Day 28: Military analyst says Russians pulling their punches...but God knows what the game plan is

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,637
9,856
1
I posted an excellent analysis from this guy, William Arkin, in a thread titled Shock and Awful one week into the invasion. As we approach the one-month mark he's back with another good piece (linked below), based in large part on information from contacts within our government, pointing out that as bad as things are, they could be and seemingly should be much worse.

We've all seen the pictures of destruction, the headlines about attacks on the theater and hospital in Mariupol, the agonized accounts of suffering, the exodus of millions of refugees. All this is real and it is awful. But the narrative has some discrepancies that I've been wondering about for weeks now. For example, the last toll of civilian deaths was I think in the neighborhood of 1,000, which is of course a terrible thing. Yet 35,000 civilians were killed in a single night by aircraft using conventional 1940's technology during a bombing raid on the city of Dresden in the closing days of World War II. If the Russians had employed such scorched-earth, bomb-it-until-the-rubble-bounces tactics, the Ukrainian casualty count would be 100 times what it is currently is.

Similarly, you look at scenes from downtown Kyiv. Not much destruction to be seen. Big government buildings that would be juicy bombing fodder but they haven't been hit. In fact, it would seem the Russians have never attempted to take out a whole bunch of targets that you'd think would have been on their A-list on Day One. So now that the invasion has gone sideways, what in the world is their game plan? How long can an invading army taking heavy losses remain bogged down in basically static positions at the end of a vulnerable supply line? Will Putin's methods escalate in an attempt to turn the tide and salvage something that could be called "victory"? Does anyone in the Russian command have any foggy idea what they're doing?

Arkin thinks there is a method to this Russian madness, but I really question that. I think the whole plan was predicated on a cakewalk, they walked into a hornet's nest, and now they're just making stuff up as they go along:

 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,632
26,971
1
An altered state
I posted an excellent analysis from this guy, William Arkin, in a thread titled Shock and Awful one week into the invasion. As we approach the one-month mark he's back with another good piece (linked below), based in large part on information from contacts within our government, pointing out that as bad as things are, they could be and seemingly should be much worse.

We've all seen the pictures of destruction, the headlines about attacks on the theater and hospital in Mariupol, the agonized accounts of suffering, the exodus of millions of refugees. All this is real and it is awful. But the narrative has some discrepancies that I've been wondering about for weeks now. For example, the last toll of civilian deaths was I think in the neighborhood of 1,000, which is of course a terrible thing. Yet 35,000 civilians were killed in a single night by aircraft using conventional 1940's technology during a bombing raid on the city of Dresden in the closing days of World War II. If the Russians had employed such scorched-earth, bomb-it-until-the-rubble-bounces tactics, the Ukrainian casualty count would be 100 times what it is currently is.

Similarly, you look at scenes from downtown Kyiv. Not much destruction to be seen. Big government buildings that would be juicy bombing fodder but they haven't been hit. In fact, it would seem the Russians have never attempted to take out a whole bunch of targets that you'd think would have been on their A-list on Day One. So now that the invasion has gone sideways, what in the world is their game plan? How long can an invading army taking heavy losses remain bogged down in basically static positions at the end of a vulnerable supply line? Will Putin's methods escalate in an attempt to turn the tide and salvage something that could be called "victory"? Does anyone in the Russian command have any foggy idea what they're doing?

Arkin thinks there is a method to this Russian madness, but I really question that. I think the whole plan was predicated on a cakewalk, they walked into a hornet's nest, and now they're just making stuff up as they go along:

Interesting read. Certainly has been confusing. A couple of possibilities.

One, Putin expected the majority of the people to welcome becoming part of Russia. Watch his speech a week before he invaded in which he said they were all brothers, linked by a common history. He truly believes that Ukraine and Russia are one and have always be one. Probably assumed most people felt the same way.

He also went light because he assumed he would win quickly and did not want to have to rebuild the entire country. In his eyes, this was not about about defeating an enemy but reuniting old friends. Destroying the cities would have resulted in severe anger and made assimilation far more difficult.

And if you read his essay of July 2021 he has a spiritual and religious affinity for Kiev which was the origination of the Russian culture nearly a thousand years ago. He writes about it with a reverence as the true heart of Russia. Perhaps he doesn’t have the will to destroy the city he loves. He hoped for victory with the city intact.

And last, perhaps he never intended to take the entire country. Prior to invasion I and most everyone else said if he invaded it would be to just take the Donbas region. His surrounding of Kyiv may just be a tactic to force a large percentage of Ukrainian forces to defend the city instead of moving east to engage in the Donbas region.

But Russia is certainly losing far more troops and equipment than he bargained for. And if it doesn’t end soon the damage will be long lasting. It probably is already, especially when combined with the financial pain of the sanctions.
 
Last edited:

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
18,975
24,324
1
2020evidence.org
I posted an excellent analysis from this guy, William Arkin, in a thread titled Shock and Awful one week into the invasion. As we approach the one-month mark he's back with another good piece (linked below), based in large part on information from contacts within our government, pointing out that as bad as things are, they could be and seemingly should be much worse.

We've all seen the pictures of destruction, the headlines about attacks on the theater and hospital in Mariupol, the agonized accounts of suffering, the exodus of millions of refugees. All this is real and it is awful. But the narrative has some discrepancies that I've been wondering about for weeks now. For example, the last toll of civilian deaths was I think in the neighborhood of 1,000, which is of course a terrible thing. Yet 35,000 civilians were killed in a single night by aircraft using conventional 1940's technology during a bombing raid on the city of Dresden in the closing days of World War II. If the Russians had employed such scorched-earth, bomb-it-until-the-rubble-bounces tactics, the Ukrainian casualty count would be 100 times what it is currently is.

Similarly, you look at scenes from downtown Kyiv. Not much destruction to be seen. Big government buildings that would be juicy bombing fodder but they haven't been hit. In fact, it would seem the Russians have never attempted to take out a whole bunch of targets that you'd think would have been on their A-list on Day One. So now that the invasion has gone sideways, what in the world is their game plan? How long can an invading army taking heavy losses remain bogged down in basically static positions at the end of a vulnerable supply line? Will Putin's methods escalate in an attempt to turn the tide and salvage something that could be called "victory"? Does anyone in the Russian command have any foggy idea what they're doing?

