Russia and Ukraine

[Fake Messiah]

Many US officials have made no secret of the fact that the long-range goal is regime change in Russia. They would even like to break the country up, so as to ensure that it is permanently weakened. 

Regime change, here, means a government chosen by America that is obedient to America. It is well known, in Africa, in Latin America, and elsewhere, that a puppet government run by the US imposes austerity on the people.

No, it is actually your idol, Putin, who is putting up puppet governments and enabling dictatorship around the globe for years with his terrorist army, The Wagner group

[The Architect Of Fate]

Many US officials have made no secret of the fact that the long-range goal is regime change in Russia. They would even like to break the country up, so as to ensure that it is permanently weakened. 

Regime change, here, means a government chosen by America that is obedient to America. It is well known, in Africa, in Latin America, and elsewhere, that a puppet government run by the US imposes austerity on the people.

So in other words exactly what Russia wants to do in Ukraine.But hey Russian imperialism is fine right Bel 

https://theconversation.com/ukraine-puti...ook-178060

https://nypost.com/2022/05/11/kherson-pu...um-rumors/

[The Architect Of Fate]

It's Truly how virtually everything Bel rights is identical to what Putin's regime would like people to believe...  

Total coincidence of course

[Deesse23]

I'll repost the list of statesmen who have opposed NATO expansion.

---

George Kennan, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned in 1998 that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake.”

Kissinger in 2014 warned that "to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country" and that the West therefore needs a policy that is aimed at “reconciliation.” He was also adamant that "Ukraine should not join NATO”

John Mearsheimer, a leading geopolitical scholar in the US today, said in 2015: "The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked [...] What we're doing is in fact encouraging that outcome.”

Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warned in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed.”

William Perry, Clinton's defense secretary, wrote in his memoir that to him NATO enlargement is the cause of "the rupture in relations with Russia.”

Noam Chomsky in 2015, saying that "the idea that Ukraine might join a Western military alliance would be quite unacceptable to any Russian leader" and that Ukraine's desire to join NATO "is not protecting Ukraine, it is threatening Ukraine with major war.”

Stephen Cohen, scholar of Russian studies, warned in 2014 that "if we move NATO forces toward Russia's borders [...] it's obviously gonna militarize the situation [and] Russia will not back off, this is existential.”

CIA director Bill Burns said in 2008: "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for [Russia]" and "I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

Malcolm Fraser, 22nd prime minister of Australia, warned in 2014 that "the move east [by NATO is] provocative, unwise and a very clear signal to Russia". He adds that this leads to a "difficult and extraordinarily dangerous problem.”

Paul Keating, former Australian PM, in 1997: expanding NATO is "an error which may rank in the end with the strategic miscalculations which prevented Germany from taking its full place in the international system.

Former US defense secretary Bob Gates in his 2015 memoirs: "Moving so quickly [to expand NATO] was a mistake. [...] Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching [and] an especially monumental provocation.”

Sir Roderic Lyne, former British ambassador to Russia, warned a year ago that "[pushing] Ukraine into NATO [...] is stupid on every level." He adds "if you want to start a war with Russia, that's the best way of doing it.”

George Beebe, formerly the CIA's top Russia analyst, in January this year linked Russia's actions in Ukraine directly to NATO expansion, explaining that Russia "feels threatened" and "inaction on [the Kremlin’s] part is risky.”

Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato Institute's senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies, wrote in a 1994 book that NATO expansion “would constitute a needless provocation of Russia.” Today he adds "we are now paying the price for the US’s arrogance.”

Ukrainian presidential advisor Oleksiy Arestovych said in 2015 that if Ukraine continues down the path of joining NATO "it will prompt Russia to launch a large scale military operation [...] before we join NATO", "with a probability of 99.9%", likely "in 2021-2022”.

Bill Bradley, former U.S. Senator and candidate for the Democratic nomination for President wrote: "We kicked [Russia] when they were down, we expanded NATO. [...] It was a blunder of monumental proportions [and] a self-fulfilling prophecy."

---

Here is the letter signed by 50 foreign policy experts urging Clinton not to expand NATO:

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/...-expansion

Here is yet another summary of the events following the collapse of the Soviet Union which got us to where we are today.

https://slkanthan.substack.com/p/not-one...to-promise

All very interesting, but why would Russia feel "threatened" or "provoked", when neither happened when Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia joined?

Why is it "existential for Russia"?
Or is it only existential for the Russian elites that insist on maintaining the vast majority of the country in poverty, while they live better than most of the rich folk in "the West"?
Is it fear that, if Ukraine could turn around their oligarchy, then the Russians would think why should Russia keep at it? See how well that sort of thing is working in North Korea.... I know, I know, smaller border, easier to control in NK. But it's the same principle.

Sooner or later, they get a French Revolution style event. I don't think Napoleon needed NATO to get it going.

