Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[Ken]

I had no idea what you were talking about with this "Perestroika Deception Theory" so I looked it up and all I came up with was long out-of-print book by ex-KGB spy Anatoliy Golitsyn: https://www.amazon.com/Perestroika-Dece ... 189979803X

In 1995, Anatoliy Golitsyn and Christopher Story published a book entitled The Perestroika Deception containing purported memoranda attributed to Golitsyn claiming:

• The [Soviet] strategists are concealing the secret coordination that exists and will continue between Moscow and the 'nationalist' leaders of [the] 'independent' republics."
• "The power of the KGB remains as great as ever… Talk of cosmetic changes in the KGB and its supervision is deliberately publicized to support the myth of 'democratization' of the Soviet political system."
• "Scratch these new, instant Soviet 'democrats,' 'anti-Communists,' and 'nationalists' who have sprouted out of nowhere, and underneath will be found secret Party members or KGB agents."

Which is an entirely different argument from the idea that Moscow and the west are cooperating, and essentially an argument that independence movements and leaders within the Soviet Sphere were really under the control of the KGB. That frankly seems to have been proven wrong since most of those countries actually achieved independence from Moscow. In any event, no one seems to have read it as it only got 15 reviews.

[Josh]

As a Westerner and an Anabaptist, it’s my duty to speak out against my own Western country’s warmongering behaviour, not find ways to go along with it.

But the United States did not invade Ukraine, and it was not attacking Russia. If you want to speak out against warmongering and military aggression and war crimes in Ukraine, that's Putin.

My government isn't shipping billions of dollars of weapons and munitions to Russia. If they were I would be speaking out against it.

If you want to stand up for the victims of war, that's the Ukranians. And I think the Kingdom of God approach is to think about how to help refugees and other victims of war, not to justify the military aggressor or blame the victims.

Ukraine is much a perpetrator of war and violence as other nations are. They are conscripting people, giving them firearms, and demanding they fire upon the enemy and kill the enemy. Or is warfare somehow OK if you decide it's justified first?

[Josh]

I was referring to the fact that speakers for NATO currently say no peaceful resolution with Putin will be possible and only Putin out of power and new government institutions installed after Putin's gone will be acceptable to NATO as a resolution to this conflict.

I don't expect you to agree Ken, but I still think the Perestroika Deception theory could explain a lot, no matter what resolution this ultimately comes to.

Of course, you know me, and what a terrible conspiracy theorist I am!

Which representatives for NATO are saying this? Can you cite any?

Stoltenburg said this in his live address a week or two ago. He said NATO would not accept anything except Russia's unconditional surrender.

I expect that every single representative of NATO would happy agree that the war would be over tomorrow if Russia decided to withdraw.

Demanding an unconditional surrender is not the same as agreeing to a peaceful resolution.

[Ken]

Stoltenburg said this in his live address a week or two ago. He said NATO would not accept anything except Russia's unconditional surrender.

I expect that every single representative of NATO would happy agree that the war would be over tomorrow if Russia decided to withdraw.

Demanding an unconditional surrender is not the same as agreeing to a peaceful resolution.

Are you just assuming that no one is going to check your assertions? Stoltenberg said absolutely NOTHING about unconditional Russian surrender. Absolutely nothing. What he did say is that NATO and the west are never going to accept Russian's illegal annexation charade. Which is something entirely different. And he said that Russia can end the war tomorrow if it wanted. Which is entirely true. His entire address is available online for those who wish to check the record:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_207788.htm

[Falco Underhill]

I had no idea what you were talking about with this "Perestroika Deception Theory" so I looked it up and all I came up with was long out-of-print book by ex-KGB spy Anatoliy Golitsyn: https://www.amazon.com/Perestroika-Dece ... 189979803X

In 1995, Anatoliy Golitsyn and Christopher Story published a book entitled The Perestroika Deception containing purported memoranda attributed to Golitsyn claiming:

• The [Soviet] strategists are concealing the secret coordination that exists and will continue between Moscow and the 'nationalist' leaders of [the] 'independent' republics."
• "The power of the KGB remains as great as ever… Talk of cosmetic changes in the KGB and its supervision is deliberately publicized to support the myth of 'democratization' of the Soviet political system."
• "Scratch these new, instant Soviet 'democrats,' 'anti-Communists,' and 'nationalists' who have sprouted out of nowhere, and underneath will be found secret Party members or KGB agents."

Which is an entirely different argument from the idea that Moscow and the west are cooperating, and essentially an argument that independence movements and leaders within the Soviet Sphere were really under the control of the KGB. That frankly seems to have been proven wrong since most of those countries actually achieved independence from Moscow. In any event, no one seems to have read it as it only got 15 reviews.

Not necessarily. Some of these things may have been allowed to happen to give the Deception some credibility.

I don't think it's been proven wrong. I think this explains "The Red Thread" many of us constantly suspect in our politics. (People in our government secretly sympathetic to it pushing our policies in those directions.)

Diane West wrote a book called "The Red Thread." I find her very insightful on all this and have been listening to her for years. I also support her on Patreon.

She's been warning about not being taken in by Russia's supposed reconversion to Orthodoxy and not trusting Putin but I really couldn't quite grasp it. Again, I found it so difficult to understand how someone who so intelligently argues for Christian values and the failures of socialism as he does could really be that insincere and playing some kind of game. I'm still kind of awed by his abilities to argue against liberals in the media I'm often opposed to. He's really very good at it!

Anyway, Diane West's website can be found here if anyone's interested:

https://dianawest.net/

The West's main weakness remains unchanged: it cannot grasp the fact that it is facing an unfolding of Soviet convergence strategy which is intended to procure the subservience of the west to Moscow under an ultimate Communist World Government.

-- Anatoliy Golitsyn

I'm also finding this video interesting as an explanation for what's going on in Ukraine right now. According to this theory it may involve something called the Mackinder Island. (Never heard of this before.)

https://asiatimes.com/2022/04/ukraine-a ... r-eurasia/

Still trying to understand all this.

[Josh]

Are you just assuming that no one is going to check your assertions? Stoltenberg said absolutely NOTHING about unconditional Russian surrender. Absolutely nothing. What he did say is that NATO and the west are never going to accept Russian's illegal annexation charade. Which is something entirely different. And he said that Russia can end the war tomorrow if it wanted. Which is entirely true. His entire address is available online for those who wish to check the record:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_207788.htm

You are inserting your own political opinions. What Stoltenberg said was that NATO will not accept anything but Russia's unconditional acceptance of Ukraine's terms, including claiming Crimea belongs to Ukraine (which is one of the most ridiculous assertions; Crimea has been Russian since the 1700s, and remained so until 1954, right after the USSR forcibly relocated people like Tatars from Crimea to far-flung parts of the USSR.

But apparently the totem of "Ukrainian territorial integrity" includes whatever bizarre lines (and ethnic cleansing) was done by the Soviet Union for borders that amount to about as much meaning as county lines in an American state.

[Ken]

Are you just assuming that no one is going to check your assertions? Stoltenberg said absolutely NOTHING about unconditional Russian surrender. Absolutely nothing. What he did say is that NATO and the west are never going to accept Russian's illegal annexation charade. Which is something entirely different. And he said that Russia can end the war tomorrow if it wanted. Which is entirely true. His entire address is available online for those who wish to check the record:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_207788.htm

You are inserting your own political opinions. What Stoltenberg said was that NATO will not accept anything but Russia's unconditional acceptance of Ukraine's terms, including claiming Crimea belongs to Ukraine (which is one of the most ridiculous assertions; Crimea has been Russian since the 1700s, and remained so until 1954, right after the USSR forcibly relocated people like Tatars from Crimea to far-flung parts of the USSR.

But apparently the totem of "Ukrainian territorial integrity" includes whatever bizarre lines (and ethnic cleansing) was done by the Soviet Union for borders that amount to about as much meaning as county lines in an American state.

Don't you get tired of parroting Russian propaganda? Anyone can go to the source and see that you are wrong. Which is why you can't provide quotes. NATO is supporting Ukraine. That is true. But NATO has nowhere called for unconditional surrender by Russia.

[Josh]

Don't you get tired of parroting Russian propaganda? Anyone can go to the source and see that you are wrong. Which is why you can't provide quotes. NATO is supporting Ukraine. That is true. But NATO has nowhere called for unconditional surrender by Russia.

Again, you are inserting your political opinion. Stoltenburg said that Russia must affirm Ukraine's "territory" including Crimea. And basically they want to dictate exactly what the terms of a Russian surrender are. That's not how compromise and diplomacy work.

