Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[temporal1]

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
Albert Einstein
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/war-quotes

[Szdfan]

Setting aside your views of who were the aggressors in the first two World Wars for now, why in the world would NATO - particularly the members of the EU - be secretly fomenting a full-scale war in Europe? This would be an irrational position that would endanger their own safety, existence, and prosperity.

Why would Russia be doing the same actions to bring about a world war? it seems like their own existence, safety and particularly their prosperity is severely hampered. Why is Russia the only country with an irrational leader? might it be that some in NATO's countries are also irrational and world war may be being plotted by irrational actors on both sides?

C'mon Soloist - you know Russia doesn't want a world war...Putin wants to extend his political control into Ukraine to keep NATO from encroaching on his western flank. By invading Ukraine he may get his wish, but I think he seriously underestimated the strength of Ukrainian resolve to keep his forces out, as well as the West's unified economic response...and perhaps he overestimated his own force's readiness for the task. I didn't say Putin is irrational - he's an autocratic narcissist but he's not crazy - he doesn't want direct military engagement with NATO - that could be extremely costly or even fatal to Mother Russia.

There’s a lot of brinkmanship and bluffing right now from both sides — how far can you push to get what you want without starting WWIII? How far can Russia push to control what it considers its sphere of influence? How far can NATO push to contain Russia? That’s a rather terrifying game with nuclear powers.

[Bootstrap]

There’s a lot of brinkmanship and bluffing right now from both sides — how far can you push to get what you want without starting WWIII? How far can Russia push to control what it considers its sphere of influence? How far can NATO push to contain Russia? That’s a rather terrifying game with nuclear powers.

And yet, appeasing Putin is also scary - does anyone seriously believe this stops with Ukraine? "Oh yes, give Hitler Sudenland, believe him when he says he is only protecting Germans against abuses" - how did that work out? If there's a simple answer here, I sure do not know what it is.

Russia looks a lot closer to much of Europe than it does to Americans.

This is a really good time for prayer and for reaching out to help refugees.

[temporal1]

There’s a lot of brinkmanship and bluffing right now from both sides — how far can you push to get what you want without starting WWIII? How far can Russia push to control what it considers its sphere of influence? How far can NATO push to contain Russia? That’s a rather terrifying game with nuclear powers.

And yet, appeasing Putin is also scary - does anyone seriously believe this stops with Ukraine? If there's a simple answer here, I sure do not know what it is.

Russia looks a lot closer to much of Europe than it does to Americans.

There is no choice other than to focus on the matter at hand.
Once the line is crossed into speculation, there is no bottom to the pit. Creating boogeymen isn’t constructive.

Going forward, it would be wise for the West to 1) stop believing they can do no wrong; and, 2) stop ignoring valid complaints of others.
Those would be 2 logical steps the West can take - that are not dependent on Putin or others.

[nett]

But what Putin is doing here is not remotely OK. Putin and Justin Trudeau are not the same. Let's stop justifying Putin's actions here.

Putin is no different from Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden. You need to step down from your moral high horse.

I can think of some differences.

I think there are quite a few innocent victims of drone strikes that might feel otherwise, but by all means, continue with your feelings of moral superiority.

[Szdfan]

There’s a lot of brinkmanship and bluffing right now from both sides — how far can you push to get what you want without starting WWIII? How far can Russia push to control what it considers its sphere of influence? How far can NATO push to contain Russia? That’s a rather terrifying game with nuclear powers.

And yet, appeasing Putin is also scary - does anyone seriously believe this stops with Ukraine? If there's a simple answer here, I sure do not know what it is.

Russia looks a lot closer to much of Europe than it does to Americans.

There is no choice other than to focus on the matter at hand.
Once the line is crossed into speculation, there is no bottom to the pit. Creating boogeymen isn’t constructive.

Nobody is creating boogeymen. By invading the Ukraine, Putin is the major threat to European security. Both Moldavia and Georgia are asking for immediate membership into the European Union. Ex-Soviet Bloc countries like the Baltics, Poland and Romania are worried that Putin will not stop with Ukraine. Germany is increasing its military spending to 2% GDP (where Trump failed, Putin succeeded) for the first time since the Cold War. Germany is also selling weapons directly to the Ukrainians, which is a huge shift in policy. Europe IS scared of the Russians because of their military aggression against their neighbor — that is definitely the matter at hand.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine unfortunately makes an excellent argument for NATO. Clearly Russia’s neighbors and Eastern Europe need protection from them. The invasion proves the point.

Going forward, it would be wise for the West to 1) stop believing they can do no wrong; and, 2) stop ignoring valid complaints of others.
Those would be 2 logical steps the West can take - that are not dependent on Putin or others.

What about the valid complaints of Ukraine which doesn’t want to be controlled or dominated by Russia? Should the West ignore them? Why do only Russia’s grievances matter?

[temporal1]

Nobody is creating boogeymen. By invading the Ukraine, Putin is the major threat to European security. Both Moldavia and Georgia are asking for immediate membership into the European Union. Ex-Soviet Bloc countries like the Baltics, Poland and Romania are worried that Putin will not stop with Ukraine. Germany is increasing its military spending to 2% GDP (where Trump failed, Putin succeeded) for the first time since the Cold War. Germany is also selling weapons directly to the Ukrainians, which is a huge shift in policy. Europe IS scared of the Russians because of their military aggression against their neighbor — that is definitely the matter at hand.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine unfortunately makes an excellent argument for NATO. Clearly Russia’s neighbors and Eastern Europe need protection from them. The invasion proves the point.

Going forward, it would be wise for the West to 1) stop believing they can do no wrong; and, 2) stop ignoring valid complaints of others.
Those would be 2 logical steps the West can take - that are not dependent on Putin or others.

What about the valid complaints of Ukraine which doesn’t want to be controlled or dominated by Russia? Should the West ignore them? Why do only Russia’s grievances matter?

It’s as if you did not listen to interviews in this thread with India’s (retired) Amb. Venkatesh Varma or John Mearshiemer, or maybe any other source that approaches this terrible situation with a problem-solving pov. Are you ignoring attempts at talks between Putin and Zelensky? (mike has posted a little about the talks, they are private, so, naturally, little is known.) On Page 15, i quoted a friend’s view from NW Europe, i was surprised at his thoughts on NATO. There are some posts that describe Russia as not being the super-power the USSR once was, etc. (But U.S. mainstream loves Putin as The Evil One.)

On this forum, i believe members want the best for the people of Ukraine. Trying to discern what that would be is a problem.
When you say the invasion makes a good argument for NATO presence, well, that’s a chicken+egg question.
It also becomes, “It’s ok i’m doing this - he made me.”

Either way, the people of Ukraine suffer.
Should they suffer because the West prefers they suffer rather than risk another location? It’s all very ugly.

i’m praying for resolutions through talks, Putin+Zelensky. For the people of Ukraine, Russia, and the world.
i pray they’re smarter than U.S. mainstream media and U.S. politicians (i have faith in neither). The press is ace in creating boogeymen. Try not to get sucked in.

If that’s accomplished, going forward, i pray Putin/Russia can be adequately incentivized to not resort to military methods.
(Same with China.)

i pray for real diplomats. (as DJT demonstrated, effective diplomacy might not look exactly as one might guess.)
Effective diplomats must be very intelligent, very well-versed in all sides/motivations, etc., keen to egos, intuitive, and more, in order to achieve win-win outcomes. Respect of adversaries. (Respect does not mean “like.”)

If it’s not win-win, trouble is not mitigated, only delayed. Ukraine might be today’s example.

Good sportsmanship is more a challenge for winners than losers. “Pride goeth before a fall.” Proverbs 16:18

[temporal1]

.. Impact of sanctions:
The US and its allies have enacted crippling sanctions on Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine, and US President Joe Biden has kept in touch with European leaders as well as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. But US officials have privately acknowledged they don't believe any of these sanctions are going to change Putin's thinking, and many don't believe Russia's losses in Ukraine will either.

The Biden administration is resisting putting its weight behind any single player involved in early efforts to broker a solution to end the Ukraine crisis. US officials say they have yet to see any tangible progress in any channel
and continue to view Ukraine and Russia as the only essential players in driving a solution.

"A variety of different countries can try to shape things as they would like, but at the end of the day, this will likely boil down to what President Zelensky is willing to accept and what President Putin is willing to accept," said a senior State Department official.

This isn’t much, esp as the senior State Dept official is not named.
But, this is where (my) hope is: Putin+Zelensky. Which is private. In other words: We must wait.

(i see them) as both having strong motivations to get this settled.

[Bootstrap]

Nobody is creating boogeymen. By invading the Ukraine, Putin is the major threat to European security. Both Moldavia and Georgia are asking for immediate membership into the European Union. Ex-Soviet Bloc countries like the Baltics, Poland and Romania are worried that Putin will not stop with Ukraine. Germany is increasing its military spending to 2% GDP (where Trump failed, Putin succeeded) for the first time since the Cold War. Germany is also selling weapons directly to the Ukrainians, which is a huge shift in policy. Europe IS scared of the Russians because of their military aggression against their neighbor — that is definitely the matter at hand.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine unfortunately makes an excellent argument for NATO. Clearly Russia’s neighbors and Eastern Europe need protection from them. The invasion proves the point.

During the Cold War, NATO had zero military operations. Not one. If we want to see both sides of the NATO argument, it's really worth looking at why Europe feels it needs to be protected from Russia. And the history of the 20th century makes that very clear.

Why is it that even Putin allies like Orban are siding with NATO on this?

Going forward, it would be wise for the West to 1) stop believing they can do no wrong; and, 2) stop ignoring valid complaints of others.
Those would be 2 logical steps the West can take - that are not dependent on Putin or others.

What about the valid complaints of Ukraine which doesn’t want to be controlled or dominated by Russia? Should the West ignore them? Why do only Russia’s grievances matter?

The United States can and has done plenty of wrong. As I have pointed out with the Iraq war. But justifying a military invasion by claiming that the excuses used to invade are valid ... no thanks. Russia has no valid justification for this invasion. And it's weird to see nonresistant Mennonites championing the rightness of his cause.

Then again, some nonresistent Mennonites championed Hitler's cause. So maybe I shouldn't be so surprised. But maybe that's a mistake we should not repeat?

[barnhart]

The United States can and has done plenty of wrong. As I have pointed out with the Iraq war. But justifying a military invasion by claiming that the excuses used to invade are valid ... no thanks. Russia has no valid justification for this invasion. And it's weird to see nonresistant Mennonites championing the rightness of his cause.

Then again, some nonresistent Mennonites championed Hitler's cause. So maybe I shouldn't be so surprised. But maybe that's a mistake we should not repeat?

I see some truth here, why is it so hard to condemn war. Why is it so easy to justify it. How much greater would the abandonment of nonresistance be if the invasion was on US shores. Why the readiness to adopt belief in the efficacy of war.