I am kinda of the opinion that his warnings about Cold War 2 would have been the same in 1989 as well. The most consistent thing I have seen this spring is how often wrong the experts are. I’m not very sure that many people know where this is going yet. It’s going to be a long summer.
2 Likes
Interesting information:
1 Like
True but what I like what he said that there really is a chance that letting the war go on to weaken Russia might lead to the risk of a tactical nuke. In a sense there is a Cold War 2. E.g Syria 
and the 2014 Crimea, with Russia vs US backed proxies.
I agree there is a risk and Ferguson emphasised the unpredictability as also the end of Cold War One was not predicted.
After Afghanistan 
another forever war? Which already is causing a mess and even food shortages.
Afghanistan didn’t have anything people wanted except heroin. (And large untapped mineral deposits). Ukraine is a major producer of a few things. We will notice that much more. Plus Ukraine is a much deadlier place for both sides and is fully on camera and thus very public.
Do I think he might be right? Sure but it sounds like the same kind of guesswork that people predicting the stock market. The experts were almost all totally wrong about Russia’s capabilities but Russia owns a significant piece of Ukraine and I’m not seeing that Ukraine is close to taking it back. If Russia starts to lose I agree it gets more dangerous. I’m just skeptical of all coverage.
3 Likes
Putin has already lost, Ukrainians fighting, Germany rearming and decreasing its dependance on “trusting Russia” is topped by the changes in Sweden and Finland (I like his Australian humor):
1 Like
Great point. Staying skeptical of all news sources and opinions makes sense. The future is very unpredictable as always.
2 Likes
Not really. Lisbon Agreement envisaged pretty much the same outcomes as Dayton Peace Accord after the war. That is the tragic of nations who’s elite gets under the US influence - they get abandoned and in much worse situation because of destruction they suffer. Happened in Vietnam, Bosnia, Afghanistan and now in Ukraine. Sad.
1 Like
Yes, interesting, but quite myopic. This war is not about Ukraine, Poland or even Europe.
Russians have already stated, even before special operations that new security arrangements are needed on a world level. Europe has, unfortunately, outsourced its sovereignty to US. It is acting against its own interests and that of its population.
Poland (same as Romania) is of interest for Russia only as a host to US rocket systems with potential strategic implications. Putin has mentioned that few times before intervention in Ukraine. They could pose existential threat to Russia, in the same way Ukraine could have.
Thirty tons of plutonium from Zaporozhie, combined with missile capabilities from Dnipro, potentially Antonov’s avionics, and all of that under NATO shield - is what Putin was talking about in pre-intervention speeches.
“You have bystanders, abstainers, analysts and you have problem solvers. You must have people who look at problems practically,” Mr Grossi said, describing the IAEA as a problem solver. He said the use of nuclear weapons was “unthinkable” and explained that the IAEA’s focus was on avoiding nuclear accidents derived from an attack on a nuclear power plant or the release of radioactive material. Mr Grossi added that the IAEA is seeking to visit Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station, under occupation by Russian forces, to verify that the 30,000 kg of plutonium and 40,000 kg of enriched uranium stored there have not been deviated for other uses.
Hesitant to describe the conflict in Ukraine as having a silver lining, Mr Grossi did say that there is now, “a renewed conviction that working through international institutions, multilaterally, together will always be a solution — unilateralism doesn’t solve anything it aggravates everything.”
For the reference. Starting in 2009, YUZHMASH began work on creating the main structure of the first stage of the Antares LV. The enterprise manufactures the stage of the launch vehicle in cooperation with Ukrainian enterprises, including the SDO “Yuzhnoye”, “Hartron-ARCOS”, Kyivprilad, “Hartron-YUKOM”, “CESARA”, “RAPID”.
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said, “Ukraine will have to develop extended-range missiles since the INF Treaty is no longer valid. We had abided by the restrictions imposed on us by the INF Treaty. But Russia has destroyed the treaty by creating new threats to European security” (Ukrinform, March 9, 2019).
It very much looks like existential threat, in hands of pro-Nazi side already hell bent on eliminating Russian people, culture, language and under strong influence from world only hegemon.
It will hopefully all end in few years with establishing new multy-power balance in the world.
In the meantime - duck.
Very interesting. Short of total victory in Ukraine, hard to see this as good for Russia.
2 Likes
Yes, throw Ukraine in a list of civil wars to pretend it is one. I see your allegiance there.
The Bosnian wars were a super tragic event that were a consequence of the breakup of Yugoslavia. The Carrington-Cutileiro plan was rejected, because it was a plan no-one liked. Having fought a bloody war, that attitude was different, but you can still see a lot of ethnic tension in Bosnia today. I also see no reason why US influence was an important factor in the rejection of the proposal, but you don’t really give a source for that, like we are used too from you. Make a bold claim and then remain silent after it is disproven. You don’t ever prove your points.
Enough about Bosnian wars though, you are deflecting from the topic, which is Ukraine and Russia’s illegal invasion.
There have been missile installations aimed at Russia for decades now. Had Russia really wanted to reduce those threats, they should have sought to elaborate treaties on ballistic missiles an nuclear weapons, not violate them.