If NATO wanted to live up to its word, they would ensure that they lived up their own promises that they won't push NATO right up to Russia's border. But of course NATO breaks its promises, so they did not keep their word. The result now is endless armed conflict.

Ken, how do you see this ending? There is no reality where Ukraine alone "wins" against Russia. It will instead be a very costly drawn out conflict for both sides.

Or do you think NATO / the U.S. should declare war on Russia and we should launch WWIII?

[Ken]

Don't you get tired of parroting Russian propaganda? Anyone can go to the source and see that you are wrong. Which is why you can't provide quotes. NATO is supporting Ukraine. That is true. But NATO has nowhere called for unconditional surrender by Russia.

Again, you are inserting your political opinion. Stoltenburg said that Russia must affirm Ukraine's "territory" including Crimea. And basically they want to dictate exactly what the terms of a Russian surrender are. That's not how compromise and diplomacy work.

If NATO wanted to live up to its word, they would ensure that they lived up their own promises that they won't push NATO right up to Russia's border. But of course NATO breaks its promises, so they did not keep their word. The result now is endless armed conflict.

Ken, how do you see this ending? There is no reality where Ukraine alone "wins" against Russia. It will instead be a very costly drawn out conflict for both sides.

Or do you think NATO / the U.S. should declare war on Russia and we should launch WWIII?

Countries withdraw from territory they are occupying all of the time. The US withdrew from Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Syria. Those were strategic decisions and not unconditional surrender to ISIS or the Taliban or North Vietnam. Did Trump "unconditionally surrender" to ISIS when he withdrew US troops from Syria? The USSR itself withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989. That was not an unconditional surrender either. Just like France withdrew from Algeria and the British withdrew from India. The British controlled India for 200 years. By your arguments that would make India forever British.

As for the redrawing of international boundaries? There is an international process for that. In my former career I was actually peripherally involved in the settlement of two long-term boundary disputes that involved fishing grounds. One was the maritime boundary between the US and the USSR in the Bering Sea. And the other was the maritime boundary between the US and Canada at the Dixon Entrance to the Inside Passage in SE Alaska, which is still disputed.

What we do not do in a civilized world is conquer lands by force than then claim that armed occupation confers any sort of legitimacy. Which is what Russia is doing and you seem to be endorsing.

As for how I see it ending? I described exactly that a page or two upstream in response to Falco.

[temporal1]

“How things look on paper to academics,” are often found lacking. In war, economics, social engineering, et al.
Nations with greater resources do NOT always prevail. There are numerous examples just in 20th+21st Centuries.
It’s amazing how REAL LIFE plays out.

David+Goliath relate.

August 2021 / “Gorbachev, leader who pulled Soviets from Afghanistan, says U.S. campaign was doomed from start“
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/gor ... 021-08-17/

MOSCOW, Aug 17 (Reuters) - Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader who oversaw the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan in 1989 after Moscow's failed decade-long campaign there, said on Tuesday that NATO's own deployment to the country had been doomed from the start.

Gorbachev, 90, regarded the Soviet presence in Afghanistan as a political mistake that was sapping precious resources at a time when the Soviet Union was living through what turned out to be the twilight of its own existence.

The Soviet-backed authorities in Afghanistan survived for three years after the withdrawal by Moscow of its main forces but never recovered from a Russian decision to cut aid to them after the Soviet collapse in January 1992 and fell later that year.

Gorbachev was cited by Russia's RIA news agency as saying that NATO and the Americans had no chance of success and had badly mishandled their own Afghan campaign.

"They (NATO and the United States) should have admitted failure earlier. The important thing now is to draw the lessons from what happened and make sure that similar mistakes are not repeated," Gorbachev told RIA.

"It (the U.S. campaign) was a failed enterprise from the start even though Russia supported it during the first stages," he added.

"Like many other similar projects at its heart lay the exaggeration of a threat and poorly defined geopolitical ideas.
To that were added unrealistic attempts to democratise a society made up of many tribes."

i believe most think George W expected “welcoming loving arms” in Iraq.

Big powers do withdraw. Historical reality.

- - - - - - -

K:
As for how I see it ending? ..

This is a bigger matter than Elon Musk/Twitter. (Your batting average?)