NATO expansion? What NATO expansion? Ukraine joining NATO? Utter bullshit, since no country with ongoing territorial disputes is allowed to join NATO. And Ukraine has this unsettled *issue* of Russian annexation of Crimea.

You know who triggered NATO expansion: Russia, by invading Ukraine! Otherwise, Sweden and Finland NEVER would have joined NATO.
You know who triggered renewed NATO unity after the debalce of Trumps presidency? Russia, by invading Ukraine and threatening the rest of Europe.
You know who triggered NATO countries now seriously re-militarizing?

As per usual, Bels stories are 100,00% BS

[pocaracas]

why would Russia feel "threatened" or "provoked", when neither happened when Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia joined?

They did feel threatened. It was obvious what was going on: the US was surrounding Russia with military bases. Russia put up with a certain amount, but drew a line past which they would not tolerate greater incursion. Ukraine has important resources and a strategic location. 

Why is it "existential for Russia"?

This has been explained over and over. I'm surprised it's a question. 

Many US officials have made no secret of the fact that the long-range goal is regime change in Russia. They would even like to break the country up, so as to ensure that it is permanently weakened. 

Regime change, here, means a government chosen by America that is obedient to America. It is well known, in Africa, in Latin America, and elsewhere, that a puppet government run by the US imposes austerity on the people. The US wants its potential rivals weak, and has no interest in the lives of the populace. There are so many examples of this that only Americans are unaware -- everyone else knows what goes on.

It's been a commonplace since the 19th century to say that if Russia and Germany ever join forces they would be far stronger than the US. This is why the US constantly works to weaken both and to keep them at odds.

And perhaps the main reason the US wants a weak Russia is to counter China. China is eating America's lunch, in terms of economic production, innovation, trade surpluses, etc. Millions have been lifted out of poverty and the infrastructure, compared to America's, looks like a sci-fi picture of the future. America can't compete, so they can only attack. 

Ah... "Russia" fears a regime change and a puppet government, all the while they want their own puppet governments around them, like Belarus, all the Khazakstan and all the other Stans, Georgia.... and they want it also in Ukraine. Also, Russia provides weapons and insurgencies in Africa and Latin America that have had the wonderful results you imply as not so good things that the US somehow did in those regions. I'm not saying the US didn't try and succeed to install puppet governments in those places. Just that Russia helped make it worse.

All that aside, the "regime change" that I'd like to see in Russia is one where there are no oligarchs (I'd like to see the same everywhere else, US included) and where the country is governed in such a way that most people can enjoy their lives in the 21st Century as much as we enjoy our lives in Europe and the US.

There's also the implication here that all the European countries have somehow US puppet governments running them... I'd say that's not accurate at all.

Or is it only existential for the Russian elites that insist on maintaining the vast majority of the country in poverty, while they live better than most of the rich folk in "the West"?

Is the "vast majority of the country in poverty"? Really?

There was widespread poverty after Clinton and the IMF imposed "shock therapy" on the Russian economy. As the IMF always does, it privatized all public goods and handed them over to well-connected rich people. Regular Russians saw the value of their life savings drop to near zero, and life expectancy fell precipitously. (And keep your eyes on Ukraine, after the war is over and the US media forgets about it. Zelensky has turned the economy over to the IMF and Goldman Sachs, which means shock therapy and strict austerity for the surviving Ukrainians, whose infrastructure has mostly been destroyed.)

Putin is very popular in Russia because he tamed the oligarchs that the IMF created. Look what happened at Gazprom. While some shares were owned by regular Russians, the lion's share was turned over to private owners who stripped it of assets and refused to pay the agreed-upon dividends to the Russian government. Putin leveraged the government's shares to kick out these corrupt officials and demand payments of the government's share. Perhaps you think it's bad for the government to get money from the sale of the country's natural resources, but I'm old enough to remember when large profitable corporations had to pay the government a lot -- these used to be called "taxes," the kind of thing that US oligarchs, e.g. Exxon Mobile, no longer pay. 

Putin returned the country to a semblance of economic normalcy and most people benefited. For example, Mercedes Benz does good business in Russia (or they did until they patriotically pulled out last year). And these sales don't go to oligarchs, who mostly live in London. Luxury brands and lifestyle brands do well in Russia -- most of them said they would pull out due to the war but didn't. Currently Chinese-made electric cars (like Teslas only good) are selling well in Russia. Sanctions have had almost no effect, and the economy is growing faster than that of Germany or Britain. There are poor people, of course, as there are everywhere. I would rather live in St. Petersburg than in Trenton, New Jersey.

So your image of a few mega-rich sitting on top of a suffering populace is not accurate. 

Is it a utopia of transparent private enterprise? No. Putin knows how to use the oligarchs to his advantage. Is it more corrupt than the US? Maybe about the same. It is less corrupt than Ukraine. 

