UKRAINE the latest.

View this post on Instagram

How accurate do you think Sachs opinion is ?

Supafreak wrote:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DCaTvgICFlu/?igsh=MWZmMTdxNGcxMTN1OQ==

Putin sounds like a saint in that video. Give me a break. If anything, bombing of Serbia should've happened even earlier than 1999. And like quadzilla said, many countries eagrley joined NATO. And for the right reasons, you think Russia just sits idle and doesn't interfere into other countries? They are a constant threat, NATO is one line of security that some smaller, weak countries need.

So how accurate do you think Sachs opinion is ?

Supafreak wrote:

So how accurate do you think Sachs opinion is ?

Have been following Sachs on a couple of podcasts for the last year or so.
Pretty much most things he says tend to come to fruition, as he definitely knows what he is talking about.

Look, to be transparent I'm a dual citizen with family in one of these recently joined countries. So I might be biased.

He can say whatever he wants from the US perspective. He can rightfully request for the US to be less involved or even have no involvement. But his angle is wrong and biased. He is pushing this narrative as it gains him popularity and probably, income. His whole premise is based on US being the one and only driver of this whole picture. This is wrong, Russia always interfered into other countries. I would like him to talk more about Russia and which moves/interferences they did so we can compare apples to apples. His presentation is one sided and shouldn't be taken seriously.

flollo wrote:

Supafreak wrote:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DCaTvgICFlu/?igsh=MWZmMTdxNGcxMTN1OQ==

Putin sounds like a saint in that video. Give me a break. If anything, bombing of Serbia should've happened even earlier than 1999. And like quadzilla said, many countries eagrley joined NATO. And for the right reasons, you think Russia just sits idle and doesn't interfere into other countries? They are a constant threat, NATO is one line of security that some smaller, weak countries need.

Do you think the USA would be ok with say BRICS bases with missile capabilities being set up in Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela? Monroe Doctrine is ok for USA why not a similar scenario for Russia?
Russia's actions may not be 'right' or 'ethical' but totally understandable given the history and realpolitik situation. and it is total hypocrisy of the West not to take this into account.

USA/ NATO do not have an ethical leg to stand on with the latest being the open support for genocide in Gaza, never mind Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria amongst others.

Sorry, being critical of Putin and Russia somehow makes me an approvalist of all US actions?

It’s Sacks isn’t it?

You guys are looking at this from a wrong angle. The real threat to Russia is not NATO. It is European Union. EU is one of the greatest (if not the greatest) achievements in recent memory. 27 member countries, joined into one shared market. One of the highest standards of living in the world. Most share one of the strongest currencies in the world and have no border restrictions for people movement or trade of goods and services. EU lifted standards of living in all its members, especially the recently joined ones. There are not many countries outside the EU left in Europe. Ukraine is the biggest one.

I can totally see the future where most countries in Europe are members of the EU. Exception being the stupid UK, Switzerland and Norway. Russia will then be sandwiched between 2 great superpowers - EU and China. And standard of living between Russia and the EU shouldn't even be discussed. Sooner or later I can see the Russian citizens wanting the same rights and benefits that EU citizens take for granted. That is a massive problem for the existing oligarchy. Russia spent decades undermining the EU. They constantly get involved into elections in hopes of eurosceptics taking a stronger foothold. This is nothing new and it's still ongoing.

A lot of these videos are blatantly ignoring these facts. So sorry, I can't take them seriously.

flollo wrote:

Sorry, being critical of Putin and Russia somehow makes me an approvalist of all US actions?

Sorry flollo did not mean to infer that.
I'm no fan of Putin etc, but believe the whole thing could have been handled better from the early 90's.
Sach's may sound anti US, but with his views on China he is a lot more hawkish and USA first. Think he looks at the situation rationally.
Agree with your EU sentiments, but still reckon NATO fooked it, Russia may have been able to be a partner with the prosperity if it had been handled differently.

If someone presents a series of events and the outcomes of each event and evidence to support the material when does it transcend opinion to a historical account. It would appear he just outlined the context of the conflict. I don’t think it was an opinion to be honest.

