Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Prozac]

4 minutes ago, FLEA said:

But that's not how Putin, or anyone in Russian governance sees it. And they continue to see NATO aggressively because NATO refuses to accept olive branches. 

It doesn't matter that you know NATO is a defensive organization. Russia doesn't and they aren't privy to the insider baseball that would make them think that way. 

It’s no secret to Russia or anyone else that NATO has always been about collective defense. No “insider baseball” necessary. Putin would certainly like the world to believe that narrative though. It makes it easier for him to threaten his neighbors. I’m sure he REALLY likes it when people like US service members, politicians, and media influencers buy off on that narrative. Stop falling into his trap. 

[goingkinetic]

10 minutes ago, FLEA said:

To give some more context, Ukraine's ascension would have allowed the US to proposition a force on the Russian border very similar to the force Russia just prepositioned on the Ukraine border. That's what Russia was terrified of. 

What would you consider Cuba and Venezuela? I consider them Proxy states. 

[FLEA]

Just now, Prozac said:

It’s no secret to Russia or anyone else that NATO has always been about collective defense. No “insider baseball” necessary. Putin would certainly like the world to believe that narrative though. It makes it easier for him to threaten his neighbors. I’m sure he REALLY likes it when people like US service members, politicians, and media influencers buy off on that narrative. Stop falling into his trap. 

Sure, collective defense. That's the excuse all of NATO is going to use to invade Belarus when they see a Russian exercise there as an excessive force build up. 

Here's a fact for you, the US doctrinely plays the offense in war. We don't wait to be attacked we teach to open with shock and awe. Putin knows that. He knows "defense" can be shammed for an offensive operation because he essentially just did that. 

Its not being duped. You lack the creativity to see the world without your American rose tinted lenses and therefore can't come to terms with your adversaries motivations. 

[Prosuper]

So if Putin attacks Sweden and Finland and they are "not" part of NATO but "did" deploy troops to Afghanistan under NATO command. Let's just admit them to NATO to prevent what happened to Ukraine. Plus, Finland has US equipment already so they can integrate well with the rest of NATO. If we would have accepted Ukraine into NATO a year ago instead of listening in on a phone call to score political points this tragedy would not have happened. I'm to the point that when I see anyone wearing a tie, I go to default mode that they are full of shit until proven they are not

[FLEA]

4 minutes ago, Prozac said:

It’s no secret to Russia or anyone else that NATO has always been about collective defense. No “insider baseball” necessary. Putin would certainly like the world to believe that narrative though. It makes it easier for him to threaten his neighbors. I’m sure he REALLY likes it when people like US service members, politicians, and media influencers buy off on that narrative. Stop falling into his trap. 

Oh also, the defensive NATO alliance openly supported and encourage the violent overthrow of the Russian government less than a decade ago, an attempt that Putin believes he has evidence the CIA initiated. 

[goingkinetic]

Just now, FLEA said:

Oh also, the defensive NATO alliance openly supported and encourage the violent overthrow of the Russian government less than a decade ago, an attempt that Putin believes he has evidence the CIA initiated. 

Do you get your news from RT and Qanon?

[FLEA]

1 minute ago, goingkinetic said:

Do you get your news from RT and Qanon?

Nope. Been very very very highly trained by the USG on this. Hold a graduate degree in global security and have worked academically in partnerships with strategic DoD centers. 

Look I dont support Putin. I'm trying to get you guys to think like officers and not naive teenagers that think they can just march in a parade or pick up a gun and make a difference. 

If you go to war with Russia tomorrow, you are going to lose, because you don't even know what victory conditions are for Russia. How do you stop Russia from winning when you don't even know what it is he is trying to win. 

[goingkinetic]

1 minute ago, FLEA said:

Nope. Been very very very highly trained by the USG on this. Hold a graduate degree in global security and have worked academically in partnerships with strategic DoD centers. 

Look I dont support Putin. I'm trying to get you guys to think like officers and not naive teenagers that think they can just march in a parade or pick up a gun and make a difference. 

If you go to war with Russia tomorrow, you are going to lose, because you don't even know what victory conditions are for Russia. How do you stop Russia from winning when you don't even know what it is he is trying to win. 

Yes, that degree from embry ridiculous makes you a global security juggernaut. I’ve been to Afghanistan and Djibouti, I’m well aware that I’m an American and think like an American. Sometimes thinking like an American is a good thing. Maybe you went to Harvard, but I also see value in good ole farmboy perspective.

