• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Col. Richard Black: U.S. Leading World to Nuclear War

There is some truth. But the reality is that the Russian troops attacking civilian buildings knew that there would be civilian casualities, just like the USA has done and considered some "collateral losses." And just like Israel has done with Hamas, when they use human shields. OK. So let's be honest on that. But you can also discount the overwhelming majority of the Information Warfare reports by USA/Western media, and still realize that there has been terrible brutality by Russian troops in the Ukraine invasion. We cannot lose sight of that fact, because Russia needs to rejoin Earth's nations in future common issues. The brutality needs to stop. Russia needs to realize that an endlessly protracted war endangers itself as much as it endangers the rest of the world. They need to find a way to work towards a cease-fire and development of a neutral zone.

To be honest and candid, I am and have always been anti-Russian. That does not mean I don't respect the rights (and responsibilities) of Russians or their lives. We need to move beyond this horrible carnage ongoing in Ukraine, before it becomes much worse for Russia and all of the world. We all need security, every nation has its arguments on foreign policy, but we must work to start to respect human life again.
 
He makes some really good points. But there's a flaw in his reasoning. If Russia wanted a low-stakes engagement to head off a potential offensive in Donbass then they should have only invaded in Donbass. Had they done that, there would probably have been some grumbling from the West and maybe a few sanctions but nothing big. Putin didn't do that. He went straight for Kiev thinking he could spook out Zelensky, install a quick puppet and have a second, much larger Belarus. THAT is what got the West involved, his attempt to take control of an entire country. So I don't think the US response is as crazy or as escalatory as he makes it out to be, but I agree the West and Ukraine both need to be looking for an off-ramp rather than constantly fueling the fire, and Ukraine has to be willing to negotiate sensibly.
 
Riverstone19 said:
He makes some really good points. But there's a flaw in his reasoning. If Russia wanted a low-stakes engagement to head off a potential offensive in Donbass then they should have only invaded in Donbass. Had they done that, there would probably have been some grumbling from the West and maybe a few sanctions but nothing big. Putin didn't do that. He went straight for Kiev thinking he could spook out Zelensky, install a quick puppet and have a second, much larger Belarus. THAT is what got the West involved, his attempt to take control of an entire country. So I don't think the US response is as crazy or as escalatory as he makes it out to be, but I agree the West and Ukraine both need to be looking for an off-ramp rather than constantly fueling the fire, and Ukraine has to be willing to negotiate sensibly.
Click to expand...
So what’s reasonably for Ukraine?
Also why is this always put forward as the US and Ukraine needs to be open to negotiations.
Why is there never a call or demand for Russia to head for the off ramp.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torch
Riverstone19 said:
He makes some really good points. But there's a flaw in his reasoning. If Russia wanted a low-stakes engagement to head off a potential offensive in Donbass then they should have only invaded in Donbass. Had they done that, there would probably have been some grumbling from the West and maybe a few sanctions but nothing big. Putin didn't do that. He went straight for Kiev thinking he could spook out Zelensky, install a quick puppet and have a second, much larger Belarus. THAT is what got the West involved, his attempt to take control of an entire country. So I don't think the US response is as crazy or as escalatory as he makes it out to be, but I agree the West and Ukraine both need to be looking for an off-ramp rather than constantly fueling the fire, and Ukraine has to be willing to negotiate sensibly.
Click to expand...

The idea to invade only the Donbass has no sense for 2 reasons. First, in order to break through the front of the Donbass, is required to destroy in advance logistic lines: this means to hit bridges, railways, fuel depots, power plants infrastructures, training centers of troops, troops, collection and sorting centers of weapons and spare parts, airports, fighter jets, weapon industries, etc. All of that, with a continued pression on the front with an huge use of artillery and infantry. As to say: to inhibit the ability to maneuver and to react. That is excactly what Russia is doing and all this stuff can't be made in 3 days obviusly.
Second, the annexation of only the Donbass, has no strategic sense at all: as a buffer zone is irrelevant. Furthermore, having taken the Donbass and leaving the remaining Ukraine with the currently gouvernment, it would mean to have an even more hostile Country on the boundary.
So, the end-state of Russia is likely to take a big part of Ukraine if not all, and at least to overthrow the government.
 