Arkin thinks there is a method to this Russian madness, but I really question that. I think the whole plan was predicated on a cakewalk, they walked into a hornet's nest, and now they're just making stuff up as they go along:

This article kinda dovetails with this excellent analysis by Col Macgregor from a few days ago. He mentions that Putin has given strict orders to minimize civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure. They could have carpet bombed and leveled the major cities with no concern over civilian casualties weeks ago (which is what the U.S. does, see Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) if they wanted to end the war quicker. Their current approach of being more careful is what’s dragging it out. The war is essentially over, Russia won and it’s only a matter of time until its finalized. The west isn’t dealing with truth/reality and is giving the world the false impression that Russia is on its heels and Ukraine is on the verge of winning. It’s false hope that will only cause more unnecessary deaths the longer it drags on.


He also mentions the azov are refusing to allow civilians to leave (the Russians had opened a corridor for humanitarian aid and evacuation) which is causing more death bc they get used as human shields as they draw in russian fire. The Azov are evil scum.

 
Last edited:

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,637
9,856
1
Interesting read. Certainly has been confusing. A couple of possibilities.

One, Putin expected the majority of the people to welcome becoming part of Russia. Watch his speech a week before he invaded in which he said they were all brothers, linked by a common history. He truly believes that Ukraine and Russia are one and have always be one. Probably assumed most people felt the same way.

He also went light because he assumed he would win quickly and did want to have to rebuild the entire country. In his eyes, This was not about about defeating and enemy but reuniting old friends. Destroying the cities would have resulted in severe anger and made assimilation far more difficult.

And if you read his essay of July 2021 he has a spiritual and religious affinity for Kiev which was the origination of the Russian culture nearly a thousand years ago. He writes about it with a reverence as the true heart of Russia. Perhaps he does have the will to destroy the city he loves. He hoped for victory with the city intact.

And last, perhaps he never intended to take the entire country. Prior to invasion I and most everyone else said if he invaded it would be to just take the Donbas region. His surrounding of Kyiv may just be a tactic to force a large percentage of Ukrainian forces to defend the city instead of moving east to engage in the Donbas region.

But Russia is certainly losing far more troops and equipment than he bargained for. And if it doesn’t end soon the damage will be long lasting. It probably is already, especially when combined with the financial pain of the sanctions.

All good points.

If this whole thing weren't so tragic and awful, it would be almost funny to hear these senior Russian guys, to include Putin, do their why-should-we-worry-when-it's-all-going-according-to-plan number at the podiums in Moscow.

In his historic farewell address to Congress in 1951, one of the great generals of history, Douglas MacArthur, made a resounding statement that remains relevant today: War's very object is victory...not prolonged indecision.

That is, you should not commit an army to military action without a candid assessment of your capabilities and a willingness to lawfully use them to achieve your aims in the shortest possible period of time.

In the years since MacArthur said those words, our own country more than once paid a high price for not heeding their wisdom. The Russians may also learn the lesson the hard way.
 

GreggK

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2002
13,021
4,529
1
All good points.

If this whole thing weren't so tragic and awful, it would be almost funny to hear these senior Russian guys, to include Putin, do their why-should-we-worry-when-it's-all-going-according-to-plan number at the podiums in Moscow.

In his historic farewell address to Congress in 1951, one of the great generals of history, Douglas MacArthur, made a resounding statement that remains relevant today: War's very object is victory...not prolonged indecision.

That is, you should not commit an army to military action without a candid assessment of your capabilities and a willingness to lawfully use them to achieve your aims in the shortest possible period of time.

In the years since MacArthur said those words, our own country more than once paid a high price for not heeding their wisdom. The Russians may also learn the lesson the hard way.
Never fight with Russian. On your every stratagem they answer unpredictable stupidity.

Otto von Bismarck
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Jerry

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,632
26,971
1
An altered state
Never fight with Russian. On your every stratagem they answer unpredictable stupidity.

Otto von Bismarck
The Russians don’t know how to run an offensive war. Their strategy since Napoleon has been one of strategic retreat. They would slowly withdraw across the plains of Ukraine constantly hammering the enemy as they went. Then as the enemy advanced it would create very long resupply lines that the Russians would attack and harass. By the time the enemy approached Moscow or St Petersburg they would be weakened to the point of futility.

Probably just one more reason the Putin lusted after Ukraine. Seems he is still using WWII tactics and equipment so it stands to reason he would still want an ancient method of strategic retreat. He doesn’t understand modern warfare.

One of the biggest mistakes of leadership throughout history.....fighting the current war with the last war’s strategy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fayette_LION

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,632
26,971
1
An altered state
One of Putin’s top advisors and a key in helping Putin’s rise to power has stepped down and is against the invasion.


Chubais announced his resignation in a letter to colleagues and friends Tuesday, according to people who saw it. Last week, he hinted at a darkened outlook, saying in a post on Facebook on the anniversary of the death of Yegor Gaidar that the fellow economic reformer “understood the strategic risks better than I did and I was wrong.”

In his 2006 book, “Death of Empire,” Gaidar warned of the temptations of imperial nostalgia for the Soviet Union he saw growing under Putin. “It’s not difficult to convince society that a state that collapsed
so suddenly can be just as quickly rebuilt,” he wrote. “That’s an illusion, a dangerous one.”

 

GreggK

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2002
13,021
4,529
1
The Russians don’t know how to run an offensive war. Their strategy since Napoleon has been one of strategic retreat. They would slowly withdraw across the plains of Ukraine constantly hammering the enemy as they went. Then as the enemy advanced it would create very long resupply lines that the Russians would attack and harass. By the time the enemy approached Moscow or St Petersburg they would be weakened to the point of futility.

Probably just one more reason the Putin lusted after Ukraine. Seems he is still using WWII tactics and equipment so it stands to reason he would still want an ancient method of strategic retreat. He doesn’t understand modern warfare.

One of the biggest mistakes of leadership throughout history.....fighting the current war with the last war’s strategy.