[Prozac]

4 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Oh also, the defensive NATO alliance openly supported and encourage the violent overthrow of the Russian government less than a decade ago, an attempt that Putin believes he has evidence the CIA initiated. 

What are you talking about and which side are you on? This sounds like a statement that could’ve been released by the Russian foreign ministry. I do not recall any serious attempt to overthrow Putin in the last decade or ever. Nor do I recall NATO or the West openly or otherwise supporting a coup. Doing so would’ve surely been detrimental to the stability of Russia’s nuclear arsenal which has been one of the West’s top priorities in dealing with Russia. We have tended to support calls from within Russia for things like election reform and freedom of speech amongst others which are values no Westerner should be apologetic for espousing anywhere. 

[FLEA]

7 minutes ago, Prozac said:

What are you talking about and which side are you on? This sounds like a statement that could’ve been released by the Russian foreign ministry. I do not recall any serious attempt to overthrow Putin in the last decade or ever. Nor do I recall NATO or the West openly or otherwise supporting a coup. Doing so would’ve surely been detrimental to the stability of Russia’s nuclear arsenal which has been one of the West’s top priorities in dealing with Russia. We have tended to support calls from within Russia for things like election reform and freedom of speech amongst others which are values no Westerner should be apologetic for espousing anywhere. 

Between 2011-2013 Russia experience massive revolts as apart of the "Colored Revolutions" a wave of pro-liberal ideology that swept FSU states, but also North Africa and the Muslim World. In the US we paid mostly attention the latter report and most of you remember the Arab Spring. Particularly, you remember several Arab dictators being overthrown and ousted from office, a move that Western politicians, particularly sitting US President Barrack Obama was openly in favor of. When the Snow Revolution broke out in Moscow, initial violence led over 1000 to be arrested. When asked what he thought about Russia having its own colored revolution, President Barrack Obama stated the protest were a "positive sign." 

Now, set aside what your thoughts on the protest are for a moment. Think from Russias perspective, and particularly the perspective of a former KGB officer who was well aware of CIA posturing in Iran, Bolivia, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia, Cuba, I mean holy crap there are like dozens of them. Also couple that with the fact that the term "revolution" holds special context to Russia, and has innate violent implications from the start. Lastly, recognize that in at least two of these revolutions, the US involved itself militarily to ensure the successful overthrow of an anti western dictator, and in one of those conflicts it led the US into direct opposition with Russia. (Libya and Syria). 

That's how Russia molds that narrative. Thats why they see it as an enormous threat. Putin's opinion was that the US should have respected the concepts of Western sovereignty and not involved itself. 

[goingkinetic]

1 minute ago, FLEA said:

Between 2011-2013 Russia experience massive revolts as apart of the "Colored Revolutions" a wave of pro-liberal ideology that swept FSU states, but also North Africa and the Muslim World. In the US we paid mostly attention the latter report and most of you remember the Arab Spring. Particularly, you remember several Arab dictators being overthrown and ousted from office, a move that Western politicians, particularly sitting US President Barrack Obama was openly in favor of. When the Snow Revolution broke out in Moscow, initial violence led over 1000 to be arrested. When asked what he thought about Russia having its own colored revolution, President Barrack Obama stated the protest were a "positive sign." 

Now, set aside what your thoughts on the protest are for a moment. Think from Russias perspective, and particularly the perspective of a former KGB officer who was well aware of CIA posturing in Iran, Bolivia, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia, Cuba, I mean holy crap there are like dozens of them. Also couple that with the fact that the term "revolution" holds special context to Russia, and has innate violent implications from the start. Lastly, recognize that in at least two of these revolutions, the US involved itself militarily to ensure the successful overthrow of an anti western dictator, and in one of those conflicts it led the US into direct opposition with Russia. (Libya and Syria). 

That's how Russia molds that narrative. Thats why they see it as an enormous threat. Putin's opinion was that the US should have respected the concepts of Western sovereignty and not involved itself. 

By the concepts of Western sovereignty I should want to defend a democratic, capitalist, christian nation…Who would that resemble?

[FLEA]

Just now, goingkinetic said:

By the concepts of Western sovereignty I should want to defend a democratic, capitalist, christian nation…Who would that resemble?

That's fine but you merely falling into the ploy that you only support western values when its convenient for you in your violent determination to subdue Eurasia. 

