ReluctantEskimo

Farage. Lol.

Next you'll post an editorial titled
"Why the West Will Lose" by V. V. Putin

ReluctantEskimo

This is incredibly thoughtful analysis. It's worth repeating.

Sliceback

You're presenting false options. Why'd Russia pull back from it's previous advances? Because they suck and the Ukrainians kicked their asses. Fatigue is a reality. When/if Russia gets to a point that staying in Ukraine isn't worth it they can retreat. That's the option you choose to ignore. It hasn't required NATO troops or nukes so far and it's not a given it's needed in the future. Mind you this is a relatively poor country standing up to the 3rd best military in the world.

I'm losing track, are we up to Day 850 yet? Of the "3 day effort to remove Nazi's" from Ukraine? Reading your clippings it would seem like the Ukrainians are losing. The biggest threat to them is the U.S. House Republicans. More so than Russia is. But here we are around Day 850 and Ukraine stills holds 82% of their territory. In the meantime Ukraine has regained control over approx 50% of the territory Russia initially took. Why haven't you posted that as part of your "study more" or "learn the issues" propaganda spiel? https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-...nflict-ukraine

Sliceback

How about Russia's long term problems? It's less than half the U.S.'s population but only 1/10th the GDP.

Russia's GDP is smaller than Italy's. You know...the struggling southern European country.

Russia used to have a population size much closer to the U.S. (about 80%). Now it's about 40% the U.S.'s population. "Oh...but so many countries left the USSR so that's deceiving." Russia's population has declined slightly since then while the U.S.'s has grown by 27%.

Russia is struggling to stay relevant on the international scene. Why's in the world's #11 economy part of the G8???

Since you're so fond on links -

https://www.indexmundi.com/factbook/compare/russia.united-states/demographics

https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comm...sia_and_us_in/

https://www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/...me-us-vs-ussr/

https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/russia/italy

Sliceback

Can we include Afghanistan? No one's done well there. Russia lost twice as many in half the time so 4x the annual death rate that the U.S. and it's allies experienced....including

Excargodog

Laugh at Farage all you want, but he - like many others - successfully predicted that continual expansion of NATO eastward Woukd lead to this, while the situation we have been in in the last two plus years has demonstrated that those who poo-poohed the possibility of this triggering a major war in Europe were wrong. Now you can certainly claim that even a blind pig will stumble over an acorn occasionally, you can't deny that in this circumstance Farage was right and all his nay-sayers were wrong.

And I would maintain that this was an unforced error. Even during the first Cold War neutral countries like Austria were largely unaffected by the USSR, even if oriented toward Western Europe. But the fact that NATO was an alliance formed AGAINST the USSR in general and against Russia in particular was no secret. Russia took 1.8 million military deaths and 1.5 million civilian deaths in WWI (out of a total population of approximately 150-160 million) and. Approximately 25 million people in WWII (out of a total population of roughly 170 million. So yeah, they are paranoid as all h€LL about potential enemies on their border, and we would be too. Heck, we WERE that paranoid when the USSR tried to put missiles into Cuba. You lose one in every seven of your citizens in a war and it's going to leave scars.

It was not just predictable that pushing NATO up to their borders would pi$$ them off it was in fact predicted. And Farage and those others who predicted it were absolutely right.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/many...s-were-ignored

https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999


https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-u-s-decision-to-enlarge-nato-how-when-why-and-what-next/

https://www.vox.com/22900113/nato-ukraine-russia-crisis-clinton-expansion

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/10761...nato-explainer

Sliceback

I'd copied part of it to repost but you beat me to it. Here's the section -



Presenting Russian victory as a certainty due to insert slot A into slot B type thinking adds power to Russia's narritive, furthers their strategic goals, and weakens both America and her allies.

Russia isn't as strong as some think.
If willing, the USA and European countries can provide far greater material strength to Ukraine than Russia can bring forward.
It would take too long to go into it, but Cargo's references to the disparity in population between Russia and Ukraine are not a factor. the numbers on both sides are simply too large for that to be a factor in practical reality. A much greater reality is the number of people killed and crippled and how that impacts both countries morale and political resolve. It would be better viewed as a war of attrition of public support, rather than as a mere numbers game.

As usual I end up typing much more than I intended to at the beginning. But that is enough for now.

Lowslung

We didn't "push NATO up to [Russia's] borders". The former Warsaw Pact states saw NATO and the EU as a far better security and economic partnership after decades of what was essentially a Russian occupation. The Russians, by their own actions, unwittingly invited a NATO presence on their doorstep. If Russian leaders are truly concerned about so-called "threats" at their borders, they need only look inward to understand how it happened. Once again Excargo, you identify yourself as an apologist to Russian aggression. I'm not sorry at all that our system works better and holds an attraction to people who were formerly marginalized. The ironic part for the Russians is that their actions have only strengthened the resolve of their former vassals. Remember the saying that goes something like "the tighter you squeeze, the more grains of sand slip through your fingers"? Yeah, turns out there's truth there. Despite the narrative they spin and you parrot, the Russians are losing big on the geopolitics stage. A scary new alliance between the Russians and North Koreans? Please. The fact that Russia has to beg the Norks for munitions points to their desperation. The BRICS nations are a monolith of power poised to overtake the West? Give me a break. The Indians have always been masters at playing both sides and are important strategic partners to the West when it comes to countering Chinese dreams of hegemony in Asia. The Chinese are happily sitting on their hands as their new Russian "friends" continue to see their military capabilities decimated by their ill conceived special military action. No, the "moral bankruptcy" and downfall of Western values and standards have been, in the words of Mark Twain, greatly exaggerated. Indeed, greatly exaggerated by the Russians using legacy and emerging media that some of us who should know better seem to be highly susceptible to believing.