It’s the strategy of Steppe Nomads like the Huns, Scythian and the Mongols. They can’t get it out of their blood. It’s why they love tanks so much and yeah, it’s not fighting with last wars strategy, it’s fighting with last millennia’s strategy.(over stating that a bit)
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSU87

Darth_VadEER

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2010
840
1,246
1
I posted an excellent analysis from this guy, William Arkin, in a thread titled Shock and Awful one week into the invasion. As we approach the one-month mark he's back with another good piece (linked below), based in large part on information from contacts within our government, pointing out that as bad as things are, they could be and seemingly should be much worse.

We've all seen the pictures of destruction, the headlines about attacks on the theater and hospital in Mariupol, the agonized accounts of suffering, the exodus of millions of refugees. All this is real and it is awful. But the narrative has some discrepancies that I've been wondering about for weeks now. For example, the last toll of civilian deaths was I think in the neighborhood of 1,000, which is of course a terrible thing. Yet 35,000 civilians were killed in a single night by aircraft using conventional 1940's technology during a bombing raid on the city of Dresden in the closing days of World War II. If the Russians had employed such scorched-earth, bomb-it-until-the-rubble-bounces tactics, the Ukrainian casualty count would be 100 times what it is currently is.

Similarly, you look at scenes from downtown Kyiv. Not much destruction to be seen. Big government buildings that would be juicy bombing fodder but they haven't been hit. In fact, it would seem the Russians have never attempted to take out a whole bunch of targets that you'd think would have been on their A-list on Day One. So now that the invasion has gone sideways, what in the world is their game plan? How long can an invading army taking heavy losses remain bogged down in basically static positions at the end of a vulnerable supply line? Will Putin's methods escalate in an attempt to turn the tide and salvage something that could be called "victory"? Does anyone in the Russian command have any foggy idea what they're doing?

Arkin thinks there is a method to this Russian madness, but I really question that. I think the whole plan was predicated on a cakewalk, they walked into a hornet's nest, and now they're just making stuff up as they go along:


The only people who predicted a cake walk was our own media.
 

Ski

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
9,425
11,070
1
What is dragging out the Russian invasion is poor initial planning, a large contingent of their force being unmotivated short term conscripts, a practically non-existent NCO corps which make up the core of most militaries and require Russian officers to perform those traditional duties, poor logistics, poor maintenance, and poor communications that is getting their senior leadership killed. You fanboys will make any excuse for Russian incompetence because that is what you want to believe. Their performance sucks and they will eventually turn to Grozny style tactics because they have nothing else to throw at the problem.

Putin sends in 'execution squads' to kill his OWN men: Russian units are ordered to shoot troops trying to flee Ukraine war in revival of Stalin's brutal tactics for dealing with deserters, writes IAN BIRRELL

  • Russian troops are being ordered to kill defectors trying to flee the war
  • Execution squads are reportedly being drawn up to kill attempted defectors
  • Ukraine have been bombarding Russian soldiers' phones with a guide to surrender

'It's a s**tshow here... our own plane dropped a bomb on us': Russian soldier describes unit being 'torn apart' by Ukraine's forces and says troops are suffering from frostbite as he slams Putin's 'madhouse' invasion

  • Two Russian soldiers have been heard describing Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine as a 's***show', according to an intercepted call
  • Audio reveals one soldier describing how a column of Russian forces that had been sent beside his unit was 'torn apart' by Ukrainian forces
  • The soldier near Mykolaiv in southern Ukraine told his colleague that the attack led to chaos within the ranks of the Russian military
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GreggK

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,637
9,856
1
The only people who predicted a cake walk was our own media.

I don't know about our propaganda organs (aka: "media"), but from what I've read there was a belief within our government that the Russians would more or less have their way. I saw more than one prediction from U.S. sources that Kyiv would fall within 72 hours.

Obviously Moscow made no open statements along those lines, but the Russian plan clearly appeared to be based on the expectation of a relatively quick victory. I mean, basic logistical issues were not properly addressed beforehand...as though the generals believed there was no need for that. It's hard to imagine a more spectacular display of command incompetence.

But it would be a serious mistake to believe this is over...or that the Russians have now "lost." Their army may suck, but the hard fact is that Moscow has the weaponry and sheer military might to pulverize Ukraine if it chooses to go that route. And I continue to believe this is a distinct possibility if Putin's alternative is a historic and devastating defeat.
 

Darth_VadEER

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2010
840
1,246
1
I don't know about our propaganda organs (aka: "media"), but from what I've read there was a belief within our government that the Russians would more or less have their way. I saw more than one prediction from U.S. sources that Kyiv would fall within 72 hours.

Obviously Moscow made no open statements along those lines, but the Russian plan clearly appeared to be based on the expectation of a relatively quick victory. I mean, basic logistical issues were not properly addressed beforehand...as though the generals believed there was no need for that. It's hard to imagine a more spectacular display of command incompetence.

But it would be a serious mistake to believe this is over...or that the Russians have now "lost." Their army may suck, but the hard fact is that Moscow has the weaponry and sheer military might to pulverize Ukraine if it chooses to go that route. And I continue to believe this is a distinct possibility if Putin's alternative is a historic and devastating defeat.

Same government that said Afganistan wouldnt fall back into taliban control?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LionDeNittany

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,637
9,856
1
This article kinda dovetails with this excellent analysis by Col Macgregor from a few days ago. He mentions that Putin has given strict orders to minimize civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure. They could have carpet bombed and leveled the major cities with no concern over civilian casualties weeks ago (which is what the U.S. does, see Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) if they wanted to end the war quicker. Their current approach of being more careful is what’s dragging it out. The war is essentially over, Russia won and it’s only a matter of time until its finalized. The west isn’t dealing with truth/reality and is giving the world the false impression that Russia is on its heels and Ukraine is on the verge of winning. It’s false hope that will only cause more unnecessary deaths the longer it drags on.


He also mentions the azov are refusing to allow civilians to leave (the Russians had opened a corridor for humanitarian aid and evacuation) which is causing more death bc they get used as human shields as they draw in russian fire. The Azov are evil scum.