Quad. Have you hitched your wagon to the Putin bogey man team? Do you absolve the responsibility of Western hegemony continually pushing the brinkmanship.

always has good scripting for thought-provokes
from jay/lynn from a 40-years-ago perspective

It's unbelivable how one sided some of this discussion is. Ukraine was in active talks with the EU to sign the Association Agreement in the early 2010s. An agreement which would serve as basis for potential membership in the EU. According to the polls, Ukraine's citizens supported joining the EU. But then Yanukovych, under an immense pressure and bribery from Russia, does 180 in 2013. He signs a deal with Russia and snubs the EU. What else would you expect from his corrupted system. EU comes with certain level of oversight while Russia doesn't give a shit.

People revolt but Yanukovych basically pushes legislation banning public protest. Over the next few months hundreds are dead and thousands left traumatised as protestation never stopped. And some in here are supportive of this? All these commentators conveniently point straight to 2014 and say - CIA initiated! Was it? I don't think so. Where they there in some capacity? I would say yes but so were the Russians.

Meanwhile, nearby Poland is pushing their GDP towards $1 trillion. Nearly x 5 per capita when compared to Ukraine. How different would Ukraine be if it joined the EU? But why would Russia allow that, better leave it poor and corrupted. And unfortunately, half of people in the West are supportive of this nonsense.

quadzilla wrote:

andy-mac wrote:

flollo wrote:

Supafreak wrote:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DCaTvgICFlu/?igsh=MWZmMTdxNGcxMTN1OQ==

Putin sounds like a saint in that video. Give me a break. If anything, bombing of Serbia should've happened even earlier than 1999. And like quadzilla said, many countries eagrley joined NATO. And for the right reasons, you think Russia just sits idle and doesn't interfere into other countries? They are a constant threat, NATO is one line of security that some smaller, weak countries need.

Do you think the USA would be ok with say BRICS bases with missile capabilities being set up in Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela? Monroe Doctrine is ok for USA why not a similar scenario for Russia?
Russia's actions may not be 'right' or 'ethical' but totally understandable given the history and realpolitik situation. and it is total hypocrisy of the West not to take this into account.

USA/ NATO do not have an ethical leg to stand on with the latest being the open support for genocide in Gaza, never mind Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria amongst others.

These terrorists you mention ARE very ethical aren't they?

Huh?

soggydog wrote:

If someone presents a series of events and the outcomes of each event and evidence to support the material when does it transcend opinion to a historical account. It would appear he just outlined the context of the conflict. I don’t think it was an opinion to be honest.

Quad. Have you hitched your wagon to the Putin bogey man team? Do you absolve the responsibility of Western hegemony continually pushing the brinkmanship.

I don’t know enough about the history to make an educated judgment on what sachs had to say but I also didn’t think it was an opinion. I was hoping if it wasn’t a correct statement then someone would point out the errors of his statement with some evidence to back it up . He doesn’t come across as pro Putin to me , more like what the fuck are we doing America?

flollo wrote:

It's unbelivable how one sided some of this discussion is. Ukraine was in active talks with the EU to sign the Association Agreement in the early 2010s. An agreement which would serve as basis for potential membership in the EU. According to the polls, Ukraine's citizens supported joining the EU. But then Yanukovych, under an immense pressure and bribery from Russia, does 180 in 2013. He signs a deal with Russia and snubs the EU. What else would you expect from his corrupted system. EU comes with certain level of oversight while Russia doesn't give a shit.

People revolt but Yanukovych basically pushes legislation banning public protest. Over the next few months hundreds are dead and thousands left traumatised as protestation never stopped. And some in here are supportive of this? All these commentators conveniently point straight to 2014 and say - CIA initiated! Was it? I don't think so. Where they there in some capacity? I would say yes but so were the Russians.

Meanwhile, nearby Poland is pushing their GDP towards $1 trillion. Nearly x 5 per capita when compared to Ukraine. How different would Ukraine be if it joined the EU? But why would Russia allow that, better leave it poor and corrupted. And unfortunately, half of people in the West are supportive of this nonsense.

Great post @flollo,
Not surprised an actual Eastern European such as yourself whose own homeland went through war recently has the right perspective on Ukraine.
There was also the dioxin poisoning of President Yushchenko back in 2004 by the Russians during the election, Putin has been actively undermining them for a long time.

All these "what are the West doing there" Putin stooges, like the coward Joe Rogan, seem to forget that the Ukrainians voted for Zelensky and for closer ties with the EU in a legitimate sovereign act of self determination, it was at relative peace after years of turmoil and Russia attacked it in an act of war.
Not for the first time either.
And the West, including most notably the US and UK, agreed to go to their aid in the event they were attacked as part of the arrangement to remove the nukes under the Budapest Memorandum, in which Russia also gave assurances to respect Ukrainian sovereignty. Russia lied.

Putin is the aggressor, Do you just roll over to aggressors now because they were stupid enough to fire a ballistic weapon? But not stupid enough to fire it without notifying the US because had they not done so Moscow would be a cinder city. The M.A.D. doctrine still deters Russia. That hasn't and won't change.

Ukraine signed the Treaty for Non Proliferation as part of the deal to remove the nukes.
Ukraine was not a containment territory, it did not have nuclear weapons pointed at Russia, the "what if Cuba" argument is inapplicable.
There are good reasons why the West has sought to contain Russia, that are now self evident, but it wasn't doing it with Ukrainian territory. There were no nukes pointed at Moscow from Ukrainian soil.

Trump will/has already appointed a "tsar" to "solve" the war, while he goes golfing.
If the US just fold to Putin's wishes, then it only weakens American "greatness". the other NATO members will persevere.
There were reasons why the Rules Based Order came into being, an isolationist American President may seek to undermine it, (and the US support of Israeli genocide and war crimes in Gaza certainly has), but there are enough other countries in the free world that will continue to try to enforce it, and enough legal and political machinery that it will not disintegrate.
And NATO will keep going with or without the Americans
.
And for those asking what would the US do if BRICS missiles were put in Cuba or Venezuela, take it a step further, what do you think the US would do if they were attacked without provocation by another state like Ukraine was, do you think they would just lie down and take it like you expect Ukraine to?
No.
Just like Ukraine they would fight, and keep fighting until victory or defeat, until the invaders left US soil. Do you think they would listen to EU nations, or European podcasters, telling them to give up and give in to a bully?
No fucking way.
Is the world now just going to let nuclear armed states do what they want because they threaten using nuclear weapons?
M.A.D. still applies. Still a deterrent. Putin isn't going to nuke anyone, just bully them, and sabre rattle.
Because the truth is he fucked it up, he's so isolated and has his generals living in such fear of him he's getting misinformation and making grave miscalculations, like "we can take Ukraine in a week".
Hitler did the same thing. Particularly in Russia coincidentally.
The minute he puts North Korean or Houthi or whatever other nations fighters on the ground in Ukraine and not defending Russian soil like they are currently, NATO has legal justification to deploy troops into Ukraine, and they are ready to do so with or without the Americans.

Trump can boast he can fix it all he likes, but unless the US backs Zelensky in, it's the US that will come out the loser, as well as Ukraine, American hegemony will be in the shitter, no good for them, no good for anyone. But one good thing Trump may have done, he woke up the other NATO states, and they won't be surrendering anything to Putin if they can help it.
No one wants war, but some are worth the fight.

Well then by the sounds of that , WW3 is inevitable. Everyone says they don’t want it but who’s going to back down ?

adam12 wrote:

flollo wrote:

It's unbelivable how one sided some of this discussion is. Ukraine was in active talks with the EU to sign the Association Agreement in the early 2010s. An agreement which would serve as basis for potential membership in the EU. According to the polls, Ukraine's citizens supported joining the EU. But then Yanukovych, under an immense pressure and bribery from Russia, does 180 in 2013. He signs a deal with Russia and snubs the EU. What else would you expect from his corrupted system. EU comes with certain level of oversight while Russia doesn't give a shit.

People revolt but Yanukovych basically pushes legislation banning public protest. Over the next few months hundreds are dead and thousands left traumatised as protestation never stopped. And some in here are supportive of this? All these commentators conveniently point straight to 2014 and say - CIA initiated! Was it? I don't think so. Where they there in some capacity? I would say yes but so were the Russians.

Meanwhile, nearby Poland is pushing their GDP towards $1 trillion. Nearly x 5 per capita when compared to Ukraine. How different would Ukraine be if it joined the EU? But why would Russia allow that, better leave it poor and corrupted. And unfortunately, half of people in the West are supportive of this nonsense.

Great post @flollo,
Not surprised an actual Eastern European such as yourself whose own homeland went through war recently has the right perspective on Ukraine.
There was also the dioxin poisoning of President Yushchenko back in 2004 by the Russians during the election, Putin has been actively undermining them for a long time.

