A professorial analysis of the Tucker enabled Putin propaganda show:

 

 

4 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Thanks. I have heard this type of thing. Personally I don't think that is the basis to invade a country as each country can do as they please e.g. Finland joining NATO .  I appreciate Russia would not like such a thing having NATO members on its borders. Your argument though seems to be that a country with genuine concerns about the maintenance of it's sovereignty, that were born out by the facts, can't take steps to do something about it as they see fit.

But, further, there didn't seem to be imminent steps to change the status quo in Ukraine in any case, no massive inevitable push to have Ukraine join NATO at that time, and this further weakens the argument. In fact I can't recall it being a major discussion point at all before Russia went on the offence. It can seem a long bow you are drawing to get from A to B to justify such a terrible outcome. 

I am sure this has all been said before in these threads, but it is up to Russia to make an airtight provable case, for the need for the war. They need  to show an imminent  certainty of Ukraine being about to join NATO, and the terrible practical existential threat that that would have on Russia , given the terrible actual cost of its actions. 

NATO does not expand,countries can ask to join.So if putin would invade all of the Ukraine would NATO not be next door?

putins arguments are all wrong ,Ukraine gave up their nukes and russia promised not to invade.

 

6 minutes ago, candide said:

There's a difference between induced to, or led to, and forced to. There may be a series of events which induced Putin to invade Ukraine, along other reasons such as his failure to develop his country. It doesn't mean Russia was "forced" to do it.

What other option did he have other than capitulate ?

7 hours ago, sirineou said:

I believe the same could be said of you  for buying the narrative put forth by the west.  

I have watched the proposition made by Mearsheimer in front of a room full of political science postdocs, not one did  dispute the claims, concerning the reasons and event  that forced Russia to invade Ukraine. 

Having studied the issue extensively I am absolutely convinced that Russia had not choice but to invade. No Choice. 

And those who support the narrative developed by the west and think they are supporting Ukraine and the Ukrainian people are doing the direct opposite, much like they did in the invasion of Iraq. 

Not only history will tell, It is already starting to tell. 

Ridiculous.  Of course Russia had a choice other than invading, it was the choice to not invade. 

 

If the Ukrainian people want the west to stop supporting them I'm sure they'll let us know.

5 hours ago, sirineou said:

Russia did not do anything the US , or any country having the capacity ,would not do faced with a similar situation.

The narrative is that , this is Putin's war. and he is a bad guy. That he is a bad guy is not in dispute. 

but It is not Putin's  war ,it Russia's war. 

Warnings had be made to the American leadership for decades that western NATO expansion into Ukraine would  result  in a Russian invasion.

Ambassador to Russia and currently CIA secretary Burns.Secratery of state Gates, Angela Merkel, Former President of France  Nicolas Sarkozy

Yet the Americans persisted, then they fainted surprise that Russia invaded.

 So why invade over Ukraine and not the other countries?

 Geography and topography. Previously to Ukraine NATO misadventures , any invasion of russia would have had to come from the Suwałki Gap,(about 100 km wide ) between  Lithuania and Poland, that funnels to the gap between the Russian controlled Kaliningrad and Pro-Russia Belarus.  which is 65 km. 

Opening Ukraine to NATO would open a second , and very large front , impossible to control. 

Now you would ask. Why would NATO invade Russia, NATO  is a defencive organisation?

One does not have to invade ,to intimidate. Having the capacity to do so would intimidate Russia to play ball or........

Now let me ask you this? How often have you heard the above analysis in the  western media, and ask yourself Why?
 

Do you really think Putin is so stupid and paranoid that he thought Russia would be invaded?

 

Putin invaded Ukraine because he wants to rebuild the Russian empire.  Putin hates NATO because it presents an impediment to rebuilding the empire through conquest.  Countries bordering Russia know this, that's why they want to join NATO.

 

No matter how much you try to dodge the point, you are arguing that Russia should be allowed to rebuild, through conquest, its empire.

57 minutes ago, sirineou said:

What other option did he have other than capitulate ?

I am not sure that capitulate is the right expression as Russia was not attacked.

The best way to fight a decline is not necessarily a war.  But that would have required another leader for Russia.

Imagine there had been a competent leader after Boris. The Russian economy would have been flourishing, there would be a trade deal with the EU. Thanks to its natural and human resources  Russia could be like California, and Ukraine would possibly be quite happy to be closely associated with Russia....

Putin: “for god’s sake spend some of your tax money on taxpayers”

 

us government: “that’ll be $100 for a license to catch a fish” 

Edited February 10, 20242 yr by Robert Paulson

4 minutes ago, Robert Paulson said:

Putin: “for god’s sake spend some of your tax money on taxpayers”

 

us government: “that’ll be $100 for a license to catch a fish” 

 

Like Putin is spending a whole lot on Russian citizens.....

19 hours ago, candide said:

So invading Ukraine and slaughtering civilians would be justified by the war in Iraq. It's completely incoherent! 😀

 

"Ukrainians" in the Donbas region where being slaughtered by Kiev since 2014.

