Europe Backdrop to the war in Ukraine

[Gethelred]

This is the thread for the geopolitics, history and framework around the Russia-Ukraine conflict. If you want to discuss the events of the war, head over to this thread:

Europe - War in Ukraine - Thread 4 - thread rules updated

This is the thread for discussing the War in Ukraine. Should you want to discuss the geopolitics, the history, or an interesting tangent, head over here: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/backdrop-to-the-war-in-ukraine.1302028/ If a post isn't directly concerning the events of the war or...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Jamolad]

Let's look at who has been "surrounded by miitary operations, wars and invasions for the last 25 years. Let's look at who is truly attempting to "advance its empire".
It's not Russia mate, it's the US.
a) 1998 bombardment of Serbia
b) 2001 invasion of Afghanistan
c) 2003 invasion of Iraq
d) 2011 bombardment of Libya
e) 2014 bombardment of Syria
f) 2014 intervention via proxies (Saudi Arabia) in Yemen civil war
g) 2014 to now: arming, equipping, training of Ukrainian proxies in war against Russia
h) 2023 to now: ongoing arming, and politically controlling the Israeli genocide in Gaza

Now count how many US military bases are spread across the globe compared with Russian bases.
The image below shows the distribution of bases.

Which one do you think looks like it is trying to "expand its empire"?

I don't see any Russian military bases virtually on the border of the US.

You have no understanding of reality.

View attachment 2179180

Is it just me or does that list look smaller than the list of conflicts the Russian Federation has been involved in since collapse of the USSR in 91?

1991-1993 Georgian Civil War

1991-1992 South Ossetian War

1992-1993 War in Abkhazia

1992 Transistria

1992-1997 Tajikistan

1994-1996 First Chechen War ("first" because Russia were forced to withdraw, and Chechnya gained independence, only for Russia to come back 3 years later)

1999 War of Dagestan

1999-2009 Second Chechen War

2008 Russio-Georgian War

2014 - present Russo-Ukrainian War (starting with annexation of Crimea and War in Donbas)

2015 - present Syrian Civil War

2018 - present Central African Republic Civil War

2021 - present Mali War

2024 - present Burkina Faso

Good that you started your list with Serbia in 1998, as it looks like that was the only year Russia has not been involved in at least one conflict. Guess they needed to recover from fighting off those invading imperialist Georgians, Ossetians, Abkhazians, Transnistrians, Tajiks, and Chechens, as I am guessing they were all attempting to invade the peaceful Russians yeah?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Let's look at who has been "surrounded by miitary operations, wars and invasions for the last 25 years. Let's look at who is truly attempting to "advance its empire".
It's not Russia mate, it's the US.
a) 1998 bombardment of Serbia
b) 2001 invasion of Afghanistan
c) 2003 invasion of Iraq
d) 2011 bombardment of Libya
e) 2014 bombardment of Syria
f) 2014 intervention via proxies (Saudi Arabia) in Yemen civil war
g) 2014 to now: arming, equipping, training of Ukrainian proxies in war against Russia
h) 2023 to now: ongoing arming, and politically controlling the Israeli genocide in Gaza

Now count how many US military bases are spread across the globe compared with Russian bases.
The image below shows the distribution of bases.

Which one do you think looks like it is trying to "expand its empire"?

I don't see any Russian military bases virtually on the border of the US.

You have no understanding of reality.

View attachment 2179180

You think USA is trying to expand? Fruitcake opinion.

 

[IlovethePies]

You think USA is trying to expand? Fruitcake opinion.

Really?

Is it just me or does that list look smaller than the list of conflicts the Russian Federation has been involved in since collapse of the USSR in 91?

1991-1993 Georgian Civil War

1991-1992 South Ossetian War

1992-1993 War in Abkhazia

1992 Transistria

1992-1997 Tajikistan

1994-1996 First Chechen War ("first" because Russia were forced to withdraw, and Chechnya gained independence, only for Russia to come back 3 years later)

1999 War of Dagestan

1999-2009 Second Chechen War

2008 Russio-Georgian War

2014 - present Russo-Ukrainian War (starting with annexation of Crimea and War in Donbas)

2015 - present Syrian Civil War

2018 - present Central African Republic Civil War

2021 - present Mali War

2024 - present Burkina Faso

Good that you started your list with Serbia in 1998, as it looks like that was the only year Russia has not been involved in at least one conflict. Guess they needed to recover from fighting off those invading imperialist Georgians, Ossetians, Abkhazians, Transnistrians, Tajiks, and Chechens

In my list I did not enumerate all the wars that the US has been involved in on the African continent, but they are a similar to the number that Russia has been involved in because that is where the US and Russia are competing for influence (along with China).