All these "what are the West doing there" Putin stooges, like the coward Joe Rogan, seem to forget that the Ukrainians voted for Zelensky and for closer ties with the EU in a legitimate sovereign act of self determination, it was at relative peace after years of turmoil and Russia attacked it in an act of war.
Not for the first time either.
And the West, including most notably the US and UK, agreed to go to their aid in the event they were attacked as part of the arrangement to remove the nukes under the Budapest Memorandum, in which Russia also gave assurances to respect Ukrainian sovereignty. Russia lied.

Putin is the aggressor, Do you just roll over to aggressors now because they were stupid enough to fire a ballistic weapon? But not stupid enough to fire it without notifying the US because had they not done so Moscow would be a cinder city. The M.A.D. doctrine still deters Russia. That hasn't and won't change.

Ukraine signed the Treaty for Non Proliferation as part of the deal to remove the nukes.
Ukraine was not a containment territory, it did not have nuclear weapons pointed at Russia, the "what if Cuba" argument is inapplicable.
There are good reasons why the West has sought to contain Russia, that are now self evident, but it wasn't doing it with Ukrainian territory. There were no nukes pointed at Moscow from Ukrainian soil.

Trump will/has already appointed a "tsar" to "solve" the war, while he goes golfing.
If the US just fold to Putin's wishes, then it only weakens American "greatness". the other NATO members will persevere.
There were reasons why the Rules Based Order came into being, an isolationist American President may seek to undermine it, (and the US support of Israeli genocide and war crimes in Gaza certainly has), but there are enough other countries in the free world that will continue to try to enforce it, and enough legal and political machinery that it will not disintegrate.
And NATO will keep going with or without the Americans
.
And for those asking what would the US do if BRICS missiles were put in Cuba or Venezuela, take it a step further, what do you think the US would do if they were attacked without provocation by another state like Ukraine was, do you think they would just lie down and take it like you expect Ukraine to?
No.
Just like Ukraine they would fight, and keep fighting until victory or defeat, until the invaders left US soil. Do you think they would listen to EU nations, or European podcasters, telling them to give up and give in to a bully?
No fucking way.
Is the world now just going to let nuclear armed states do what they want because they threaten using nuclear weapons?
M.A.D. still applies. Still a deterrent. Putin isn't going to nuke anyone, just bully them, and sabre rattle.
Because the truth is he fucked it up, he's so isolated and has his generals living in such fear of him he's getting misinformation and making grave miscalculations, like "we can take Ukraine in a week".
Hitler did the same thing. Particularly in Russia coincidentally.
The minute he puts North Korean or Houthi or whatever other nations fighters on the ground in Ukraine and not defending Russian soil like they are currently, NATO has legal justification to deploy troops into Ukraine, and they are ready to do so with or without the Americans.

Trump can boast he can fix it all he likes, but unless the US backs Zelensky in, it's the US that will come out the loser, as well as Ukraine, American hegemony will be in the shitter, no good for them, no good for anyone. But one good thing Trump may have done, he woke up the other NATO states, and they won't be surrendering anything to Putin if they can help it.
No one wants war, but some are worth the fight.

Reckon reality is somewhere in the middle.

It does seem however Ukraine have lost this one...

Wasted lives that could have been avoided back in 2022 when there was agreement that was scuttled by Boris.
Or is that just conspiracy talk?
I don't know but reckon Professor Sachs does.

And this :/

Anyone with military knowledge?
True or hyperbole?
He is ex CIA but does he have agenda?

https://m.

adam12 wrote:

flollo wrote:

It's unbelivable how one sided some of this discussion is. Ukraine was in active talks with the EU to sign the Association Agreement in the early 2010s. An agreement which would serve as basis for potential membership in the EU. According to the polls, Ukraine's citizens supported joining the EU. But then Yanukovych, under an immense pressure and bribery from Russia, does 180 in 2013. He signs a deal with Russia and snubs the EU. What else would you expect from his corrupted system. EU comes with certain level of oversight while Russia doesn't give a shit.

People revolt but Yanukovych basically pushes legislation banning public protest. Over the next few months hundreds are dead and thousands left traumatised as protestation never stopped. And some in here are supportive of this? All these commentators conveniently point straight to 2014 and say - CIA initiated! Was it? I don't think so. Where they there in some capacity? I would say yes but so were the Russians.

Meanwhile, nearby Poland is pushing their GDP towards $1 trillion. Nearly x 5 per capita when compared to Ukraine. How different would Ukraine be if it joined the EU? But why would Russia allow that, better leave it poor and corrupted. And unfortunately, half of people in the West are supportive of this nonsense.