Last edited:
bartok said:
The idea to invade only the Donbass has no sense for 2 reasons. First, in order to break through the front of the Donbass, is required to destroy in advance logistic lines: this means to hit bridges, railways, fuel depots, power plants infrastructures, training centers of troops, troops, collection and sorting centers of weapons and spare parts, airports, fighter jets, weapon industries, etc. All of that, with a continued pression on the front with an huge use of artillery and infantry. As to say: to inhibit the ability to maneuver and to react. That is excactly what Russia is doing and all this stuff can't be made in 3 days obviusly.
Second, the annexation of only the Donbass, has no strategic sense at all: as a buffer zone is irrelevant. Furthermore, having taken the Donbass and leaving the remaining Ukraine with the currently gouvernment, it would mean to have an even more hostile Country on the boundary.
So, the end-state of Russia is likely to take a big part of Ukraine if not all, and at least to overthrow the government.
Click to expand...
Wars hell isn’t it
 
REALHumanRights said:
There is some truth. But the reality is that the Russian troops attacking civilian buildings knew that there would be civilian casualities, just like the USA has done and considered some "collateral losses." And just like Israel has done with Hamas, when they use human shields. OK. So let's be honest on that. But you can also discount the overwhelming majority of the Information Warfare reports by USA/Western media, and still realize that there has been terrible brutality by Russian troops in the Ukraine invasion. We cannot lose sight of that fact, because Russia needs to rejoin Earth's nations in future common issues. The brutality needs to stop. Russia needs to realize that an endlessly protracted war endangers itself as much as it endangers the rest of the world. They need to find a way to work towards a cease-fire and development of a neutral zone.

To be honest and candid, I am and have always been anti-Russian. That does not mean I don't respect the rights (and responsibilities) of Russians or their lives. We need to move beyond this horrible carnage ongoing in Ukraine, before it becomes much worse for Russia and all of the world. We all need security, every nation has its arguments on foreign policy, but we must work to start to respect human life again.
Click to expand...
There definitely needs to be a new understanding and security arrangements between nations, that works on the basis of respect and prosperity for all. Yes, that is a rather hopeful view to take; but what is the alternative?

Maybe humanity needs some sort of collective project. Space exploration springs to mind.
 
Riverstone19 said:
He makes some really good points. But there's a flaw in his reasoning. If Russia wanted a low-stakes engagement to head off a potential offensive in Donbass then they should have only invaded in Donbass. Had they done that, there would probably have been some grumbling from the West and maybe a few sanctions but nothing big. Putin didn't do that. He went straight for Kiev thinking he could spook out Zelensky, install a quick puppet and have a second, much larger Belarus. THAT is what got the West involved, his attempt to take control of an entire country. So I don't think the US response is as crazy or as escalatory as he makes it out to be, but I agree the West and Ukraine both need to be looking for an off-ramp rather than constantly fueling the fire, and Ukraine has to be willing to negotiate sensibly.
Click to expand...
From a purely military standpoint, Russia should have concentrated on securing the Donbass. If they had concentrated their efforts there, they would have - IMHO - won a quick and decisive victory, which would have brought about a negotiated settlement. Their overstretch, and general military incompetence, has embolden the western allies, who see an opportunity to bleed the Russian armed forces, and create political pressure for Putin. But the problem with that policy is the fact it leaves little room for negotiations; and runs the risk of pushing the Russians into a place where they feel pressured enough to do something immensely stupid. There needs to be an outlet to vent all the pressure, and allow cooler heads to prevail.
 
Tuor80 said:
From a purely military standpoint, Russia should have concentrated on securing the Donbass. If they had concentrated their efforts there, they would have - IMHO - won a quick and decisive victory, which would have brought about a negotiated settlement. Their overstretch, and general military incompetence, has embolden the western allies, who see an opportunity to bleed the Russian armed forces, and create political pressure for Putin. But the problem with that policy is the fact it leaves little room for negotiations; and runs the risk of pushing the Russians into a place where they feel pressured enough to do something immensely stupid. There needs to be an outlet to vent all the pressure, and allow cooler heads to prevail.
Click to expand...

Tuor80,
From a purely military standpoint, you are overlooking that the Donbass is attached to everything is around it. It isn't on the moon.
It's impossible, as I said, to concentrate the efforts only on the Donbass, without detroying the logistic lines on the rear that supply that front, whom is the first and more effective difensive line of Ukraine, with almost 500 Km of strongholds, bukers and fortifications plenty of well trained troops armed to the teeth. It's something huge. It's a suicide a frontal attack without an appropriate preparation. Simply saing: it is useless to detroy weapons, if new weapons arrive without end. if Russia will succeed in that or not, or if this is good or not or if we like it or not, it's another question.