And Ukraine has had a large civilian nuclear industry from decades, mostly owing to policies from Moscow. There is also no credible resource that suggests they would be using it for military purposes. A Ukrainian politician stating that they may need nuclear weapons (against their violate neighbourhood bully) is not the same as developing those weapons. This is not a pretext for invasion though, so the invasion remains illegal.
So are you calling them Nazi’s or not? Because the only fascists here come from Moscow
1 Like
Another good analysis but too narrow.
Not all the borders are the same. Finland is less of a threat than Ukraine is - less population, less military, harder to equip, no serious military industry - missiles, nuclear, etc.
Russian doctrine is one of defence. It can easily develop defence against anythong that can get from Finland. It can also make it too expensive for Finland to get too adveturous.
Reason why US, and even more UK, need Finland is for their defence systems - hypersonic cruising systems, combined with low orbit trajectory capabilities, could be effectively disabled only in launch phase. That is why UK offers protection to Finland.
Ukraine is for Russia just first phase before action moves to Far East and Northern Route.
1 Like
Another view that is practically identical to what I am saying here, but also asks extremely important question - how does this confrontation ends without either Russia or US falling (it certainly is not about Ukraine)?
I do not know what you have been snorting but the War is between Russia and Ukraine.
Yes the US and a great part of the rest of the free world is giving support to Ukraine.
It would be harder for Ukraine to keep fighting Russia if they did not receive the help but the hatred the Russians caused would keep them fighting until the last one of them was deported to a reeducation camp or killed
4 Likes
That was actually question raised by participants in discussion.
It is definitely confrontation between US and Russia - “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine,” Austin said.
Most of Ukrainians are not that stupid. They know that their leaders brought them in this situation for the sake of US.
On the other side:
“The whole idea as envisaged by Putin … was not to solve the Ukrainian crisis by means of war, but to bring the West to the negotiations table about principles of European security arrangements,” Lukyanov noted. “The moment Russia starts a war against Ukraine, the whole previous game will be over and the new game will happen at an absolutely different level of risk. And all we know about Mr. Putin is that he is not a gambler. He is a calculated player.”
So, the US lost an opportunity to negotiate and now stated that their goal is to weaken Russia. It doesn’t look like happening any time soon. Quite the opposite.
And that doctrine is basically, “the best defense is a good offense”
Also, you’re deflecting from the points made, because you can’t reject them. Whenever I debunk your stupid claims, you just continue to make a new stupid claim. You don’t really argue, because you know your claims are bullshit.
3 Likes
Justification for missile installations in Poland in Romania are presented as shield against Iranian threat.
The US says the Aegis system is a shield to protect Nato countries from short and medium-range missiles, particularly from the Middle East.
However, even you realize that it is a lie.
A U.S. missile facility in Poland is at the heart of an issue animating the Kremlin’s calculations over whether to go to war against Ukraine.
They won’t, any more.
1 Like
There’s other ways to deal with that. I am not dumb and understand that the US putting missile defense systems in Poland and Romania feels threathening to Russia, regardless of the intended purpose.
That is not a justification for war with Ukraine, which is what you’re trying to prove here.
The sensible way to deal with this is to call the whitehouse and renegotiate strategic arms limitations. That is not what the Kremlin did. Instead, they withdrew from the short and medium-range missile treaties by developping such new weapons themselves. If the US is rightfully worried about other countries, then it makes sense to inlude these countries in these treaties too. That would be an effective de-escalation. Instead, the Kremlin opted to escalate the situation by withdrawing from previously signed treaties, develop new weapons, and now embark on a military campaign in Ukraine.
So your argument is still bad. It’s not as bad anymore, because you actually base it on facts, but it is still bad, because you don’t incude all the facts. That is something we call cherry-picking.
4 Likes
I am not dumb and understand that the US putting missile defense systems in Poland and Romania feels threathening to Russia, regardless of the intended purpose.
Additional aspect of “defense systems” in Poland and Romania is that apparently they use same launch system as mid-range offensive systems that could easily reach Russian command centers. For some reason they treat Russians as dumb.
Yeah, something Russia is trying for some time already - as quoted before:
Talking of not providing full information when making claims - US withdrew from ABM Treaty unilaterally in 2001:
This Tuesday, George W. Bush is expected to unveil his plans for the future of nuclear weapons and the role of missile defenses. A key question will be how he proposes to handle an issue that deeply divides Washington and its European allies: whether to seek Russia’s agreement to modify the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty or instead simply abandon it.
1 Like
Which I pretty much aknowledged didn’t I?
That was about Russia demanding authority over another sovereign country’s foreign policy. Not quite the same as calling a meeting on strategic arms limitations.
Which was dumb as hell, not arguing about that. The discussion is on short and medium range missiles though, so you’re deflecting from the point here.
The thing is, these treaties work and if one party is threathening to withdraw or violate such treaties, then the other needs to hold them accountable. Not fight a war in Uraine
You also can’t argue that these are actually valid reasons to go to war with Ukraine. That’s what this discussion is really about isn’t it? Russia is doing something bad and you refuse to see it as such, because you don’t like the stuff the US does.
You cannot debunk that Russia’s war in Ukraine is unjustified, so why are you trying?
5 Likes