Great post @flollo,
Not surprised an actual Eastern European such as yourself whose own homeland went through war recently has the right perspective on Ukraine.
There was also the dioxin poisoning of President Yushchenko back in 2004 by the Russians during the election, Putin has been actively undermining them for a long time.

All these "what are the West doing there" Putin stooges, like the coward Joe Rogan, seem to forget that the Ukrainians voted for Zelensky and for closer ties with the EU in a legitimate sovereign act of self determination, it was at relative peace after years of turmoil and Russia attacked it in an act of war.
Not for the first time either.
And the West, including most notably the US and UK, agreed to go to their aid in the event they were attacked as part of the arrangement to remove the nukes under the Budapest Memorandum, in which Russia also gave assurances to respect Ukrainian sovereignty. Russia lied.

Putin is the aggressor, Do you just roll over to aggressors now because they were stupid enough to fire a ballistic weapon? But not stupid enough to fire it without notifying the US because had they not done so Moscow would be a cinder city. The M.A.D. doctrine still deters Russia. That hasn't and won't change.

Ukraine signed the Treaty for Non Proliferation as part of the deal to remove the nukes.
Ukraine was not a containment territory, it did not have nuclear weapons pointed at Russia, the "what if Cuba" argument is inapplicable.
There are good reasons why the West has sought to contain Russia, that are now self evident, but it wasn't doing it with Ukrainian territory. There were no nukes pointed at Moscow from Ukrainian soil.

Trump will/has already appointed a "tsar" to "solve" the war, while he goes golfing.
If the US just fold to Putin's wishes, then it only weakens American "greatness". the other NATO members will persevere.
There were reasons why the Rules Based Order came into being, an isolationist American President may seek to undermine it, (and the US support of Israeli genocide and war crimes in Gaza certainly has), but there are enough other countries in the free world that will continue to try to enforce it, and enough legal and political machinery that it will not disintegrate.
And NATO will keep going with or without the Americans
.
And for those asking what would the US do if BRICS missiles were put in Cuba or Venezuela, take it a step further, what do you think the US would do if they were attacked without provocation by another state like Ukraine was, do you think they would just lie down and take it like you expect Ukraine to?
No.
Just like Ukraine they would fight, and keep fighting until victory or defeat, until the invaders left US soil. Do you think they would listen to EU nations, or European podcasters, telling them to give up and give in to a bully?
No fucking way.
Is the world now just going to let nuclear armed states do what they want because they threaten using nuclear weapons?
M.A.D. still applies. Still a deterrent. Putin isn't going to nuke anyone, just bully them, and sabre rattle.
Because the truth is he fucked it up, he's so isolated and has his generals living in such fear of him he's getting misinformation and making grave miscalculations, like "we can take Ukraine in a week".
Hitler did the same thing. Particularly in Russia coincidentally.
The minute he puts North Korean or Houthi or whatever other nations fighters on the ground in Ukraine and not defending Russian soil like they are currently, NATO has legal justification to deploy troops into Ukraine, and they are ready to do so with or without the Americans.

Trump can boast he can fix it all he likes, but unless the US backs Zelensky in, it's the US that will come out the loser, as well as Ukraine, American hegemony will be in the shitter, no good for them, no good for anyone. But one good thing Trump may have done, he woke up the other NATO states, and they won't be surrendering anything to Putin if they can help it.
No one wants war, but some are worth the fight.

Flollo & Adam12. Brilliant stuff boys. I enjoyed what you both wrote.

Putin is a President of the ‘Crash Test Dummy’ type.

You’ve both articulated a very concise, simplistic,succinct and accurate understanding of what the situation is really like.
It’s not panic stations , it’s thought gathering for the next phase, for all the peace-wanting nations and hopefully a peaceful outcome is reached. Good stuff by our ‘in house’ foreign correspondents. AW

And @ flollo

Sorry if any of my comments have upset you as you are more involved than some Australian bloke tapping on keyboard.

Maybe coming a bit from biased view as do have a little knowledge from my studies of USA/CIA meddling in other countries, primarily Indonesia in the lead up to the communist purge in 65.

You bastards do realise this thread has now got @indodreamin committed to hundreds of hours of podcasts to get up to speed on this issue!??
btw good read. Good posts @a12 and @flollo..

@Adam12 & @flollo , am I right in assuming that you believe Sachs statements and take on history are false ? I wouldn’t know so I’m genuinely asking . He comes across as a rational guy .