So, even if Russia objective were only Donbass, it would be impossible to take the Donbass without operations throughout the Country. This is a fact which cannot be ignored. Who doesn't have undestood that, he doesn't have the basics to make hypotheses about "military incompetence".
 
Last edited:
bartok said:
Second, the annexation of only the Donbass, has no strategic sense at all: as a buffer zone is irrelevant. Furthermore, having taken the Donbass and leaving the remaining Ukraine with the currently gouvernment, it would mean to have an even more hostile Country on the boundary.
So, the end-state of Russia is likely to take a big part of Ukraine if not all, and at least to overthrow the government.
Click to expand...
Here is a fairly accurate representation of Russia position regarding any negotiations and ending this war.
Wish Ukraine luck with any olive branches the try and wave.
 
Obreid said:
Here is a fairly accurate representation of Russia position regarding any negotiations and ending this war.
Wish Ukraine luck with any olive branches the try and wave.
Click to expand...

It's not a representation of Russian position about anything: it's an evident military logic, IMHO. Regarding the negotiations, Russia says that the war is not a war, but a "special military operation" exclusively finalized to defend Donbass and Crimea: this is the "representation of Russia position regarding any negotiations and ending this war". So, theorically, if Ukraine will surprise everyone saying: "ok, you can hold Donbass and Crimea", Russia would have a lot of "problems" in order to politically justify a further offensive, even if it wants to do so. But, as soon as Ukraine minimally opens to the idea to recognize to have lost Crimea at leat, NATO immediately says that Ukraine will never recognize to have lost Crimea. So, the real fact is that, by words, everyone wants the war stop, but no one really wants that actually: not Ukraine, not Russia, not NATO. And THIS is the fact that makes the situation explosive. IMHO, maybe the only way in order to avoid the spread of the war (that is not fantasy, as Ukraine that win the war, or Russia that withdraw because they are starving or because we have said to them that they are bad like Gargamel for one million times + 1 and they finally say "ok, you convinced us!"), is that Ukraine will finally have not other choices, but to surrender. And attention: I'm not saying that this will be good or right, it is a cold logic. Maybe I am wrong: it's an opinion.
 
Last edited:
bartok said:
It's not a representation of Russian position about anything: it's an evident military logic, IMHO. Regarding the negotiations, Russia says that the war is not a war, but a "special military operation" exclusively finalized to defend Donbass and Crimea: this is the "representation of Russia position regarding any negotiations and ending this war". So, theorically, if Ukraine will surprise everyone saying: "ok, you can hold Donbass and Crimea", Russia would have a lot of "problems" in order to politically justify a further offensive, even if it wants to do so. But, as soon as Ukraine minimally opens to the idea to recognize to have lost Crimea at leat, NATO immediately says that Ukraine will never recognize to have lost Crimea. So, the real fact is that, by words, everyone wants the war stop, but no one really wants that actually: not Ukraine, not Russia, not NATO. And THIS is the fact that makes the situation explosive. IMHO, maybe the only way in order to avoid the spread of the war (that is not fantasy, as Ukraine that win the war, or Russia that withdraw because they are starving or because we have said to them that they are bad like Gargamel for one million times + 1 and they finally say "ok, you convinced us!"), is that Ukraine will finally have not other choices, but to surrender. And attention: I'm not saying that this will be good or right, it is a cold logic. Maybe I am wrong: it's an opinion.
Click to expand...
I disagree. They need an armistice, a truce, NOT a surrender between Ukraine and Russia. Because neither side is going to "surrender." They need an armistice and a negotiated settlement, not Ukraine cities being bombed for another 2-3-6 months-years. It has to stop. In the North Korea - South Korea war, the armistice has lasted since July 27, 1953. That is nearly **70** years. So the concept of armistice can and does work. Yes, of course insane North Korea shoots off missiles to show how "powerful" they are (actually aren't). But still the fact remains today, 68 years and 10 months later, that the Armistice of the Korean War has kept the peace. People in Seoul and throughout South Korea are not being killed everyday. It is not what everyone would like. But the Armistice in the Korea War is what was needed to allow the killing to stop and people to move on.
 