 

You do understand that neither the USA or Russia  recognise the ICC

 

19 hours ago, candide said:

Ukraine is not responsible for the war in Iraq just like Iraq was not responsible for the 11 September attack.

I didn't say they where..what I did say is that its hypocritical to tar Putin as a convicted war criminal when there hasn't even been a trail

and that its very unlikely ever to be a trail for the Iraq war and the Ukraine war because both USA and Russia do not recognise the legitimacy of the ICC.

25 minutes ago, johng said:

 

"Ukrainians" in the Donbas region where being slaughtered by Kiev since 2014.

 

You do understand that neither the USA or Russia  recognise the ICC

 

I didn't say they where..what I did say is that its hypocritical to tar Putin as a convicted war criminal when there hasn't even been a trail

and that its very unlikely ever to be a trail for the Iraq war and the Ukraine war because both USA and Russia do not recognise the legitimacy of the ICC.

Do you have a credible source showing that Ukrainian civilians were being targeted by the Ukrainian government, or are you just parroting Russian propaganda?

TC is a journalist?

 

also, this 

 

 

 

Edited February 10, 20242 yr by fondue zoo

1 hour ago, candide said:

I am not sure that capitulate is the right expression as Russia was not attacked.

But she was. It view the opening of a second undefendable front as an existential threat. At the very least the existence of it could be used as a threat of non compliance. 

 

1 hour ago, candide said:

But that would have required another leader for Russia.

Ahh the old regime change. 

Ant the Americans though that Putin would go quietly, and Russia would roll over, because Russians have no national pride. 

IMO and the opinion of many others in the know, the US miscalculated the Russian resolve and capabilities and thought it could reduce the multipolar landscape into a bipolar one on the cheap. 

2 hours ago, candide said:

The Russian economy would have been flourishing,

Russian GDP growth 2023 3.6%  

German GDP growth 2023 2.5

French GDP  growth  2023  1.0

UK         GDP growth 2023  .6%

US         GDP growth 2023  2,5%

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, sirineou said:

But she was. It view the opening of a second undefendable front as an existential threat. At the very least the existence of it could be used as a threat of non compliance. 

 

Ahh the old regime change. 

Ant the Americans though that Putin would go quietly, and Russia would roll over, because Russians have no national pride. 

IMO and the opinion of many others in the know, the US miscalculated the Russian resolve and capabilities and thought it could reduce the multipolar landscape into a bipolar one on the cheap. 

Russian GDP growth 2023 3.6%  

German GDP growth 2023 2.5

French GDP  growth  2023  1.0

UK         GDP growth 2023  .6%

US         GDP growth 2023  2,5%

 

 

 

Distorted.

Russia is now spending about 25 percent of their national budget on the military and war.

The money is coming from depleting their reserve savings about 50 percent.

Meaning all other budget categories for the people have been hit badly in an inflationary environment. 

That is not sustainable.

Putin can't win the war in Ukraine unless the Maga fascists give it to him.

Tragically, they might. 

He's waiting to see if his good buddy Trump comes back into power.

If Trump loses, then things will get interesting in Russia as Putin will need to conscript white boys from Moscow.

Edited February 10, 20242 yr by Jingthing

46 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Do you have a credible source

Do you have a list of "credible sources"

48 minutes ago, fondue zoo said:

TC is a journalist?

 

also, this 

 

 

 

He is not a journalist.

His old employer was forced to admit that in a court of law.

Edited February 10, 20242 yr by Jingthing

42 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Russia is now spending about 25 percent of their national budget on the military and war.

The money is coming from depleting their reserve savings about 50 percent.

As opposed to the US who is borrowing everything? 

 

44 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That is not sustainable.

And  the US spending is  ? 

 

45 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

utin can't win the war in Ukraine

He has already accomplished all objectives. 

 

46 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

will need to conscript white boys from Moscow.

 Where would the Ukrainians coscript from. 

1 hour ago, johng said:

Do you have a list of "credible sources"

Take a chance.  Show us the source for your claim.  AP, UPI, BBC, or any number of reputable print publications will be perfectly acceptable.  We'll let you know if you chose poorly.

32 minutes ago, sirineou said:

As opposed to the US who is borrowing everything? 

 

And  the US spending is  ? 

 

He has already accomplished all objectives. 

 

 Where would the Ukrainians coscript from. 

The US is spending less than 10% of it's military budget and less than 05% of it's GDP on Ukraine.  https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts

 

What's Russia spending?

3 hours ago, sirineou said:

But she was. It view the opening of a second undefendable front as an existential threat. At the very least the existence of it could be used as a threat of non compliance. 

 

Ahh the old regime change. 

Ant the Americans though that Putin would go quietly, and Russia would roll over, because Russians have no national pride. 

IMO and the opinion of many others in the know, the US miscalculated the Russian resolve and capabilities and thought it could reduce the multipolar landscape into a bipolar one on the cheap. 