[BashiChuni]

45 minutes ago, goingkinetic said:

Russia could have stayed a democracy, they could have joined the EU, they could have joined the Euro. Instead they chose to feel sorry for themselves like Germany in World War II. Would you apologize for Japan saying we forced them into war by limiting access to resources?

Very infantile analysis of Russia. You’re seeing everything from your western perspective 

[goingkinetic]

Just now, FLEA said:

That's fine but you merely falling into the ploy that you only support western values when its convenient for you in your violent determination to subdue Eurasia. 

You realize Russia had the same ideals other than democracy until 1917.

[goingkinetic]

3 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

Very infantile analysis of Russia. You’re seeing everything from your western perspective 

Yes, I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free. I know it’s ethnocentric, so is article one of the code of conduct…the woke haven’t figured it out yet.

[FLEA]

Guys I really encourage everyone to take the DSCU course on European geopolitics. Its a 2-week course, you take it over zoom, its free to you, and you can probably get your commander to support it by saying you will become the squadron SME on the Ukraine crises and spread that knowledge to help the squadron understand the conflict they are going to go in. 

One of the professors from the Naval Post Graduate school is a former KC-135 pilot, you will all like him. He has studied Russia, and lived in Russia, for..... probably a decade. He will open your mind to how much we struggle to comprehend Eastern thought in the post cold war era. Again, its not about being a bunch of commie supporters. Its about knowing thy enemy. Understanding their motivations, their concerns, what makes them lose sleep at night. 

https://www.dscu.mil/

[Prozac]

5 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Between 2011-2013 Russia experience massive revolts as apart of the "Colored Revolutions" a wave of pro-liberal ideology that swept FSU states, but also North Africa and the Muslim World. In the US we paid mostly attention the latter report and most of you remember the Arab Spring. Particularly, you remember several Arab dictators being overthrown and ousted from office, a move that Western politicians, particularly sitting US President Barrack Obama was openly in favor of. When the Snow Revolution broke out in Moscow, initial violence led over 1000 to be arrested. When asked what he thought about Russia having its own colored revolution, President Barrack Obama stated the protest were a "positive sign." 

Now, set aside what your thoughts on the protest are for a moment. Think from Russias perspective, and particularly the perspective of a former KGB officer who was well aware of CIA posturing in Iran, Bolivia, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia, Cuba, I mean holy crap there are like dozens of them. Also couple that with the fact that the term "revolution" holds special context to Russia, and has innate violent implications from the start. Lastly, recognize that in at least two of these revolutions, the US involved itself militarily to ensure the successful overthrow of an anti western dictator, and in one of those conflicts it led the US into direct opposition with Russia. (Libya and Syria). 

That's how Russia molds that narrative. Thats why they see it as an enormous threat. Putin's opinion was that the US should have respected the concepts of Western sovereignty and not involved itself. 

So originally you said that the West “openly supported” the “violent overthrow of the Russian government” but now you admit that’s not the actual truth, but rather Putin’s perceived truth? Am I reading that right? In any case, why are you advocating giving a dictator what he wants simply because he sees the world through a different lens? This isn’t rocket science. His lens is the wrong one. Shitting on your own people and your neighbors in order to consolidate your own power and wealth are wrong. There’s only one side to be on here and it’s not hard to figure out which side that is. 

[FLEA]

4 minutes ago, Prozac said:

So originally you said that the West “openly supported” the “violent overthrow of the Russian government” but now you admit that’s not the actual truth, but rather Putin’s perceived truth? Am I reading that right? In any case, why are you advocating giving a dictator what he wants simply because he sees the world through a different lens? This isn’t rocket science. His lens is the wrong one. Shitting on your own people and your neighbors in order to consolidate your own power and wealth are wrong. There’s only one side to be on here and it’s not hard to figure out which side that is. 

Because your actual truth is not the actual truth either Prozac, its your perceived truth as well. 

And its not about giving a dictator what he wants, its about understanding and addressing his security concerns without escalating conflict. Just because a foreign government has an autocrat, does not mean there can't be trust or cooperation. We've done it with other autocrats, why are we so resistant to do it with Russia? I'm not saying make Russia the next South Korea (autocratic government until the late 80s) but I am saying when their head of state says he is concerned about infringement on his country's sovereignty, why do we dismiss that as a non issue? 