REALHumanRights said:
I disagree. They need an armistice, a truce, NOT a surrender between Ukraine and Russia. Because neither side is going to "surrender." They need an armistice and a negotiated settlement, not Ukraine cities being bombed for another 2-3-6 months-years. It has to stop. In the North Korea - South Korea war, the armistice has lasted since July 27, 1953. That is nearly **70** years. So the concept of armistice can and does work. Yes, of course insane North Korea shoots off missiles to show how "powerful" they are (actually aren't). But still the fact remains today, 68 years and 10 months later, that the Armistice of the Korean War has kept the peace. People in Seoul and throughout South Korea are not being killed everyday. It is not what everyone would like. But the Armistice in the Korea War is what was needed to allow the killing to stop and people to move on.
Click to expand...
I agree that the korean armistice would probably the best solution overall (among the realistic ones, there's no way either side is going to concede, Ukraine wants territorial integrity, Russia wants at the very least the crimea, donbass and southern ukraine all the way to transistria), the problem is how willing the two sides are to accept it, and if the conditions for such a solution, unlike those who uses catchphrases and quotes like pretzel, I don't think that history ever repeats itself twice in the same way.
There's also the risk that russia might turn into a giant "north korea" in the future, and north korea is not that much of a problem only because of how small and powerless it is, the same would not apply to Russia, especially with China backing them fully.
 
REALHumanRights said:
I disagree. They need an armistice, a truce, NOT a surrender between Ukraine and Russia. Because neither side is going to "surrender." They need an armistice and a negotiated settlement, not Ukraine cities being bombed for another 2-3-6 months-years. It has to stop. In the North Korea - South Korea war, the armistice has lasted since July 27, 1953. That is nearly **70** years. So the concept of armistice can and does work. Yes, of course insane North Korea shoots off missiles to show how "powerful" they are (actually aren't). But still the fact remains today, 68 years and 10 months later, that the Armistice of the Korean War has kept the peace. People in Seoul and throughout South Korea are not being killed everyday. It is not what everyone would like. But the Armistice in the Korea War is what was needed to allow the killing to stop and people to move on.
Click to expand...

I undestrand your disagree, but here we have to discern betweens what we wish for, from what is actually possible. It's absolutly true that an armistice is virtually an option, but no one in the word, in the history, has never made an armistice if he tought to win or not to lose. In Korea, an armistice took place, not because they said: "ok, the peace is so beautifull, the war is so bad, why don't we stop the bloodshed here, making fifty-fifty?", but because in that situation the armistice was the better and the only option for both. It is like in the chess: a draw is very uncommon and, if it arrives, it generally it arrives when the 2 parts are already playing for a long long time and when the pieces of both are almost all been taken from the other, as to say after an "huge distruction". To wish in "draw" at the start of the game, when one of the two has, furthermore, a great handicap compared from the other, it is nothing, but a pious illusion.

They need an armistice, a truce, NOT a surrender between Ukraine and Russia. Because neither side is going to "surrender." They need an armistice and a negotiated settlement, not Ukraine cities being bombed for another 2-3-6 months-years. It has to stop.
Click to expand...

ok, I undestand. We all hope in the peace and that the war stops tomorrow, but this kind of words are fitting if said by the Pope, but they aren't any adherence with the reality. It's evident that Russia doesn't need an armistice. It's evident that Ukraine doesn't want an armistice. Is evident that NATO hasn't changed its mind on anything, as well Russia and Ukraine. So, neither side is going to "surrender", until a side HAS TO surrender. It is not possibile a peace, until a part change its mind on something or until it has to. It's evident that any negotiated settlement is going to be reached on these basis. Me too I hope in negotiations, even in an armistice, but what I want to say, is that it's simply impossibile, until there are the condition for that. By now, there arent't these conditions and the conditions is not the hope of the conditions, but the actual existence of them.
For sure, we can and we must hope that these conditions, regardless from of who will "win", are reached with a bloodshed as little as possible and without a further spread of the war.
 
Last edited:
bartok said:
I undestrand your disagree, but here we have to discern betweens what we wish for, from what is actually possible. It's absolutly true that an armistice is virtually an option, but no one in the word, in the history, has never made an armistice if he tought to win or not to lose. In Korea, an armistice took place, not because they said: "ok, the peace is so beautifull, the war is so bad, why don't we stop the bloodshed here, making fifty-fifty?", but because in that situation the armistice was the better and the only option for both. It is like in the chess: a draw is very uncommon and, if it arrives, it generally it arrives when the 2 parts are already playing for a long long time and when the pieces of both are almost all been taken from the other, as to say after an "huge distruction". To wish in "draw" at the start of the game, when one of the two has, furthermore, a great handicap compared from the other, it is nothing, but a pious illusion.



