1 photos
The Ninth Anniversary of the Ukraine War
By Jeff Sachs. No need to portray him as a Jew hater, a shill, an apologist etc. This article actually touches upon some cornerstone facts, in my view, to understand the origins of this conflict.
[URL]https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/yjae8gc8hp2p293tmt4dlr4z2dpe2s[/URL]
'Dying is easy' - the cartoon below:
It's hugely amusing to see so many try to overcomplicate a rather simple situation.
[QUOTE=Questner;2801695]By Jeff Sachs. No need to portray him as a Jew hater, a shill, an apologist etc. This article actually touches upon some cornerstone facts, in my view, to understand the origins of this conflict.
[URL]https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/yjae8gc8hp2p293tmt4dlr4z2dpe2s[/URL]
'Dying is easy' - the cartoon below:[/QUOTE]In 1991 the USSR collapsed and various former Soviet republics declared their independence. It was a chaotic time of transition, to be sure, but the end result was a set of internationally recognized borders for Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, etc.
Those borders stood unchallenged for about 13 years until the 1st Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014. And, as a direct result of the world's tepid reaction to that initial act of naked aggression, Putin saw no reason to hold back from invading a 2nd time. Much to his surprise, the reaction was quite different.
Putin's M. O. Is to stir up shit and then use that as an excuse to impose his own solution by force. He's done it in Moldova and Georgia and he's gotten away with it until now.
It's not complicated. Putin is a murderous, imperialist thug who won't stop unless he's forcibly stopped by others. And that's what's in the process of happening now.
Unclear if you're agreeing, disagreeing, or something else.
[QUOTE=Paulie97;2801764]The New Republic huh? It's sad that the far right in America is consistently a mouthpiece for Putin's propaganda, and you'll find McGregor defended in the comments section of your link. They blame the failed predictions of a rapid end to the war on NATO intervention, but in the early going there was no time to add much support. The failures are clearly attributed to poor planning and execution. And the predictions were just what traitorous McGregor wanted to see happen regardless of what was actually happening on the ground.
Now the traitors just go on excuse mongering for Russia, the country where they need to go live, blaming NATO for everything. The usual 1000 times already refuted claims follow, that the West near the end of the Cold War promised not to expand NATO but the context at the time only related to East Germany, nowhere else, plus the Warsaw Pact was still intact. Gorbachev, who was present, has flat stated recently that the agreement Putin alleges never took place. Or that NATO pushed itself into Eastern Europe while ignoring the fact that these countries came to love freedom and asked for integration. Their agency cannot be ignored. Or that the US orchestrated a "coup" in Ukraine when in fact their brutal and cowardly leader was removed constitutionally by the duly elected legislature. But these folks can't be bothered with research beyond conspiracy theory pushing far right rags, as they've been brainwashed into thinking that everyone else is lying to them. Thus we get the parroting of Russo propaganda right from our own shores.
Anyway here's an interesting and balanced opinion piece from the WSJ. Writer has solid credentials.
[URL]https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-wouldnt-win-a-war-of-attrition-nato-west-weapons-ukraine-resolve-china-peace-deal-crimea-sanctions-7ca7f128[/URL][/QUOTE]Firstly, the link I posted wasn't from the New Republic, so I have no idea what your reference to that publication has to do with what I posted.
The purpose of my posting the freerepublic link was simply to illustrate the various failed MacGregor predictions. There were a number of sources I could have used but I chose that one because it was short and to the point. And I didn't scroll down to read any of the comments because I frankly don't give a shit about uninformed opinion.
And therein lies my beef with MacGregor (also Ritter, etc.) and his acolytes. They claim to have expertise and yet, not only are they repeatedly and demonstrably wrong with their predictions, they're also transparently biased in favor of Russia.
Bias, in and of itself, isn't unexpected. But it's incumbent on the analyst to be up front about it. For example, retired generals Ben Hodges (USA) and Mick Ryan (Australia) both firmly support Ukraine but still do their best to analyze the military situation from a professional soldier's viewpoint. One can agree or disagree with their analyses, but the only standard that counts is judging what they say against what actually transpires on the battlefield.
And it's those real-world results that expose MacGregor for the fraud and shill he is.
The fallacy of following opinion in a fact-based environment.
It's clear from all the links posted to this opinion writer, or that analyst, that many in this forum have favorites they follow. That's fine, as far as that goes, but it can potentially stray into the fallacy of believing those opinions are any kind of a substitute for facts. No matter how knowledgeable (real or feigned) the pundit, or how eloquent the writing, it's still just opinion.
And, while the opinion of true experts have value, they also have their limits. The sheer number of variables, known and unknown, in a constantly changing environment means that any expert should be clear about how much they don't know. In fact, if I don't see that kind of admission, or something similar in the way of humility, I tend to discount what that author has to say. One look at all the 'expert opinion' that has already been proven wrong tells the story.
A real expert can be useful if they point out issues and factors you otherwise might not have considered. Or if they can discern facts you might not have realized were there. But it's only with 20-20 hindsight that we'll truly know who had their shit together and who was pulling opinions out of their ass.
It's a bit like a card-counter at a casino who has demonstrated expertise with one or two decks. Add many more decks, and throw in a bunch of wild cards, and their expertise fades pretty quickly. And anyone who follows that expert, and places bets thinking they have better than random chance odds, is likely to lose their shirt.
