to, you know, hear words like this is going to be a multiyear war. They’re already giving up on this year, that now they’re planning for next year
Reminiscent of Vietnam. Fight, but be careful not to fight too hard that we might win. Expend our troops and our resources without a plan for victory.
 
Reminiscent of Vietnam. Fight, but be careful not to fight too hard that we might win. Expend our troops and our resources without a plan for victory.

Yep. This was why my dad stopped supporting the war. Not because of the principles of the war but rather than half assed way we fought it.
 
the causes of this war have been known for decades, which mainly has to do with Russian security concerns which the West continuously ignored. We ignored the advice of George Kennan in the 1990s in bringing NATO right up to Russia’s door. He predicted that would be a tragic mistake that would end in hostilities. We ignored the advice of our own ambassador to Moscow in 2008, Bill Burns, who is now the CIA director, who told us that expanding NATO to Ukraine was a red line for the Russians, not just Putin, but the entire Russian elite. It was absolutely a red line for Gorbachev and Yeltsin, as well as various liberal reformers inside of Russia. We ignored the advice of Kissinger and Mearsheimer, Professor Mearsheimer in 2014 who warned us we were headed for this war unless we agree to make Ukraine a neutral country.

And instead, we ignored all of this advice for many years, and we persisted in this crusade to bring Ukraine into NATO and basically turn it into a giant military base on Russia’s most vulnerable border. And not surprisingly, Russia reacted quite negatively to this, as was predicted many times over the years by all the experts I mentioned, including many others.


I think the administration was pinning its hopes on a successful counteroffensive. Remember the narrative we were told for the whole last year, or at least certainly since the fall of Kharkiv, was that we were going to arm the Ukrainians. We appropriated over $100 billion dollars to them. And the idea was that we would have this successful spring counteroffensive. The Ukrainians, with the help of American armor and weapons, would punch through the Russian lines. They would scatter. They would turn tail and run. They would be disorganized. They were demoralized and ineffective and corrupt, and that within a period of even three to four days, that you’d see significant progress. And within a couple of months, the Ukrainians would be at the Sea of Azov. They would cut off the land bridge to Crimea, and the Russians would have to sue for peace, and that was going to be the end of this whole matter.

Well, obviously that hasn’t worked out. Where things stand today is that the counteroffensive has moved incredibly slowly. Even publications like CNN and the Washington Post, which are incredibly pro-Ukraine, are admitting that the reports from the battle lines are sobering, that the losses have been staggering, that the Ukrainians have made little progress. And there is no serious prospect for them making serious, for retaking territory in a serious way.

So what you’re starting to hear now are words like quagmire. You’re starting to, you know, hear words like this is going to be a multiyear war. They’re already giving up on this year, that now they’re planning for next year

The "west will fight to the last Ukrainian" card.....

When it is the Ukrainians who are determined to defend themselves against an invading army.
 
If the Russian nuclear weapons arsenal is not an effective way to ensure its territorial security, was it a waste of money?


"You’re starting to, you know, hear words like this is going to be a multiyear war."

I'm fairly certain this war has already lasted more than a year.
 
Blaming the "West" for Russian land grabs is ludicrous.

If one don't understand such things, a few courses in eastern European and Russian history would be of great aid.
 
This whole "concern with NATO expansion" has been an excuse the Russians have been using to invade anywhere they like. Under Medvedev in 2008, there were discussions with Russia to join both the EU and even NATO. It was not an issue then.

But Putin's paranoia about NATO has put an end to that- it was a self-fulfilling prophecy. He will not feel safe until Russia has control over all Europe and large parts of the middle east. That cannot be allowed to happen. It's an excuse for Russian expansionism and trying to resurrect the glory of Tzarist Russia and imperialism.
Medvedev, who was elected earlier this month and will take office in May, signalled that, like his predecessor, Vladimir Putin, he would draw a line in the sand at two of Russia's neighbours joining the west's military alliance.

"We are not happy about the situation around Georgia and Ukraine," Medvedev said in an interview with the Financial Times. "We consider it extremely troublesome for the existing structure of European security. No state can be pleased about having representatives of a military bloc to which it does not belong coming close to its borders."
 
If the Russian nuclear weapons arsenal is not an effective way to ensure its territorial security, was it a waste of money?
ask Libya who gave up their nukes
I'm fairly certain this war has already lasted more than a year.
less then 2 years, the point is the UK counteroffensive is a dud, as the artivle states it was supposed to crush Russia
 
This whole "concern with NATO expansion" has been an excuse the Russians have been using to invade anywhere they like. Under Medvedev in 2008, there were discussions with Russia to join both the EU and even NATO. It was not an issue then.

But Putin's paranoia about NATO has put an end to that- it was a self-fulfilling prophecy. He will not feel safe until Russia has control over all Europe and large parts of the middle east. That cannot be allowed to happen. It's an excuse for Russian expansionism and trying to resurrect the glory of Tzarist Russia and imperialism.
Regardless of how you may feel about Putin's justification for the war in the Ukraine, the fact of the matter is that both sides have already lost far too much to make further fighting worthwhile. It's in everybody's best interests to try and find a peaceful solution.
 
"I don’t think that this is primarily a war of conquest."

Russia is annexing territory you ****ing idiot.
you really need to read the article. I cant c/p the entire thing.
That was in comparison with Hitlers goal.. Ukraine was a redline for Russia -always has been
 
Regardless of how you may feel about Putin's justification for the war in the Ukraine, the fact of the matter is that both sides have already lost far too much to make further fighting worthwhile. It's in everybody's best interests to try and find a peaceful solution.

I do not believe Russia would be satisfied by a Ukrainian surrender.
 
We won't know if they will be satisfied by Ukranian surrender until Ukraine surrenders?
Not what I said. We won't know what Russia is or is not willing to agree to, until we sit down with them at the negotiating table.
 
Not what I said. We won't know what Russia is or is not willing to agree to, until we sit down with them at the negotiating table.

They can leave now. Negotiations are not necessary. Anything else is Ukrainian surrender.
 
They can leave now. Negotiations are not necessary. Anything else is Ukrainian surrender.
That's a false dichotomy, and a lazy one at that. There are other options besides total victory for one side or the other. It's called compromise.
 
Back
Top Bottom