As for the ones you are listing re Chechnya, Georgia, these countries are on the borders of Russia, not across the globe, (but the targets of the US are). We are comparing "expansion of empires". Russia's expansion, according to your own list, could only be considered to be around its periphery, while that of the US is truly global.

On the basis of any objective assessment ( I doubt you are capable of this though) it is clear that the US is much more of an expansionist nation than Russia.

Russia has not devastated any countries based on a pack of lies either (Iraq, 2003)

Moreover, given that the US incinerated the nation of Iraq based on criminal lies about non-existent weapons of mass destruction, why do you swallow so easily their latest propaganda narrative, that "Putin woke up one day on the wrong side of the bed and "unprovoked", decided to invade Ukraine?

 

[Jamolad]

Really?

In my list I did not enumerate all the wars that the US has been involved in on the African continent, but they are a similar to the number that Russia has been involved in because that is where the US and Russia are competing for influence (along with China).

As for the ones you are listing re Chechnya, Georgia, these countries are on the borders of Russia, not across the globe, (but the targets of the US are). We are comparing "expansion of empires". Russia's expansion, according to your own list, could only be considered to be around its periphery, while that of the US is truly global.

Oh dear, read what you just wrote. So Russia are not trying to advance their empire as they are only expanding locally? Chechnya, Georgia etc, they'd all be fine with Russia's actions given Russia are a local invader, rather than someone invading them from further away. fknlol

In my list I did not enumerate all the wars that the US has been involved in on the African continent, but they are a similar to the number that Russia has been involved in because that is where the US and Russia are competing for influence (along with China).

List them then. Go on, list them all, let's compare the "similar" number.

By the way, today was yesterday's tomorrow...still not seeing Ukrainians striking civilian centres and murdering innocent Russians like you predicted was going to happen. Seriously, tell me on what basis you predict Ukraine are going to attack innocent Russians with long range weapons. What have they done, what have they said, for you to so confidently predict they are on the verge of attacking civilian populations with long range western weapons.

At least you have dropped the whole "I hate them both equally" schtik, as no one was buying it

 

[IlovethePies]

Oh dear, read what you just wrote. fknlol

By the way, today was yesterday's tomorrow...still not seeing Ukrainians striking civilian centres and murdering innocent Russians like you predicted was going to happen

You're very impatient mate.
But given the last 2 years has been a history of red line crossed after red line crossed, why do you think the next one won't be?

You don't seem to base yourself on any kind of evidence based logic.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Really?

In my list I did not enumerate all the wars that the US has been involved in on the African continent, but they are a similar to the number that Russia has been involved in because that is where the US and Russia are competing for influence (along with China).

As for the ones you are listing re Chechnya, Georgia, these countries are on the borders of Russia, not across the globe, (but the targets of the US are). We are comparing "expansion of empires". Russia's expansion, according to your own list, could only be considered to be around its periphery, while that of the US is truly global.

On the basis of any objective assessment ( I doubt you are capable of this though) it is clear that the US is much more of an expansionist nation than Russia.

Russia has not devastated any countries based on a pack of lies either (Iraq, 2003)

Moreover, given that the US incinerated the nation of Iraq based on criminal lies about non-existent weapons of mass destruction, why do you swallow so easily their latest propaganda narrative, that "Putin woke up one day on the wrong side of the bed and "unprovoked", decided to invade Ukraine?

Yes really.
The USA isn't "moving in" to any of those locations.
You're conflating a military presence with "advancing the empire ".

 

[Jamolad]

You're very impatient mate.
But given the last 2 years has been a history of red line crossed after red line crossed, why do you think the next one won't be?

You don't seem to base yourself on any kind of evidence based logic.

Evidence?

On what evidence do you make the claim that Ukraine will use long range weapons to strike civilian centres and murder innocent Civilians? What have they done, what have they said, for you to so confidently predict they are on the verge of attacking civilian populations with long range western weapons?

 

[Zidane98]

Did I just read a poster claiming Russia does not devastate other countries based on pack of lies?

Georgia, Moldova, Syria & Ukraine might have something to say about such a blatant lie.

Incredible the lengths some will go to defend Putin's attempts to create a new Russian empire involuntarily.

 

[IlovethePies]

Yes really.
The USA isn't "moving in" to any of those locations.
You're conflating a military presence with "advancing the empire ".

The US has moved into Afghanistan (abject failure, had to scurry away like a rat with its tail between its legs), moved into Iraq (again, abysmal geostrategic failure.

The US has not brought Iraq under its control, and its European rivals have moved in to compete for the spoils.