Are you really comparing St. Petersburg, the second most important city in Russia (if not the first, pop. 5million) with Trenton, NJ (pop. 90 thousand)?
Why not compare Trent with Michurinsk or Magadan instead?
Average Salary in Michurinsk: $540 https://bdeex.com/tambovskaya-oblast/michurinsk/
Average Salary in Magadan: $1 840 https://bdeex.com/magadanskaya-oblast/magadan/
Average Hoiusehold income: $66,002 (yearly), $5500 (monthly)  https://www.point2homes.com/US/Neighborh...phics.html

Heck, even St. Petersburg doesn't look great: $1 230 (https://bdeex.com/saint-petersburg/)

I'm pleasantly surprised by Magadan's average income, but find that Russia's average is closer to Michurisnk ($880, https://bdeex.com/russia/)
Compare that with $5500 from Trenton and we can see who lives in relative poverty.
If you don't like the conparison with some US city, because, let's face it, they need super high wages there to cover stupidly high housing costs and lack of education and medical access.
Shall we compare with Paris, France? Big city with big city.
Average Salary in Paris: $3 300 (https://bdeex.com/france/paris/)


So, all in all, Russian people are poor when compared to "The West". They don't have to be, given that they live in a country full of resources. But clearly those are being held from them.

Is it fear that, if Ukraine could turn around their oligarchy, then the Russians would think why should Russia keep at it? See how well that sort of thing is working in North Korea.... I know, I know, smaller border, easier to control in NK. But it's the same principle.

Sooner or later, they get a French Revolution style event. I don't think Napoleon needed NATO to get it going.

I see no comparison to North Korea. Perhaps you could explain to me why that's relevant. 

The US needs a French Revolution style event more than Russia does. And I don't see the relevancy of Napoleon here. Russia defeated Napoleon. While many in Europe saw Napoleon as a new type of hero and a savior from the corrupt monarchy, that changed fast when they saw what he was really like. 

Neither the North Korea comparison nor the Napoleon one make sense to me here.

Yeah... the inability to see parallels might be a symptom of having blinders on. Have it checked.


The North Korea comparison refers to the fact that there's a perfectly functioning democratic country right on the other side of the border and does NK feel threatened to the point of invading SK? We are assuming that South Korea has a US puppet government, right?

The French revolution analogy refers to the people rising up against the oligarch ruling class, which the Russian government would fear if the people were to know how better things could be for them in a "US puppet government country".
Napoleon was just the guy that took over from the previous ruling class.
And I agree, the US could use a revolution too.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Joe Biden has visited the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, defying threats of Russian missile attacks, to announce a new package of additional US weapons supplies worth $500m (£415m), as Ukraine prepares to mark the sombre anniversary of last year’s full-scale Russian invasion.

The US president, closely surrounded by a large security detail, was escorted by his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, on a walkabout around central Kyiv as air sirens could be heard, confirming rumours of a visit that had been circulating during the morning.

Biden got a short firsthand taste of the terror that Ukrainians have lived with for close to a year as air raids sirens sounded over the capital as he and Zelenskiy were exiting the gold-domed St Michael’s Cathedral.

In a post on his social media channels, Zelenskiy welcomed Biden to Kyiv posting a photograph of the two men standing in front of Ukrainian and US flags.

“Joseph Biden, welcome to Kyiv! Your visit is an extremely important sign of support for all Ukrainians,” he said on Telegram.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/f...raine-kyiv

[Thumpalumpacus]

Russian tank losses have been enormous in this war, amounting to the equivalent of around 16 tank regiments worth, which is likely hindering Russia’s ability to reconstitute its tank units rapidly. Recent intelligence estimates presented by Dutch open-source investigative organization Oryx and the British research institute International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) depict these losses clearly. Oryx verified over 1,000 distinct Russian tank losses and 500 captured tanks on February 9, which likely means that Russia has lost half of its pre-war tank fleet in the first year of the war.[13] IISS similarly noted on February 15 that Russia has lost about 50 percent of its pre-war number of T-72B and T-72B3M main battle tanks.[14] A single tank regiment requires just short of 100 tanks, so rebuilding two tank regiments from scratch (as the 12th and 13thTank Regiments likely required) would demand 200 tanks, which the Russian armed forces do not appear to have in usable stocks and do not appear able to produce quickly.[15] Widespread tank losses also impact the capacities of motorized rifle formations to function effectively, but motorized rifle units require fewer tanks in each and can make better use of the large amount of relatively untrained manpower the rushed Russian reserve mobilization has generated. The absence of reconstituted tank regiments and brigades, however, deprives the Russian ground forces of the kind of punch required to make and exploit operationally significant breakthroughs—which may explain why the WMD has so far failed to make any.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgro...ct-updates