[BashiChuni]

20 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Between 2011-2013 Russia experience massive revolts as apart of the "Colored Revolutions" a wave of pro-liberal ideology that swept FSU states, but also North Africa and the Muslim World. In the US we paid mostly attention the latter report and most of you remember the Arab Spring. Particularly, you remember several Arab dictators being overthrown and ousted from office, a move that Western politicians, particularly sitting US President Barrack Obama was openly in favor of. When the Snow Revolution broke out in Moscow, initial violence led over 1000 to be arrested. When asked what he thought about Russia having its own colored revolution, President Barrack Obama stated the protest were a "positive sign." 

Now, set aside what your thoughts on the protest are for a moment. Think from Russias perspective, and particularly the perspective of a former KGB officer who was well aware of CIA posturing in Iran, Bolivia, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia, Cuba, I mean holy crap there are like dozens of them. Also couple that with the fact that the term "revolution" holds special context to Russia, and has innate violent implications from the start. Lastly, recognize that in at least two of these revolutions, the US involved itself militarily to ensure the successful overthrow of an anti western dictator, and in one of those conflicts it led the US into direct opposition with Russia. (Libya and Syria). 

That's how Russia molds that narrative. Thats why they see it as an enormous threat. Putin's opinion was that the US should have respected the concepts of Western sovereignty and not involved itself. 

THIS. 

100% spot on assessment. 

[goingkinetic]

3 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Because your actual truth is not the actual truth either Prozac, its your perceived truth as well. 

And its not about giving a dictator what he wants, its about understanding and addressing his security concerns without escalating conflict. Just because a foreign government has an autocrat, does not mean there can't be trust or cooperation. We've done it with other autocrats, why are we so resistant to do it with Russia? I'm not saying make Russia the next South Korea (autocratic government until the late 80s) but I am saying when their head of state says he is concerned about infringement on his country's sovereignty, why do we dismiss that as a non issue? 

So when he invaded Georgia and Crimea that was all a cry for help? You guys should ask for a refund on your AADs.

[FLEA]

1 minute ago, goingkinetic said:

So when he invaded Georgia and Crimea that was all a cry for help? You guys should ask for a refund on your AADs.

Take the course I recommended. I know for a fact they cover all of this. They aren't asking for help, they are posturing to ensure their security. Russia doesn't see itself as defensible without some of these holdings. To understand that you need to know the ground and naval component to the terrain in East Ukraine and the historic tenacity of European empires to press Russia there to the point of near state collapse. You are looking at this with 30 year goggles and Russia is looking at it with 300 year goggles. 

[goingkinetic]

1 minute ago, FLEA said:

Take the course I recommended. I know for a fact they cover all of this. They aren't asking for help, they are posturing to ensure their security. Russia doesn't see itself as defensible without some of these holdings. To understand that you need to know the ground and naval component to the terrain in East Ukraine and the historic tenacity of European empires to press Russia there to the point of near state collapse. You are looking at this with 30 year goggles and Russia is looking at it with 300 year goggles. 

I’m actually looking at it with 100 year evil empire goggles. Patton was right we should have kept on pushing to Moscow.

[goingkinetic]

Agree to disagree. I know I’m an asshole an appreciate the debate.

[FLEA]

Just now, goingkinetic said:

I’m actually looking at it with 100 year evil empire goggles. Patton was right we should have kept on pushing to Moscow.

Ok, look at it from the 300 year goggles of evil empires. Poland, Napolean, Hittler.....

I get that you see the war in Ukraine as horrific, a travesty to humanity. Putin is looking at it as a few hundred thousand casualties are nothing compared to the 30 million Russians that died in WW2 because a Western tyrant couldn't keep his own. 

[Prozac]

7 minutes ago, FLEA said:

why do we dismiss that as a non issue? 

We don’t. But we can come to the conclusion that our adversary’s issues are incompatible with our own goals and values. Otherwise, why fight for anything, ever? Look, I agree that it’s vitally important to be aware of our own cultural biases and realize that not everyone thinks like us. That doesn’t mean capitulation though, especially in the face of bald aggression. As much as I hate Hitler comparisons, I think this is one of the few times the analogy is appropriate: Hitler had a lot of “issues”. Jews, territory, resources, and ego were just a few of them. By your rationale, if we only could’ve seen the world through Hitlers eyes we would’ve come to the conclusion that if we just let him exterminate a few million people and mow over a few countries, all would be right with the world.