The US destroyed Libya, hoping to benefit from the chaos and social disaster it created there, but again has failed to bring that country under its control.

The US cannot "move into" the entire world. It is trying to, by setting up surrogate regimes, but is failing...because the US cannot hold the entire population of the world in its thrall.

But that is what it is striving to do.

 

[IlovethePies]

Did I just read a poster claiming Russia does not devastate other countries based on pack of lies?

Georgia, Moldova, Syria & Ukraine might have something to say about such a blatant lie.

Incredible the lengths some will go to defend Putin's attempts to create a new Russian empire involuntarily.

You answer though...did the US destroy Iraq based on lies?
And if so, why do you now believe the US propaganda narrative that Putin woke up one day, and decided to invade Ukraine just because he felt like it?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The US has moved into Afghanistan (abject failure, had to scurry away like a rat with its tail between its legs), moved into Iraq (again, abysmal geostrategic failure.

The US has not brought Iraq under its control, and its European rivals have moved in to compete for the spoils.

The US destroyed Libya, hoping to benefit from the chaos and social disaster it created there, but again has failed to bring that country under its control.

The US cannot "move into" the entire world. It is trying to, by setting up surrogate regimes, but is failing...because the US cannot hold the entire population of the world in its thrall.

But that is what it is striving to do.

What are you playing my heroes are better than yours? ( and the USA are not my heroes by any stretch ).
Russia had a disastrous shot at Afghanistan long before the USA.
All that "scurry away" stuff you post is like primary school level propaganda.
I get that you're a Putin fanboi, spare the bullshit.
The US is not trying to move anywhere.

 

[Jamolad]

You're very impatient mate.
But given the last 2 years has been a history of red line crossed after red line crossed, why do you think the next one won't be?

You don't seem to base yourself on any kind of evidence based logic.

I think you missed the below:

Evidence?

On what evidence do you make the claim that Ukraine will use long range weapons to strike civilian centres and murder innocent Civilians? What have they done, what have they said, for you to so confidently predict they are on the verge of attacking civilian populations with long range western weapons?

Please share your evidence based logic for your assertion that Ukraine will use long range weapons to strike civilian centres and murder innocent Russians.

You made the claim.

You talk of evidence based logic.

Let's hear it.

 

[IlovethePies]

The US is not trying to move anywhere.

Totally wrong.

But remember in a few months from now, you saw it first here.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Totally wrong.

But remember in a few months from now, you saw it first here.

i'm sure you've been great at predicting things in the past. Cough cough.
You must have cried the day the wall came down.

 

[IlovethePies]

The US hasn't done classic this-is-our-territory-now imperialism for generations. That's unacceptable for them. Pushing other places to their economic worldview is what they're into.

What does "pushing other places to their economic worldview" mean?

 

[IlovethePies]

i'm sure you've been great at predicting things in the past. Cough cough.
You must have cried the day the wall came down.

Maybe you should have a RAT test.

 

[IlovethePies]

I think you missed the below:

Please share your evidence based logic for your assertion that Ukraine will use long range weapons to strike civilian centres and murder innocent Russians.

You made the claim.

You talk of evidence based logic.

Let's hear it.

I thought i made it pretty clear in my previous post.
Since Feb 2022, Biden has repeatedly stated that he would not carry out Action X, because Action X could trigger nuclear war.

Then, a few months later, he implemented Action X.

This has happened repeatedly over the course of the war.

This has led to the incredible situation where US propaganda is now conveying the message that all of Putin's red lines are non-existent, and the US and NATO can keep doing whatever they like to attack Russia and therefore destabliise his regime.

This is why posters here actually post such inanities as: "Putin's red lines are bullshit". In other words, they are willing to gamble the future of human civilisation on the basis of US propaganda.

What is the next escalatory measure that could now be implemented?
So imagine this scenario (it really isn''t that hard to do): The attacks on Russian military installations are not stopping the slow but steady destruction of Ukrainian manpower. OK, the Ukrainian authorities now decide to hit the Russians where it hurts. " Start bombing their cities. That'll make them think twice. We don't have to worry. All of Putin's red lines are BS".

It really isn;t that hard to visualise the logic.

 

[IlovethePies]

An economic system where companies from the US or US-allied states are at the top

So how does the US enforce such a system?

 

[Jamolad]

I thought i made it pretty clear in my previous post.
Since Feb 2022, Biden has repeatedly stated that he would not carry out Action X, because Action X could trigger nuclear war.

Then, a few months later, he implemented Action X.

This has happened repeatedly over the course of the war.

This has led to the incredible situation where US propaganda is now conveying the message that all of Putin's red lines are non-existent, and the US and NATO can keep doing whatever they like to attack Russia and therefore destabliise his regime.

This is why posters here actually post such inanities as: "Putin's red lines are bullshit". In other words, they are willing to gamble the future of human civilisation on the basis of US propaganda.

What is the next escalatory measure that could now be implemented?
So imagine this scenario (it really isn''t that hard to do): The attacks on Russian military installations are not stopping the slow but steady destruction of Ukrainian manpower. OK, the Ukrainian authorities now decide to hit the Russians where it hurts. " Start bombing their cities. That'll make them think twice. We don't have to worry. All of Putin's red lines are BS".

It really isn;t that hard to visualise the logic.

So no evidence based logic then, just a hunch based on an imagined scenario leading to you visualising logic...logic that is illogical as it goes against everything that Ukraine has said and done to date.

I considered your imagined scenario - it makes no sense. In your scenario, Ukraine wants to stop the slow but steady destruction of Ukrainian manpower, so rather than continue to destroy the equipment, logistics, men and infrastructure that is being used to destroy Ukrainian manpower, they decide to pivot to a pointless attack that does nothing to weaken Russia's offensive capabilities and instead it steels Russia's resolve and determination, leads to further retaliatory attacks against Ukrainian civilian centres, and loses Ukraine the support of western nations.

Logic.

 

[IlovethePies]

When countries aren't as amenable as they want, something resembling subterfuge

Yes, I agree, subterfuge is a very significant component of US foreign policy.
But, unless you are living in a closet, it is impossible to miss that the US is also using military power to try to enforce its economic interests.

 

[IlovethePies]

So no evidence based logic then, just a hunch based on an imagined scenario leading to you visualising logic that is illogical as it goes against everything that Ukraine has said and done to date.

This is not a sensible reply, since my entire post was based entirely on the logic of events. If you either refuse/cannot see this, I can't do anything more.

 

[Zidane98]

You answer though...did the US destroy Iraq based on lies?
And if so, why do you now believe the US propaganda narrative that Putin woke up one day, and decided to invade Ukraine just because he felt like it?

No the USA did not destroy Iraq. And certainly wasn't trying to absorb Iraq into the US empire.

No Putin didn't wake up one day and decide to become a modern day Hitler. Whatever way it happened Adolf Putin was always intent on creating a new Russian empire with Ukraine being a large part of it - whether the people of Ukraine agreed didn't matter.

His advisors in the early 00s confirmed he wanted to take Ukraine over even when it was effectively under the thumb.

 

[IlovethePies]

No the USA did not destroy Iraq. And certainly wasn't trying to absorb Iraq into the US empire.

This statement proves that you are not worth engaging with, if more proof were needed.

 

[Jamolad]

This is not a sensible reply, since my entire post was based entirely on the logic of events. If you either refuse/cannot see this, I can't do anything more.

Again, I did consider your imagined scenario:

In your scenario, Ukraine wants to stop the slow but steady destruction of Ukrainian manpower, so rather than continue to destroy the equipment, logistics, men and infrastructure that is being used to destroy Ukrainian manpower, they decide to pivot to a pointless attack that does nothing to weaken Russia's offensive capabilities and instead it steels Russia's resolve and determination, leads to further retaliatory attacks against Ukrainian civilian centres, and loses Ukraine the support of western nations.

Attacking civilian centres is only logical to the Russian regime and their sympathisers, as a means of weakening the offensive capability of their adversary. Notice you are the only one on this board that thinks this is a viable and logical strategy? Says a lot about you, you campaigner.

I didn't ask what you would do; I asked why you think Ukraine would do it. Your answer is because it is what you would do; to you it is the logical step to take

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I thought i made it pretty clear in my previous post.
Since Feb 2022, Biden has repeatedly stated that he would not carry out Action X, because Action X could trigger nuclear war.

Then, a few months later, he implemented Action X.

This has happened repeatedly over the course of the war.

This has led to the incredible situation where US propaganda is now conveying the message that all of Putin's red lines are non-existent, and the US and NATO can keep doing whatever they like to attack Russia and therefore destabliise his regime.

This is why posters here actually post such inanities as: "Putin's red lines are bullshit". In other words, they are willing to gamble the future of human civilisation on the basis of US propaganda.

What is the next escalatory measure that could now be implemented?
So imagine this scenario (it really isn''t that hard to do): The attacks on Russian military installations are not stopping the slow but steady destruction of Ukrainian manpower. OK, the Ukrainian authorities now decide to hit the Russians where it hurts. " Start bombing their cities. That'll make them think twice. We don't have to worry. All of Putin's red lines are BS".

It really isn;t that hard to visualise the logic.

Sorry , none of that will happen, because its not really logic.