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Russian tank losses have been enormous in this war, amounting to the equivalent of around 16 tank regiments worth, which is likely hindering Russia’s ability to reconstitute its tank units rapidly. Recent intelligence estimates presented by Dutch open-source investigative organization Oryx and the British research institute International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) depict these losses clearly. Oryx verified over 1,000 distinct Russian tank losses and 500 captured tanks on February 9, which likely means that Russia has lost half of its pre-war tank fleet in the first year of the war.[13] IISS similarly noted on February 15 that Russia has lost about 50 percent of its pre-war number of T-72B and T-72B3M main battle tanks.[14] A single tank regiment requires just short of 100 tanks, so rebuilding two tank regiments from scratch (as the 12th and 13thTank Regiments likely required) would demand 200 tanks, which the Russian armed forces do not appear to have in usable stocks and do not appear able to produce quickly.[15] Widespread tank losses also impact the capacities of motorized rifle formations to function effectively, but motorized rifle units require fewer tanks in each and can make better use of the large amount of relatively untrained manpower the rushed Russian reserve mobilization has generated. The absence of reconstituted tank regiments and brigades, however, deprives the Russian ground forces of the kind of punch required to make and exploit operationally significant breakthroughs—which may explain why the WMD has so far failed to make any.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgro...ct-updates

Pfft. Everyone knows that the Dutch and the British are in the pocket of the US-controlled pro-war media. All those pictures of shattered Russian tanks have clearly been photoshopped. Russia’s highly trained and supremely motivated 300 000 crack troops are on the verge of destroying Ukraine and ushering in record peace and prosperity for the rest of Europe.

Boru

[Deesse23]

It's been a commonplace since the 19th century to say that if Russia and Germany ever join forces they would be far stronger than the US. This is why the US constantly works to weaken both and to keep them at odds.

No, it isnt. You are really full of shit, arent you? For how long are you buying those alt right talking points now? Arent you at some point embarrassed to be so gullible?

Please explain how the US is responsible for the eastern front in 1914.
Please explain how the US is responsible for June 1941.
Please explain how the US is responsible for the Soviet Union keeping a puppet regime in Eastern Germany for a whole generation.
Please explain how the US is responsible for the Soviet Union dismantling 2400 Companies and shipping them to mother Russia, for reducing East Germanys economy by 30% (compared to 1944), for moving 11.000km of railway lines to Russia, thus reducing railway lines by 48% (compared to 1938).
Please explain how the US is responsible for the Soviet Union from 1946-1953 moving goods worth 22% of East Germanys GDP to Russia, for free of course.

East Germany paid the highest reparations of any country in the 20th century, TO RUSSIA, and 98% of all reparations of postwar Germany. Per capita the Soviet Union made eastern germans pay 130-fold compared to western germans. Try to put the blame on the US for this, motherfucker.

Damn, you are so dumb.

Putin returned the country to a semblance of economic normalcy and most people benefited. For example, Mercedes Benz does good business in Russia (or they did until they patriotically pulled out last year).

Are you really comparing St. Petersburg, the second most important city in Russia (if not the first, pop. 5million) with Trenton, NJ (pop. 90 thousand)?
Why not compare Trent with Michurinsk or Magadan instead?
Average Salary in Michurinsk: $540 https://bdeex.com/tambovskaya-oblast/michurinsk/
Average Salary in Magadan: $1 840 https://bdeex.com/magadanskaya-oblast/magadan/
Average Household income: $66,002 (yearly), $5500 (monthly)  https://www.point2homes.com/US/Neighborh...phics.html

Heck, even St. Petersburg doesn't look great: $1 230 (https://bdeex.com/saint-petersburg/)

Yeah, all those russians buying a Benz, making 6-20.000 bucks per year, before tax  

[Deesse23]

Putin is very popular in Russia because he tamed the oligarchs that the IMF created.

Much like Lucky Luciano tamed the mob. Much better organisation under Lucky, much more efficient...in doing illegal stuff and funneling money to the Oli...erm Capos and Lucky himself.

We all know they were just fighting the evil FBI thugs, right?

Sanctions have had almost no effect, and the economy is growing faster than that of Germany or Britain. There are poor people, of course, as there are everywhere. I would rather live in St. Petersburg than in Trenton, New Jersey.

Maybe, because you already have swallowed the official russian narrative. Try to oppose ANYthing of the offical propaganda, and lets see how long until you find yourself in a labour camp.....if you are lucky.

What planet are you living on? Oh, i know, planet "crack".

Russias economy is going to SHRINK in 2023 by 2.5-5.5%
Germanys economy is going to GROW by 0.2%

While many in Europe saw Napoleon as a new type of hero and a savior from the corrupt monarchy, that changed fast when they saw what he was really like.

Try to google "Code Civil", ignoramus.