WeR, I ordinarily like Colonel Macgregor -- he's a frequent guest on Tucker's show -- and I certainly agreed with his analysis in the lead-up to the invasion. However, his rosy post-invasion assessments of Russian success seem to fly in the face of reality and have sort of a that's-my-story-and-I'm-sticking-to-it quality.

Granted, he was ahead of the game in the above commentary -- it was recorded a full week ago -- in recognizing that Putin did not initially order scorched-earth tactics and actually seemed to be attempting to limit civilian casualties and damage...despite the contrary impression created in Western media.

I think Putin's problem now is that he may soon have to choose between unleashing much more firepower and killing many more non-combatants...or settling into a prolonged and costly war of attrition if not losing outright. In fact, he may already be edging in the direction of the first option.

Of course, there is another huge wild card in play here, and that is Belarus. There are reports that the Belarusian army may enter the fray, which could change the equation considerably.

By the way, I do think you have a fair point about the Azov guys. Evidently some nasty old white nationalists are OK with the Dem-Mediacrats and their propaganda organs after all. But it's hard to blame Zelensky on this one. I mean, when a country is fighting for its life, you tend to be less picky about your friends.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
18,975
24,324
1
2020evidence.org
WeR, I ordinarily like Colonel Macgregor -- he's a frequent guest on Tucker's show -- and I certainly agreed with his analysis in the lead-up to the invasion. However, his rosy post-invasion assessments of Russian success seem to fly in the face of reality and have sort of a that's-my-story-and-I'm-sticking-to-it quality.

Granted, he was ahead of the game in the above commentary -- it was recorded a full week ago -- in recognizing that Putin did not initially order scorched-earth tactics and actually seemed to be attempting to limit civilian casualties and damage...despite the contrary impression created in Western media.

I think Putin's problem now is that he may soon have to choose between unleashing much more firepower and killing many more non-combatants...or settling into a prolonged and costly war of attrition if not losing outright. In fact, he may already be edging in the direction of the first option.

Of course, there is another huge wild card in play here, and that is Belarus. There are reports that the Belarusian army may enter the fray, which could change the equation considerably.

By the way, I do think you have a fair point about the Azov guys. Evidently some nasty old white nationalists are OK with the Dem-Mediacrats and their propaganda organs after all. But it's hard to blame Zelensky on this one. I mean, when a country is fighting for its life, you tend to be less picky about your friends.
I’d say the msm’s reports are flying in the face of reality. As the Col pointed out the russians have surrounded all major cities and even have 60,000 Ukrainian troops surrounded in eastern Ukraine. They are done.

Normally I would agree with the last paragraph of your post but azov are causing MORE of his citizens to be killed by refusing to let them evacuate then use them as human shields as they embed themselves into civilian buildings while drawing fire. They should be rooted out and removed from the Ukrainian national guard and thrown in jail. Apparently Zelensky is cool with these tactics and continues to use them. If so then he’s just as bad if not worse than Putin (who is willing to allow safe passage for civilians).
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
4,205
6,793
1
I’d say the msm’s reports are flying in the face of reality. As the Col pointed out the russians have surrounded all major cities and even have 60,000 Ukrainian troops surrounded in eastern Ukraine. They are done.

Normally I would agree with the last paragraph of your post but azov are causing MORE of his citizens to be killed by refusing to let them evacuate then use them as human shields as they embed themselves into civilian buildings while drawing fire. They should be rooted out and removed from the Ukrainian national guard and thrown in jail. Apparently Zelensky is cool with these tactics and continues to use them. If so then he’s just as bad if not worse than Putin (who is willing to allow safe passage for civilians).

Let us concede that the Azov are Nazis. I do not know this to be the case, but let us accept it as fact.

Putin invaded Ukraine.

So, I'm with the Ukrainian people.

Even if that means some Nazis are fighting on their side.

There is no difference between a Nazi and a Communist. They both want to control your life completely and kill you, if needed.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
18,975
24,324
1
2020evidence.org
Let us concede that the Azov are Nazis. I do not know this to be the case, but let us accept it as fact.

Putin invaded Ukraine.

So, I'm with the Ukrainian people.

Even if that means some Nazis are fighting on their side.

There is no difference between a Nazi and a Communist. They both want to control your life completely and kill you, if needed.
I agree with you on that. Nazis and commies are two different sides of the same coin. I’m with the Ukrainian people as well. My issue isn’t with the nazis fighting the russians its that the nazis are the ones attacking Ukrainian citizens and threatening them so they can’t evacuate. They then use them as human shields while they draw in russian fire. This is leading to more civilian deaths. The nazis have also been attacking/terrorizing the ethnic russian Ukrainian citizens in the Donbass for the last 8 years causing 15K deaths. They are scum and the Ukrainian govt needs to denounce them and remove them from the military immediately if they want to be taken seriously.

Im NEVER ok with working with violent extremists. Zelensky banned all opposition parties except the nazi ones…wtf?

https://greekcitytimes.com/2022/03/18/greek-refugee-from-mariupol/
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
4,205
6,793
1
I agree with you on that. Nazis and commies are two different sides of the same coin. I’m with the Ukrainian people as well. My issue isn’t with the nazis fighting the russians its that the nazis are the ones attacking Ukrainian citizens and threatening them so they can’t evacuate. They then use them as human shields while they draw in russian fire. This is leading to more civilian deaths. The nazis have also been attacking/terrorizing the ethnic russian Ukrainian citizens in the Donbass for the last 8 years causing 15K deaths. They are scum and the Ukrainian govt needs to denounce them and remove them from the military immediately if they want to be taken seriously.

Im NEVER ok with working with violent extremists. Zelensky banned all opposition parties except the nazi ones…wtf?

https://greekcitytimes.com/2022/03/18/greek-refugee-from-mariupol/
I wouldn't remove them from the military until AFTER the fighting is over.

Seriously - win first, then worry about your own war crimes. After all, Ukraine isn't the aggressor and should get the benefit of the doubt on all tactics used to defeat the invaders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
18,975
24,324
1
2020evidence.org
I wouldn't remove them from the military until AFTER the fighting is over.

Seriously - win first, then worry about your own war crimes. After all, Ukraine isn't the aggressor and should get the benefit of the doubt on all tactics used to defeat the invaders.
Good luck with that. The nazis have been attacking ethnic russian Ukrainian citizens in Donabass since 2014, killing over 10,000 and you want to wait?? The nazis have been the aggressors in donabass re: attacks on civilians. Look how supporting violent extreme in Syria and Iraq has worked out for us.

Just look at all the swamp rats (both sides) who have been meeting with and supporting these nazi groups, how does this not set off alarm bells galore? The fact is they will never get removed even after the russians are gone bc the west wants them. Apparently they realized having crazy nazis running a country makes it easier to launder money there.


https://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-meets-oleh-tyahnybok-in-ukraine-2013-12 (mccain with neonazis in ukraine)

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20824693 (Svoboda: The rise of Ukraine’s ultra nationalists/neonazis)

Pbl2yKl.jpg
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
4,205
6,793
1
Good luck with that. The nazis have been attacking ethnic russian Ukrainian citizens in Donabass since 2014, killing over 10,000 and you want to wait?? The nazis have been the aggressors in donabass re: attacks on civilians. Look how supporting violent extreme in Syria and Iraq has worked out for us.

Just look at all the swamp rats (both sides) who have been meeting with and supporting these nazi groups, how does this not set off alarm bells galore? The fact is they will never get removed even after the russians are gone bc the west wants them. Apparently they realized having crazy nazis running a country makes it easier to launder money there.


https://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-meets-oleh-tyahnybok-in-ukraine-2013-12 (mccain with neonazis in ukraine)

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20824693 (Svoboda: The rise of Ukraine’s ultra nationalists/neonazis)

Pbl2yKl.jpg
Yes. I want to wait.

I'm going to win the war, and then I'll deal with my own Nazis.

What intelligent person would do anything differently?
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,632
26,971
1
An altered state
Good luck with that. The nazis have been attacking ethnic russian Ukrainian citizens in Donabass since 2014, killing over 10,000 and you want to wait?? The nazis have been the aggressors in donabass re: attacks on civilians. Look how supporting violent extreme in Syria and Iraq has worked out for us.

Just look at all the swamp rats (both sides) who have been meeting with and supporting these nazi groups, how does this not set off alarm bells galore? The fact is they will never get removed even after the russians are gone bc the west wants them. Apparently they realized having crazy nazis running a country makes it easier to launder money there.


https://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-meets-oleh-tyahnybok-in-ukraine-2013-12 (mccain with neonazis in ukraine)

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20824693 (Svoboda: The rise of Ukraine’s ultra nationalists/neonazis)

Pbl2yKl.jpg
Funny how that happened in 2014.....the same year Putin sent in troops to seize the Donbas. What a ko inky dince.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,522
23,655
1
Let us concede that the Azov are Nazis. I do not know this to be the case, but let us accept it as fact.

Putin invaded Ukraine.

So, I'm with the Ukrainian people.

Even if that means some Nazis are fighting on their side.

There is no difference between a Nazi and a Communist. They both want to control your life completely and kill you, if needed.
True, Israel is supporting the Azovs for example, also Zelensky is Jewish.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
18,975
24,324
1
2020evidence.org
Yes. I want to wait.

I'm going to win the war, and then I'll deal with my own Nazis.

What intelligent person would do anything differently?
If their goal is to protect their civilians An intelligent person would NOT partner with the violent extremist groups that are literally attacking and killing the civilians as well as preventing them from leaving so they could be used as human shields. The nazis were one of the main sources of pain and death for the civilians long before russia invaded a month ago.
Funny how that happened in 2014.....the same year Putin sent in troops to seize the Donbas. What a ko inky dince.
Right....which Russia did in response to the US/west conducting a regime change 'color revolution' operation to oust the russian friendly govt of Ukraine and install a western puppet govt lead by Poroshenko (who promptly fired the prosecutor that was looking into Burisma corruption) how convenient for the bidens!

True, Israel is supporting the Azovs for example, also Zelensky is Jewish.
Which makes sense since the Khazarian mafia controls both the zionist Jews (Zelensky) and the nazi groups.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,632
26,971
1
An altered state
If their goal is to protect their civilians An intelligent person would NOT partner with the violent extremist groups that are literally attacking and killing the civilians as well as preventing them from leaving so they could be used as human shields. The nazis were one of the main sources of pain and death for the civilians long before russia invaded a month ago.

Right....which Russia did in response to the US/west conducting a regime change 'color revolution' operation to oust the russian friendly govt of Ukraine and install a western puppet govt lead by Poroshenko (who promptly fired the prosecutor that was looking into Burisma corruption) how convenient for the bidens!


Which makes sense since the Khazarian mafia controls both the zionist Jews (Zelensky) and the nazi groups.
You seem to forget how Putin poisoned the elected President of Ukraine in 2008. And then rigged the runoff election in 2010 to install his puppet. Ukraine had agreements with two major oil companies to develop its huge nat gas fields and he didn’t want any competition. So he started some false flag ops in the Donbas as an attempt to justify his invasion of 2014.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GreggK and Ski

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
18,975
24,324
1
2020evidence.org
You seem to forget how Putin poisoned the elected President of Ukraine in 2008. And then rigged the runoff election in 2010 to install his puppet. Ukraine had agreements with two major oil companies to develop its huge nat gas fields and he didn’t want any competition. So he started some false flag ops in the Donbas as an attempt to justify his invasion of 2014.
How do you know the poisoning wasn't a false flag to frame Putin? Do you agree that folks like bidens, mccain, clinton's state dept., et al. are deep state? If so then Putin was responding to deep state regime change operations that used crazy/violent nazis to install a hostile govt right on his border. These are the same swamp rats that went after Trump and don't give a shit about "democracy", only lining their pockets via laundering and accumulating more power/control/puppet govts. People keep brushing off the Ukraine-nazi connection by saying the enemy of my enemy is my friend so I ask why doesn't that apply in the putin vs. deep state globalists war that's been spilling out into Ukraine? Putin is clearly not on board with the deep state/globalists one world govt/NWO plan and he sure as hell wanted nothing to do with whatever they were cooking up in all those biolabs.

The shenanigans in 2010 were likely in response to the west's 'orange revolution' in 2004ish...look we can go back and forth all day rehashing the moves and counter moves made by each side but there has been so much it's hard to figure out who started it. Who knows where we'd be today if the western deep state never got involved in installing puppet govts in Ukraine. We should stay the hell out of there and let the two corrupt govts work it out between themselves otherwise Ukraine will likely end up as a failed state just like Libya, Iraq, etc. are now after deep state regime change operations that relied on violent terrorists to foment change.

Did the pro russian govt in Ukraine (before it was ousted in 2014) use insane nazi groups to attack citizens based on their ethnicity or ban opposition parties and opposition news networks? No. Did they constantly talk about their desire to join NATO thus inflaming tensions and eliminating the ability of Ukraine to be viewed as neutral (which is key for world peace btw)? No. Has the western puppet govts done all of the above? Yep So who is really the better option for the Ukrainian people?

The French news accidentally lets the truth get out...she asks why should Ukrainians defend the puppet Zelensky regime? She mentions Russian and Ukrainian journalists getting disappeared, banning opposition parties. Ukraine isn't a functioning democracy, it's a corrupt nation riddled with thugs and violent/crazy nazis (I'd say it's even worse/more corrupt than Russia):
 
Last edited:

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,632
26,971
1
An altered state
How do you know the poisoning wasn't a false flag to frame Putin? Do you agree that folks like bidens, mccain, clinton's state dept., et al. are deep state? If so then Putin was responding to deep state regime change operations that used crazy/violent nazis to install a hostile govt right on his border. These are the same swamp rats that went after Trump and don't give a shit about "democracy", only lining their pockets via laundering and accumulating more power/control/puppet govts. People keep brushing off the Ukraine-nazi connection by saying the enemy of my enemy is my friend so I ask why doesn't that apply in the putin vs. deep state globalists war that's been spilling out into Ukraine? Putin is clearly not on board with the deep state/globalists one world govt/NWO plan and he sure as hell wanted nothing to do with whatever they were cooking up in all those biolabs.

The shenanigans in 2010 were likely in response to the west's 'orange revolution' in 2004ish...look we can go back and forth all day rehashing the moves and counter moves made by each side but there has been so much it's hard to figure out who started it. Who knows where we'd be today if the western deep state never got involved in installing puppet govts in Ukraine. We should stay the hell out of there and let the two corrupt govts work it out between themselves otherwise Ukraine will likely end up as a failed state just like Libya, Iraq, etc. are now after deep state regime change operations that relied on violent terrorists to foment change.

Did the pro russian govt in Ukraine (before it was ousted in 2014) use insane nazi groups to attack citizens based on their ethnicity or ban opposition parties and opposition news networks? No. Did they constantly talk about their desire to join NATO thus inflaming tensions and eliminating the ability of Ukraine to be viewed as neutral (which is key for world peace btw)? No. Has the western puppet govts done all of the above? Yep So who is really the better option for the Ukrainian people?

The French news accidentally lets the truth get out...she asks why should Ukrainians defend the puppet Zelensky regime? She mentions Russian and Ukrainian journalists getting disappeared, banning opposition parties. Ukraine isn't a functioning democracy, it's a corrupt nation riddled with thugs and violent/crazy nazis (I'd say it's even worse/more corrupt than Russia):
Yes, it goes back centuries. But after the collapse of the USSR it was recognized as a free and independent nation and Russia agreed to do so when Ukraine headed over hundreds of nuclear weapons. That is the current and legal status quo.

As for where would we be if we had not interfered since then it is pretty obvious that Putin would have slowly devoured the country in his quest to restore Mother Russia. And that would have made Putin far stronger with far more petro resources, other natural resources, control of a very large percentage of global food supplies, several major ports along with ship building assets, and more. Who knows by now he would have been targeting the Baltics by engaging in the same internal destabilization tactics he uses elsewhere.

And yes the lady is right. It is complicated and the people of Ukraine have difficult choices to make. But when Russia was responsible for systemically and methodically starving over five milion of them to death....and seeing Putin’s record elsewhere seems they made their choice. Just look at how hard and determined they are fighting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
18,975
24,324
1
2020evidence.org
Putin would have slowly devoured the country in his quest to restore Mother Russia
We have no way of knowing this though because starting with Clinton NATO started expanding east of Germany which was the agreed-upon boundary so almost from day one NATO started creeping closer and closer. IOW The ink was hardly dried before NATO violated the agreement.

When did Putins Russia starve millions of Ukrainians to death or Are you talking about what happened under the USSR? If Putin wanted to kill tons of Ukrainians he never would’ve given the Russian military strict orders to avoid civilian casualties, they would’ve just gone in and carpet bombed all the cities and had them taken over weeks ago with much fewer Russian casualties. Also they are largely leaving the central area of the country untouched because that’s where the grains are, if he wanted to cause problems for the people they would’ve destroyed that land.
 

Ski

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
9,425
11,070
1
We have no way of knowing this though because starting with Clinton NATO started expanding east of Germany which was the agreed-upon boundary so almost from day one NATO started creeping closer and closer. IOW The ink was hardly dried before NATO violated the agreement.

When did Putins Russia starve millions of Ukrainians to death or Are you talking about what happened under the USSR? If Putin wanted to kill tons of Ukrainians he never would’ve given the Russian military strict orders to avoid civilian casualties, they would’ve just gone in and carpet bombed all the cities and had them taken over weeks ago with much fewer Russian casualties. Also they are largely leaving the central area of the country untouched because that’s where the grains are, if he wanted to cause problems for the people they would’ve destroyed that land.

I'd like to read the agreement you reference the ink barely drying on. Can you be more specific?
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,632
26,971
1
An altered state
We have no way of knowing this though because starting with Clinton NATO started expanding east of Germany which was the agreed-upon boundary so almost from day one NATO started creeping closer and closer. IOW The ink was hardly dried before NATO violated the agreement.

When did Putins Russia starve millions of Ukrainians to death or Are you talking about what happened under the USSR? If Putin wanted to kill tons of Ukrainians he never would’ve given the Russian military strict orders to avoid civilian casualties, they would’ve just gone in and carpet bombed all the cities and had them taken over weeks ago with much fewer Russian casualties. Also they are largely leaving the central area of the country untouched because that’s where the grains are, if he wanted to cause problems for the people they would’ve destroyed that land.
And we have no way of knowing how it would have played out had we followed your prescribed path. Perhaps the Baltics, which are 40% Russian speaking, would have been attacked or undermined if not in NATO. Maybe Poland would have been a target. He certainly wants to gain a land bridge to Kaliningrad and the port city of Riga plus other ports on the Baltic Sea.

It is easy for you to say what was done was wrong but no one can say what any alternative actions would have resulted in peace. And give me a break with this Putin nice guy shtick. Mariulpol has been nearly destroyed. Drone shots show 80% destruction of all residences have been destroyed. Other cities in the eastern areas have been devastated.

It was Russia under Stalin that starved five million to death. And the Ukrainians remember what their grandfathers and grandmothers and even some the current people living there suffered through which is why they fight so hard. Putin thought it would easy and thought he could take the capital quickly and the rest of the country would collapse.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
18,975
24,324
1
2020evidence.org
I'd like to read the agreement you reference the ink barely drying on. Can you be more specific?
I’ll have to look it up. When the USSR was dissolved and nato was formed there was an agreement on what the furthest eastern boundary would be for NATO
And we have no way of knowing how it would have played out had we followed your prescribed path. Perhaps the Baltics, which are 40% Russian speaking, would have been attacked or undermined if not in NATO. Maybe Poland would have been a target. He certainly wants to gain a land bridge to Kaliningrad and the port city of Riga plus other ports on the Baltic Sea.

It is easy for you to say what was done was wrong but no one can say what any alternative actions would have resulted in peace. And give me a break with this Putin nice guy shtick. Mariulpol has been nearly destroyed. Drone shots show 80% destruction of all residences have been destroyed. Other cities in the eastern areas have been devastated.

It was Russia under Stalin that starved five million to death. And the Ukrainians remember what their grandfathers and grandmothers and even some the current people living there suffered through which is why they fight so hard. Putin thought it would easy and thought he could take the capital quickly and the rest of the country would collapse.
Right, so it happened under a country that doesn’t even exist anymore. Putin is hard core old school orthodox Russian Christian. He operated in the USSR system but he hated the bolsheviks, Lenin, Stalin, et al. Bc the Russians were also starved by the millions when the communist system was started (note the Bolsheviks were pawns of the Khazarian mafia).

Mariupol was destroyed bc the nazis refused to allow the civilians to leave and instead used them as human shields. What part of this do you not get? These nazis seem like swell people, shooting civilians in the head while getting water. Lets send them more guns!

 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,632
26,971
1
An altered state
I’ll have to look it up. When the USSR was dissolved and nato was formed there was an agreement on what the furthest eastern boundary would be for NATO

Right, so it happened under a country that doesn’t even exist anymore. Putin is hard core old school orthodox Russian Christian. He operated in the USSR system but he hated the bolsheviks, Lenin, Stalin, et al. Bc the Russians were also starved by the millions when the communist system was started (note the Bolsheviks were pawns of the Khazarian mafia).

Mariupol was destroyed bc the nazis refused to allow the civilians to leave and instead used them as human shields. What part of this do you not get? These nazis seem like swell people, shooting civilians in the head while getting water. Lets send them more guns!

Mariupol is 80%. destroyed. If these terrible vicious Azov Nazis had such firepower why didn’t they use it to kill Russians in the eight years in the Donbas fighting? Why did these bad asses wait years to unleash such devastating firepower?

Yep, Putin is old school hard core Orthodox Russian Christian and he wants to restore Mother Russia according to its old Russian Orthodox boundaries. Meaning the Baltics and much of Poland. He said so in his essay last July. Ever read it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GreggK

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
18,975
24,324
1
2020evidence.org
Mariupol is 80%. destroyed. If these terrible vicious Azov Nazis had such firepower why didn’t they use it to kill Russians in the eight years in the Donbas fighting? Why did these bad asses wait years to unleash such devastating firepower?

Yep, Putin is old school hard core Orthodox Russian Christian and he wants to restore Mother Russia according to its old Russian Orthodox boundaries. Meaning the Baltics and much of Poland. He said so in his essay last July. Ever read it?
It wouldn’t have been destroyed if the nazis didn’t imbed themselves in civilian buildings like hospitals, malls, apartments, etc.. The other cities haven’t been damaged as much. Why do you think that’s so?

Yes I read it.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,632
26,971
1
An altered state
It wouldn’t have been destroyed if the nazis didn’t imbed themselves in civilian buildings like hospitals, malls, apartments, etc.. The other cities haven’t been damaged as much. Why do you think that’s so?

Yes I read it.
So they should just have allowed Russians into the city. It’s all their fault. Those terrible people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSUEngineer89

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
18,975
24,324
1
2020evidence.org
So they should just have allowed Russians into the city. It’s all their fault. Those terrible people.
No, what I’m saying is they should’ve allow the civilians to leave then they could’ve done all the fighting they wanted instead they threatened the civilians with death so they could use them as human shields and take pot shots at the Russians while hiding in civilian buildings…, it’s pretty evil I don’t know why you’re not able to see that.
 

Ski

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
9,425
11,070
1
I’ll have to look it up. When the USSR was dissolved and nato was formed there was an agreement on what the furthest eastern boundary would be for NATO

Right, so it happened under a country that doesn’t even exist anymore. Putin is hard core old school orthodox Russian Christian. He operated in the USSR system but he hated the bolsheviks, Lenin, Stalin, et al. Bc the Russians were also starved by the millions when the communist system was started (note the Bolsheviks were pawns of the Khazarian mafia).

Mariupol was destroyed bc the nazis refused to allow the civilians to leave and instead used them as human shields. What part of this do you not get? These nazis seem like swell people, shooting civilians in the head while getting water. Lets send them more guns!


I did a little searching on my own. NATO says, not true:

Claim: NATO promised Russia it would not expand after the Cold War

Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany September 12, 1990
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,632
26,971
1
An altered state
No, what I’m saying is they should’ve allow the civilians to leave then they could’ve done all the fighting they wanted instead they threatened the civilians with death so they could use them as human shields and take pot shots at the Russians while hiding in civilian buildings…, it’s pretty evil I don’t know why you’re not able to see that.
Because both sides are evil. I don’t believe most of the propaganda you post. Lots of people want to stay and fight. But in those cities in those areas there are a lot of ethnic Russians that speak Russian and are actual Russians. Lots of them Moved in after Stalin murdered millions and millions more fled. Lots of Russians in Mariupol that would fight for Russia and/or lie about what is happening. And maybe ones helping Russia are the ones being murdered. No doubt its a total cluster f**((.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
18,975
24,324
1
2020evidence.org
Because both sides are evil. I don’t believe most of the propaganda you post. Lots of people want to stay and fight. But in those cities in those areas there are a lot of ethnic Russians that speak Russian and are actual Russians. Lots of them Moved in after Stalin murdered millions and millions more fled. Lots of Russians in Mariupol that would fight for Russia and/or lie about what is happening. And maybe ones helping Russia are the ones being murdered. No doubt its a total cluster f**((.
Do you think the ethnic Greeks who claimed the azov threatened them with death if they left are lying? What motive do they have to lie?

 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,637
9,856
1
Regarding alleged promises to the Russians of no NATO expansion, one thing is certain: there were never any formal treaties or written agreements on that point.

But was there a verbal understanding? Here things get murky. Putin certainly thinks so, and his claim has some support...from former Ambassador to Russia Jack Matlock, for example. And this from a Dartmouth scholar writing in the LA Times:

>>In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.”<<

Actually there's a fair amount of additional source material for this view, and I've seen other references to the supposed Baker transcripts mentioned above.

But there are also any number of scholars and former officials insisting that such assurances were never put on the table, verbally or otherwise. So who knows.

In any case, the actual wisdom of NATO expansion is a separate issue. I previously cited the statements of George Kennan who believed expanding the alliance eastward was reckless and predicted in the 1990's that it would end badly. Kennan was far from alone in that view, and I subscribe to it myself.
 

LMTLION

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2008
2,550
2,647
1
How do you know the poisoning wasn't a false flag to frame Putin? Do you agree that folks like bidens, mccain, clinton's state dept., et al. are deep state? If so then Putin was responding to deep state regime change operations that used crazy/violent nazis to install a hostile govt right on his border. These are the same swamp rats that went after Trump and don't give a shit about "democracy", only lining their pockets via laundering and accumulating more power/control/puppet govts. People keep brushing off the Ukraine-nazi connection by saying the enemy of my enemy is my friend so I ask why doesn't that apply in the putin vs. deep state globalists war that's been spilling out into Ukraine? Putin is clearly not on board with the deep state/globalists one world govt/NWO plan and he sure as hell wanted nothing to do with whatever they were cooking up in all those biolabs.

The shenanigans in 2010 were likely in response to the west's 'orange revolution' in 2004ish...look we can go back and forth all day rehashing the moves and counter moves made by each side but there has been so much it's hard to figure out who started it. Who knows where we'd be today if the western deep state never got involved in installing puppet govts in Ukraine. We should stay the hell out of there and let the two corrupt govts work it out between themselves otherwise Ukraine will likely end up as a failed state just like Libya, Iraq, etc. are now after deep state regime change operations that relied on violent terrorists to foment change.

Did the pro russian govt in Ukraine (before it was ousted in 2014) use insane nazi groups to attack citizens based on their ethnicity or ban opposition parties and opposition news networks? No. Did they constantly talk about their desire to join NATO thus inflaming tensions and eliminating the ability of Ukraine to be viewed as neutral (which is key for world peace btw)? No. Has the western puppet govts done all of the above? Yep So who is really the better option for the Ukrainian people?

The French news accidentally lets the truth get out...she asks why should Ukrainians defend the puppet Zelensky regime? She mentions Russian and Ukrainian journalists getting disappeared, banning opposition parties. Ukraine isn't a functioning democracy, it's a corrupt nation riddled with thugs and violent/crazy nazis (I'd say it's even worse/more corrupt than Russia):
Our paid Russian propaganda plant is at it again. I am not kidding at all. This is probably one of many websites and social media outlets that you use to spread lies and further divide people. You are bad news.
 

Ski

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
9,425
11,070
1
Regarding alleged promises to the Russians of no NATO expansion, one thing is certain: there were never any formal treaties or written agreements on that point.

But was there a verbal understanding? Here things get murky. Putin certainly thinks so, and his claim has some support...from former Ambassador to Russia Jack Matlock, for example. And this from a Dartmouth scholar writing in the LA Times:

>>In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.”<<

Actually there's a fair amount of additional source material for this view, and I've seen other references to the supposed Baker transcripts mentioned above.

But there are also any number of scholars and former officials insisting that such assurances were never put on the table, verbally or otherwise. So who knows.

In any case, the actual wisdom of NATO expansion is a separate issue. I previously cited the statements of George Kennan who believed expanding the alliance eastward was reckless and predicted in the 1990's that it would end badly. Kennan was far from alone in that view, and I subscribe to it myself.

While I support helping Ukraine as much as possible in this conflict, I do see how unwise it was to move the Eastern edge of NATO as far as the Russian border. Certainly, the best way to help turn Russia into the old Soviet Union was to treat them as if they were still the old Soviet Union. It does not justify their invasion, but it does help give them domestic cover/support for trying to put the band back together.

As an American who happens to be an ethnic Pole, I did support moving NATO somewhat East, but there should have been left in place a clear buffer between NATO and Russia in the form of Belarus and Ukraine. I will admit my view may be clouded, as my grandfather returned to Poland and fought against the Russians (and Ukrainians) from 1919-1921 before coming to the United States a second time in 1924 and becoming a full fledged US citizen in 1927.

Regardless of how we got to this point, leaving the Russians go unpunished for their invasion is no longer an option.