Excargodog

Four articles from such diverse sources as NPR, Vox, Brookings, and CATO PROVE my point, and loads more even before the invasion of Crimea prove the point - that MANY people, not just Farage, were predicting a severe reaction by the Russians to expanding NATO up to Russia's borders. That is historical FACT. Not subject to any weasel wording or accusations on anyone's part that this represents apologist for Russian aggression any more than the FACT that the Russians lost something like 28 million people in WWI and WWII which left them bat$hit crazy with paranoia. You may not LIKE that history, and I may not like that history, but to deny it is history and that it taints Russian culture to this day is no different than denying the Holocaust occurred and that it taints both German and Israeli culture to this day.

And OF COURSE we pushed NATO eastward. Adding new members has to be unanimous - NATO couldn't have gone Eastward without our voting for it.

as for the BRICS "being a monolith of power poised to overtake the West?" Who said that - besides you coming up with a strawman? What was said is that BRICS nations constitute about 45% of the world's population (which they do with 3.65 billion people) and with the rest of the so-called "global south" counted in, they constitute about 75% of the world's population. https://www.chathamhouse.org/publica...%20many%20ways.

Now those are FACTS, whether you care to admit them or not, even if you have personal issues with Indians or Chinese.

But the final point is about your statement:
That may not concern YOU greatly but I assure you it does the DOD. The Russians (USSR, then) built and tested the most powerful nuke ever exploded (TSAR BOMBA) in 1961. https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/tsar-bomba/. And the Russians were the source of transportation of our astronauts (and rocket engines for many of our own satellites) for years after the decommissioning of the space shuttle program. Russia sharing its nuclear and missile expertise with the truly bat$hit crazy North Korean government with a leader who has been known to execute people for falling asleep at a meeting... with an antiaircraft gun.

https://youtu.be/VbCkH4ENXsg?si=VDxjxJd3zGg_ETRA

Now YOU may not think a closer relationship between these two countries, allowing Russia to trade their technical expertise for NKs military industrial base capabilities is any BFD but I assure you the South Koreans, the Japanese, the Philippine government, the Indonesian government, the US DOD and State Department and othe knowledgeable people sure as h€LL do. And that's a fact too.

MaxQ

Some Scholars at Brookings do not buy into the story of NATO frightening Russia.
Farage hasn't a clue regarding Russia.

Just a couple of items, which are essential to Russia's disinformation/manipulation that has gone on since at least WW2.
You mention 28 million Russians killed. That is a ridiculously false number that is routinely used for the type of argument you make.
The numbers usually used to make your point are the number of Soviet dead. (and it varies widely, depending on sources). In WW1 it would have been Russian empire dead.

I will speak to WW2 as I have more familiarity.
The vast number of Soviet dead were not Russian. They were Belarussian, Ukrainian, the Baltic peoples, Poles, Jews....and so on. The Republics, and people of those Republics, are who suffered the greatest casualties, and they where ALWAYS seperate from Russia. Soviet rhetoric preached equality, but at the same time spoke of Russia as "The First Among Equals".

Russia suffered. Russians had huge losses. But they were not anywhere near the majority number of killed. (the only two truly high number of Russian dead were in Leningrad and also the 1941 German drive on Moscow). But the story of Russians bearing the brunt of suffering and death is a crock.

Though it probably predates it, as early as 1943 all mention out of USSR was regarding Russia. All suffering and heroism was Russian. It was as though the imperial, ruling Russians has appropriated all the suffering of it's subjects to itself. That is a major reason that the Holocaust....of which a significant amount occurred on Soviet territory,...was scarecly acknowledged in official Soviet histories until at LEAST the 1970's. Large numbers of Jews enduring an unspeakable tragedy simply didn't fit the official narrative.
The only part of the Soviet war effort where Russians died in somewhat comparitive numbers to their fellow Soviet citizens was in the Red Army. But the bulk of the killing was of civilians, and that was outside Russian territory.

This appropriation of the suffering of their VERY OWN subjugated people has enraged the minority nations for decades, and was just one more indignity inflicted by Russian rule.
It eased under Gorbachev. It has been brought back with a vengence by Putin with his resurrection of the Holy Russia ethos. I have read it is a central theme of the writings of Dugin and Ilyin, and they have had great influence on Putin's world views.

A second part of this false BS of Russian suffering and paranoia is how they have been invaded so often.
What is today Russia was overrun by the Mongol's. From this arose Muscovy as a tribute collecting vassal of the Mongol's. If memory serves they still paid the Golden Horde tribute as late as 1699.
It in effect made Muscovy an aggressive, expansive imperial fiefdom.
What became the Czar of Russia, then Russia, was simply a predator imperium whom routinely invaded it's neighbors. Invasions that historical apologists like to mention (such as Poland and Sweden) were reactions to expansionist invading from the Czars.
The only unprovoked invasions I know of Russian territory was Napolean and Hitler. (and of course Hitler's invasion was made possible by Stalin's agreement to divide Poland with Hitler)
Elsewise, whether in the days of the Tsars, or more modern, Russian territorial encroachments have been in response to her own predations.

This whole Putin's Russia is reacting to NATO expansion is like the wife beater saying he had no choice....'she mouthed off to me so I had no choice but to break her jaw'.

I can't quote Lowslung, but he has it essentially correct. Russia could have chosen to participate with the rest of the world. Instead they crawled into their "Holy Rus" Orthodox view of only Russia is pure...
It didn't have to be this way. But it was Putin's choices. Not being pressured by the West.