Russian GDP growth 2023 3.6%  

German GDP growth 2023 2.5

French GDP  growth  2023  1.0

UK         GDP growth 2023  .6%

US         GDP growth 2023  2,5%

 

 

 

I'm not argumenting about regime change. I am just stressing that Russia could have been better off without Putin. Russia's GDP oscillates between Spain's GDP and Italy's GDP, depending on the level of energy prices. It's an economic dwarf!

 

Countries which have left Russia's orbit and joined the Western countries, such as the Baltic States, now enjoy a GDP per capita level which is double of Russia's GDP per capita. Which side is the more attractive for countries such as Ukraine? The $30,000/capita side with laws guaranteeing freedom, or the $13,000/capita side with an autocdatic regime?

 

Considering its vast natural resources, its quality of education and human resources, in particular in the scientific and engineering domain, there is no other reason to the current low level of economic development than bad government and leadership for the last 20 years.

10 hours ago, candide said:

I'm not argumenting about regime change. I am just stressing that Russia could have been better off without Putin.

That is arguable and would depend on who would replace him. 

But I am not here to make value judgments , only to talk  of the event that brought us where we are and who is to blame. 

Ukraine is certainly not better off having followed the road it did. 

 

 

8 hours ago, sirineou said:

<cut>

Ukraine is certainly not better off having followed the road it did. 

 

 

That is arguable and would depend on how it would be now otherwise. 

18 minutes ago, stevenl said:

That is arguable and would depend on how it would be now otherwise.

How do you think it would be if it remained neutral?

31 minutes ago, sirineou said:

How do you think it would be if it remained neutral?

It is and has remained neutral. It could easily have been part of Russia by now.

Here's some food for thought, #2 of Carlson's 5 key takeaways from his interview:

 

#2 – “Russia is not an expansionist power.”

 

Carlson declared, “You have to be an idiot to think that” Russia is an expansionist power.

 

Why does Carlson think that? Because “Russia is too big already. It’s the biggest landmass in the world. They only have 150 million people.”

 

He added, “They’ve got more than enough natural resources. They’re swimming in natural resources. They don’t have enough people, in their view. So, the idea that they want to take over Poland, why would you want to do that? They just want secure borders.”

 

https://vigilantnews.com/post/tucker-carlsons-5-key-takeaways-from-the-putin-interview/

30 minutes ago, impulse said:

Here's some food for thought, #2 of Carlson's 5 key takeaways from his interview:

 

#2 – “Russia is not an expansionist power.”

 

Carlson declared, “You have to be an idiot to think that” Russia is an expansionist power.

 

Why does Carlson think that? Because “Russia is too big already. It’s the biggest landmass in the world. They only have 150 million people.”

 

He added, “They’ve got more than enough natural resources. They’re swimming in natural resources. They don’t have enough people, in their view. So, the idea that they want to take over Poland, why would you want to do that? They just want secure borders.”

 

https://vigilantnews.com/post/tucker-carlsons-5-key-takeaways-from-the-putin-interview/

You'd have to be an idiot to NOT think that Putin's Russia is an expansionist power. An idiot like Tucker Carlson.

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You'd have to be an idiot to NOT think that Putin's Russia is an expansionist power. An idiot like Tucker Carlson.

 

Thank you for your well reasoned response, and especially for the time and effort you obviously put into backing it up with anything at all.

 

39 minutes ago, impulse said:

Here's some food for thought, #2 of Carlson's 5 key takeaways from his interview:

 

#2 – “Russia is not an expansionist power.”

 

Carlson declared, “You have to be an idiot to think that” Russia is an expansionist power.

 

Why does Carlson think that? Because “Russia is too big already. It’s the biggest landmass in the world. They only have 150 million people.”

 

He added, “They’ve got more than enough natural resources. They’re swimming in natural resources. They don’t have enough people, in their view. So, the idea that they want to take over Poland, why would you want to do that? They just want secure borders.”

 

https://vigilantnews.com/post/tucker-carlsons-5-key-takeaways-from-the-putin-interview/

Russia has a low GDP level and a declining population. It certainly needs resources, including human resources.

10 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Thank you for your well reasoned response, and especially for the time and effort you obviously put into backing it up with anything at all.

 

He came with his opinion, you parroted TC.

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

He came with his opinion, you parroted TC.

 

Another contribution of immense value.

 

And the topic of discussion is Jingthing's opinion?  Or is it Tucker Carlson's interview in Moscow?  You're confusing parroting with quoting for information.  If we're going to discuss the guy and his interview, shouldn't we hear from the guy who did the interview? 

 

But you guys feel free to go ahead and keep discussing your opinions and the well considered evidence you're presenting to back them up.  I appreciate all the work you're doing to educate us.

 

6 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Another contribution of immense value.

 

And the topic of discussion is Jingthing's opinion?  Or is it Tucker Carlson's interview in Moscow?  You're confusing parroting with quoting for information.  If we're going to discuss the guy and his interview, shouldn't we hear from the guy who did the interview? 

 

But you guys feel free to go ahead and keep discussing your opinions and the well considered evidence you're presenting to back them up.  I appreciate all the work you're doing to educate us.

 

Weren't you and others posting how much you valued TC due to him not giving his opinions but let the interviewee speak?