ok, I undestand. We all hope in the peace and that the war stops tomorrow, but this kind of words are fitting if said by the Pope, but they aren't any adherence with the reality. It's evident that Russia doesn't need an armistice. It's evident that Ukraine doesn't want an armistice. Is evident that NATO hasn't changed its mind on anything, as well Russia and Ukraine. So, neither side is going to "surrender", until a side HAS TO surrender. It is not possibile a peace, until a part change its mind on something or until it has to. It's evident that any negotiated settlement is going to be reached on these basis. Me too I hope in negotiations, even in an armistice, but what I want to say, is that it's simply impossibile, until there are the condition for that. By now, there arent't these conditions and the conditions is not the hope of the conditions, but the actual existence of them.
Click to expand...
So when Ukraine agreed to not join NATO in the early talks what happened? Was that nothing Russia could work with and build on.
Or agreed to leave the the territories and Crimea in Russia control and not seek their immediate return
Or as you so blatantly put it they didn’t submit at the feet of Russia.
Somehow this is an affront to Russia.

Your right with Russian expectations being what they are there will be no peace. Ukraine will be a vale state of the Russian federation or Europe will burn.
Much appreciate you clearing that up for everyone.
 
Obreid said:
So when Ukraine agreed to not join NATO in the early talks what happened? Was that nothing Russia could work with and build on.
Or agreed to leave the the territories and Crimea in Russia control and not seek their immediate return
Or as you so blatantly put it they didn’t submit at the feet of Russia.
Somehow this is an affront to Russia.

Your right with Russian expectations being what they are there will be no peace. Ukraine will be a vale state of the Russian federation or Europe will burn.
Much appreciate you clearing that up for everyone.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, Mr. Obreid,
But if you kindly allow, I am European, so, I am worried about the situation a little more than you on an "Europe that could burn": it's for that reason that I am a little more pragmatic.

As I said to REALHumanRights about we have to "discern betweens what we wish for, from what is actually possible", I have to say to you that we have to discern between the reality, from taking the pisses: tell me the difference among

"agreed to leave the the territories and Crimea in Russia control and not seek their immediate return"

and the

"absolute nothing".

Even if Russia had never invaded Ukraine, Ukraine would have agreed to leave the the territories and Crimea in Russia control and not seek their immediate return, that was exactly what Ukraine was doing before the invasion, for the simple reason that it coudn't oppose to what it didn't have enough power yet, but meanwhile preparing (with NATO) to the moment when it would cliamed what is yours.

You can say that Ukraine is right to claim what is yours: but it's NOT THAT the point. Russia doesn't think like that and, consequently, it doesn't agree. And the agree or the disagree of Russia is not something that can be ignored: it's a principle of reality, not a moral principle on what is right or what is wrong. Such an statement, would be credible only with strong garanties, even and mostly from NATO, not with a generic "not for now": this is an obvious pissing off. We can may think Russia is wrong, but not that it boughts it. So the point IS that there are actually no conditions to make peace and then, the better way to avoid the spread of the war, is that Russia wins, possibly ASAP. Or do you prefer an imprevedible excalation? maybe yes: but not me. My idea is that, betweens you and me, the most pacifist is me. To me, you seems like people with the mounth plenty of "peace", who says: "I am for the peace! It's incredible a war in 2022, because of the evil Putin! The best way to have a peace, would be to kill Putin". A lot of people says that. Tanks fuck: as if killing Putin it wouldn't mean - war -! If it were so simple, they would have killed Hitler in 1939. Or Hitler would have killed Stalin in 1942. So, if we really want a peace, we have to talk seriously on the basis, NOT on what is right and what is wrong (it's oblvious that a war exists just because there is not agreement on that), but on what is possibile and what is not.
 
Last edited:
bartok said:
As I said to REALHumanRights about we have to "discern betweens what we wish for, from what is actually possible", I have to say to you that we have to discern between the reality, from taking the pisses: tell me the difference among

"agreed to leave the the territories and Crimea in Russia control and not seek their immediate return"

and the

"absolute nothing".
Click to expand...
The difference is...if I am reading what you are asking correctly...is that Russia gets rewarded for invading Ukraine and has no incentive to not do it again. In fact, we have seen that. There were no consequences to taking Crimea, so they went for more.

Reality is that if you don't stop them now, it will get worse later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom