Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 159. (Read 73721 times)

Leaked Documents Reveal Depth of U.S. Spy Efforts and Russia’s Military Struggles







https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/08/us/politics/leaked-documents-russia-ukraine-war.html

I guess you missed leaked USA documents proving all you just said is false?

So, somehow the fact that Putin had to mobilise more soldiers to launch into the meat grinder is "good news" for the RF? Oh well, you must be very sure that you will not be one of the lucky winners of the one-way ticket to the front.

The rest is just blah, blah... all wars end with peace talks and the RF is facing so many challenges that it may just have to stop whether Putin is happy with it or not. It is of no use to have another wave of soldiers if they do not have the means to fight in a modern war and have to keep on using WW II tactics and trench war for each meter of land.

Yep, the deputies of the State Duma adopted in the third reading a law that they didn’t even read (they had less than an hour to get acquainted with the voluminous package of amendments).

I think that in Russia in the foreseeable future there will be a second wave of partial mobilization, and for Ukraine this is bad news. There will be no peace talks, there is no one to negotiate with. Ukraine will suffer a military defeat.

Nah, there is no threat to the RF territory (the legitimate one, before invading Crimea that is), there is certainly no threat whatsoever to the "Russian way of life", you can live however you want, drink the same vodka , hate gays as usual and like your leaders riding horses half naked, write marvellous literature in Cyrillic and have the best classic dance schools in the world.

There is one clear threat though - to the current despots ruling the RF and the government, and they are alright sacrificing the "servicemen" to get yet another roll of dice at keeping power. People in the RF are right to question why do they have to get killed for a government they cannot choose, try to change pacifically and do not agree with.

 If there is nothing similar to a victory or even something looking like defeat, the government may have serious problems with some of the "republics" and the "allies" may think that the RF is no longer a powerful partner. That is not a threat to a way of life, is a threat to power.

The arms production issues in the RF are not only related to corruption, they are related to the critical components and supplies you need for modern warfare - they are produced abroad and sanctions make it difficult or impossible to get.

On your argument about the oligarchs - yes, there are oligarchs all over the world, but in representative regimes you (the people) at least have a shot at having some control over what they can and cannot do. The argument "is not perfect" does not mean is not "better".


BTW, would it not be some of those Karma is a bitch if this location was hit by missile? The missiles programmer's lair.

The Russian leadership, in both strategy and tactics, seem to be very interested in preserving the lives of as many Russian servicemen as practicable.  The exceptions seem to be localized where a regional commander wishes to make a name for themselves.  In these cases the high command does seem to relieving the commanders of their commands.

Beyond that, there are very clear, direct, and demonstrable threats from the West to Russian values and life-ways.  In other words, unlike anything which I (as an American) have seen in my lifetime, there is something worth fighting for/against and it goes beyond simply inflating profits for corporations and the political/economic elite.

Given the above two features, I cannot say what I would do as a Russian of an age group where I could be called upon.  As someone with a history of 'getting my ass out of Dodge' in the face of a threat of being forced to 'defend' 'my nation', I very well might comply with a conscription order were I a Russian.  There is even an outside chance that I might even volunteer...and especially if it might get me a more safe service position.

---

What I would also do, when the dust settled, is to be pretty strong in demanding action on the 'oligarchs' of Russia on the basis of who did the bullet-stopping.  Putin was somewhat hard on some of them, but at the end of the day it seems that his tribal 'enemy' oligarchs for the most part had their stuff transferred to 'friends' who were also of the same tribe.  And many the great-grandkids of tribal members who appropriated everyone's stuff in the Bolshevik revolution.  (Marx wrote extensively of the theory of economic system progression, but he seemed to have left out the part about what comes after the Communism phase and we had to see it in real-life.)

There is a credible argument to be made that having 'tribal' oligarchs has been necessary under the dollar-based global economic system because they could more readily interface with their fellow tribalist bankers who dominate the West.  After the fall of Ukraine (and consequently the USD system), that argument will not carry the same weight.

I will say that the ratio of Russian expenditures to arms production capacity is HIGHLY favorable compared to the West.  That tells me that Putin managed to do a reasonable good job at quelling corruption at least as it relates to national defense.

Interesting voting in the Duma. The RF seems to be doing so well and having so much success that from now on the citizens can be notified of them being mobilised by an "email" (short of) and, just in case, they are no longer allowed to remove or delete their account from the electronic system of the government (most have an account).

So... yes, they have played the "patriotic card", then the "good pay" card, then the "slave army" card, then the "pardon for criminals" card... and there it goes a new one "you cannot scape" card. Who knows, maybe even some of the people from Moscow and St Petersburg might be mobilised.

Needless to say that this is about the Kremlin psychos noticing that the Ukrainian offensive to recover their land may go as far as breaking the bridge to Crimea. Bad news is that modern warfare is not about throwing meat into the grinder. BTW, this is a recognition of "being at war" since, none of this can be legally done unless at war.

^^^ Welcome To NATOstan (Formerly Known As Europe)

---

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/welcome-natostan-formerly-known-europe
"The NATO expanders are telling us that Russia's actions inside its unchanged borders are exactly why we had to expand NATO's borders. Russia's reaction to NATO's expansion enlargement justifies NATO's enlargement expansion."

– Patrick Armstrong

As Pepe Escobar wrote - before the Russian invasion:

"No one should expect clueless NATO puppets – starting with secretary-general Stoltenberg – to understand the military stakes.

After all, these are the same puppets who have been building up a situation which might ultimately leave Moscow with a single, stark choice: be ready to fight a full scale hot war in Europe – which could become nuclear in a flash.

And ready they are."

Welcome to NATOstan, Europeans.
...

---

Stop wiggling your butt. Both transcripts are authentic, but one is earlier than the other and their contents do not contradict each other. I partially quoted the second one only because there is an amusing fragment that NATO is a mechanism for ensuring the US presence in Europe (Haha, not a mechanism for deterring the USSR or Russia, but only a legal way for the occupation of Europe by US military forces). The first documented, in black and white, NATO's promise not to expand eastwards, and it's not just about eastern Germany, but all of eastern Europe. And against this documentary evidence, your reference to an interview with the elderly Gorby is a weak argument.

Actually no, it's not.  Unless the transcripts released by the soviet union are a lie, which I don't think you think considering you've just quoted them:


Here's a link to the entire transcript: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-conversation-between

Note what Baker said directly following the part you quoted:


So is the transcript a lie?

Because they were clearly discussing Germany like I claimed (and you claim is a lie) and they were clearly not making any sort of formal agreement like I claimed (and you claim is a lie).  They were clearly discussing a possible agreement that could be made, openly pondering the possibility that maybe a different agreement might be better, but not actually making one.

You are wrong and I gave the link in my post #4359 above in this thread. It refers to the minutes of the meeting of the political directors of the foreign ministries of the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany, held in Bonn on March 6, 1991. The topic was security in Central and Eastern Europe. It is clear from the document that the British, Americans, Germans and French agreed that Eastern European membership in NATO was "unacceptable".
Everything you said above on the subject of NATO's eastward expansion is a lie.

Cool tantrum.  Here's some more logic you won't like.

Even if the US Secretary of State told Gorbachev that NATO would never allow a country in Eastern Europe to join NATO.....so what?  It was a negotiation, there was no formal agreement, the Secretary of State is not the US President and doesn't have the authority to formally speak for NATO like that.  And even if he did, when they later made an official deal, which Gorbachev agreed to, it completely contradicted what was said in that meeting.  The "not one inch" in the official 2 + 4 treaty was only until 1994, which was when Soviet troops were planned to no longer occupy Eastern Germany.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/09/us/politics/russia-ukraine-james-baker.html


"Ridiculous argument"

That is why Putin calls the West the Empire of Lies. Lying bastards, deftly manipulating facts for their own benefit. What can you negotiate with such people who say one thing, think another, and do a completely different thing? This will not work with Russia.

During that discussion they were referring to East Germany, not other countries.  The meeting happened after the Berlin wall came down, but while the Soviet Union still controlled East Germany.  And not even permanent prohibition of NATO expansion into East Germany ended up being part of the deal.  When he went back to Moscow a few months later, he offered even less, that NATO would only stay out of East Germany during a transition period, and that once Germany was unified, all of Germany would be considered part of NATO.  Gorbachev was ok with that.  

Luckily, we don't need to debate what was or wasn't part of the agreement, they literally wrote it all down. Bush and Gorbachev met in person and signed the treaty which included the provision that NATO troops would not expand east into what was formally known as East Germany until all Soviet troops were gone in 1994. That's what the agreement was.  What was offered during negotiations of the treaty (which isn't what you're claiming it was), but not included in the treaty, was not part of the agreement.

It seems that Gorbachev already had memory problems at the time of the interview you quoted. Here is a transcript of his conversation with James Baker on February 9, 1990, I will quote a fragment of the conversation.
Since then, there have been five rounds of NATO's eastward expansion.

Well, of course. There wasn't only one reason why Russia did its police action. But the reasons you mentioned were sure part of it. Russia wanted to stop the Ukraine and the US and Nato from all that stuff. But the US is stubborn. And Ukraine is stupid.

So, what do we have, now? A bunch of Nato countries that are falling apart, and plowed ground in Ukraine... plowed for spring planting. And, millions of Ukraine citizens leaving Ukraine because they didn't want the war that Zelensky and other leaders were promoting.

Tease the bear, and you will get clawed to pieces, chewed up and spit out.

Or... maybe you are getting paid for saying so, blurting the official buzzwords over and over to see what part of the shit sticks and somehow feeling that you are doing yourself a favour.

The answer is much simpler: people do not like being shot at, being threatened with nuclear weapons and getting their countries invaded. If you do that, you will get people saying that you should not do any of that and that they are willing to fight back for mere self preservation. If in doubt go to any six year old and ask him how he likes the school bully.

Unless you are speaking as a current resident of BADeckerville or some other make believe land, you are mistaken.  The existence of a document describing what was discussed among non-heads of state during negotiations to establish NATO is not the same thing as what was actually agreed upon by the actual heads of state - which is well documented. 

Don't believe me?  Just ask Gorbachev:


https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html

NATO has

Of course I have ideas about this. He and a number of other accounts active here are politically biased, heavily influenced by anti-Russian propaganda and forced to express their opinions under conditions of strict censorship, at the risk of falling under the pressure of cancellation culture, and even being subjected to criminal prosecution. It is also possible that they are paid for spreading Russophobic sentiments online. Under such conditions, it is difficult to expect any objectivity from them.

They were brothers until war started. War will end one day, but it's difficult to imagine friendly relationship between these nations in upcoming decades. I imagine that it will be something similar like Azerbaijan and Armenia now.

So, poor little Russia is victim now?

Maybe because Russia is direct security threat for these Eastern European countries? Considering behaviour of Russia don't leave an option for them to stay neutral. BTW, when Russia started invasion in Ukraine, they were not even close from joining NATO. And now Finland become full member of NATO and Russia haven't started ''special operation'' against them. It probably indicates that invasion in Ukraine isn't about NATO expansion to the east at all.