As for me, one ounce of fact is worth more than a pound of opinion. And that's what I'm looking for in whatever I read or hear re Ukraine, reality-based observations and factual nuggets.
Your post was a bit of a launching pad.
[QUOTE=Jmsuttr;2801898] Unclear if you're agreeing, disagreeing, or something else.[/QUOTE]Agreeing that McGregor is an ass while I took a bit of time to, for the 100th time on this thread, correct the three or four fallacious, canned pro-Russia talking points pitched by the American far right. So why for the 100th time? Have had too much free time on my hands the last few days I suppose. Wink It's sad that their nonsensical isolationism has devolved them into becoming Putin buttboys and essentially enemies of America. But after January 6th, 2021 nothing should surprise us.
New Republic / Free Repubic, was a simple error is all. Have fun. I'll drop back in sometime in the near future.
Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014.
[QUOTE=Questner;2802052]In the top right corner of the attached collage are ages of ch. killed in Donbass mainly in 2014 to 2015 by the regular Ukrainian army. The Ukrainian army used tanks, artillery and airplanes against own civilians. Hundreds of cases of such crimes are in prosecution. This is why now it's the army and not only the nationalist gangs is viewed as the legitimate target.[/QUOTE]Putin seized Crimea and the Donbass by using a mix of Russian-backed (armed, supplied, financed) militias and regular Russian troops. The myth that Russian forces weren't directly involved is pure fiction, and has been exposed as such.
All of which means that the current war is merely an extension of the hostilities that began with Russia's 2014 invasion. No invasion = no hostilities = no deaths. Once again, the responsibility lands squarely on the murderous, imperialist thug called Putin.
Russian thimbleriggers can't help themselves.
[QUOTE=Questner;2802052]In the top right corner of the attached collage are ages of ch. killed in Donbass mainly in 2014 to 2015 by the regular Ukrainian army. The Ukrainian army used tanks, artillery and airplanes against own civilians. Hundreds of cases of such crimes are in prosecution. This is why now it's the army and not only the nationalist gangs is viewed as the legitimate target.[/QUOTE]Blaming civilian casualties on the Ukrainian Armed Forces that were and are forced to fight the war that THE RUSSIANS STARTED takes a special kind of cynic. And a special and exclusive circle of hell. Especially since we know how the separatists from "people republics" fought in that war. Like HAMAS firing from the playgrounds of apartment buildings.
Even so, let's compare then and now. Here are the casualties pre- and post Feb 2022.
2014 - 2,084.
2015 - 954.
2016 - 112.
2017 - 117.
2018 - 55.
2019 - 27.
2020 - 26.
2021 - 25.
[B]Feb 23, 2020 to March 26 2023 - 8,401*[/B]
[URL]https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293409/civilian-deaths-related-to-russia-ukraine-conflict/[/URL]
*Of course, these are only verified casualties so greatly underreported. Only in Mariupol alone, the aggressor has murdered dozens of thousands of civilians.
[URL]https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-erasing-mariupol-499dceae43ed77f2ebfe750ea99b9ad9[/URL]
Couple of thoughts about Ukraine support in the US
[QUOTE=Paulie97;2802055]Agreeing that McGregor is an ass while I took a bit of time to, for the 100th time on this thread, correct the three or four fallacious, canned pro-Russia talking points pitched by the American far right. So why for the 100th time? Have had too much free time on my hands the last few days I suppose. Wink It's sad that their nonsensical isolationism has devolved them into becoming Putin buttboys and essentially enemies of America. But after January 6th, 2021 nothing should surprise us.
New Republic / Free Repubic, was a simple error is all. Have fun. I'll drop back in sometime in the near future.[/QUOTE]First, I think a fair amount of the far-right's opposition to support for Ukraine is due to their strong anti-Biden sentiment. When you're not the party in power there's little downside to complaining loudly about every move made by the administration. Governing is much different and it's my guess that a Republican president would sing a different tune. Even Trump would have a difficult time changing course, IMO. There are several reasons for that, but one that comes immediately to mind is that extremely conservative European governments, like Poland and Italy, are some of the staunchest supporters of Ukraine. For all his "pull your own weight in NATO" rhetoric, I doubt that Trump would want to be solely responsible for derailing US-Europe relations. Again, there's little downside in using it as a campaign issue with which to bash Biden, but that's different from governing.
Second, there's actually a strong conservative case that can be made for supporting Ukraine. It starts with Reagan's characterization of the USSR as an 'Evil Empire,' and then moves forward with the argument that, after a few years post-Soviet pause, Putin has taken Russia down that same imperialist path. And Russia is arguably worse than the USSR because the Politburo no longer exists as a check on absolute power. Putin has clearly taken up the Tsarist mantle of Peter the Great and, short of a coup or death (natural or otherwise), no one in Russia can stand against him. Non-isolationist conservatives understand that, far from trying to be the 'World's Policeman,' it's in America's best interests to block Russia's imperialist ambitions.
That middle-ground conservative position doesn't get much press, admittedly, because it doesn't serve the narrative of either the liberal or conservative media. The press loves to dwell on hyperbole and often works to create it when they don't think there's enough around. Reasoned argument and true debate are rare animals these days, and nearly extinct.