[lifeinpune]

Originally Posted by nandadevieast

Qualifier:
I am against all war and do not support Russia’s war on Ukraine
The post is not about common people living in any country but the governments and politicians



I am pained by so much loss of life and devastation in this war. This is another war for resources and hegemony by a (terribly) old generation brought up in Richard Nixon's (white) house and Joseph Stalin’s Kremlin.
...

Your post is a breath of fresh air on this thread. I keep checking this thread regularly to improve my enlightenment. Off late, some of the posts have been peddling the western media narrative/perspective without adding much value. I would request mods to take note. I think this thread is a special category where it's easy for people to come across as opinionated. There is nothing wrong with people having opinions. But given the nature of the topic, the threshold of objectivity needed on this thread is probably much higher to ensure that the thread stays informative.

Putin is the one who fired the bullet and has caused the problem. But he had been looking for a reasonable way out for more than a decade. Like the saying in Hindi Laaton ke Bhut baaton se nahi mante, finally, he did whatever he thought was in Russia's security interests. People saying that he is a monster and his ego got hurt need to do some research. While the guy might be carrying a hurt pride having lived during Soviet times, he has shown the willingness to swallow his pride and come to an agreement with the west so that Russia can move on. But he has been snubbed on multiple occasions. I have seen multiple interviews of Putin and his speech on various forums. The guy is extremely knowledgeable and articulate. It would be an insult to him to even compare him with the contemporary leaders of the western world.

Having NATO missiles at Russia's doorstep takes away Russia's deterrence. In this instance, it is not a question of pride. It's a question of maintaining the deterrence to avoid the possibility of being steamrolled in the future.

Post the dissolution of the Soviet Union; there was no need for NATO to exist. Russia even wanted to be part of NATO, but their requests were rejected. Why not? If Russia joins NATO, how can the US MIC benefit from fear-mongering? See https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/15/europ...0of%20Ukraine.

[AZT]

This whole "Chinese Yuan / any other currency will replace the petro-dollar" brouhaha has been going on for years now. Always comes up every 2-3 years and the discussion has been the same. The catalyst is always some backroom oil deal with Iran / Venezuela. Here it's with Russia. Quoting an old article below.

Talking about China specifically:
What Would It Take For the Yuan to Displace the Dollar?
China Would Have To

1. Float the yuan
2. End capital controls
3. Respect property rights
4. Have a bond market big enough (China has virtually no gov't bond market)
5. Have global trust
6. Be willing to have trade deficits
7. Stop export priority mercantilism
8. Have a currency market big enough

These are general requirements, not China specific. Now, how many does the Eurozone meet - 1,2,3,5, and 8. The biggest holdup against the Euro is lack of a bond market. Also Germany and the surplus states will not easily or willingly give up on points 6 and 7.

There are no alternatives. To be an alternative, a county has to meet those 8 conditions.

[volkman10]

Elon Musk's SpaceX Starlink Internet App: Massive Downloads In Ukraine

Starlink internet mobile app saw a whopping 21,000 installs in Ukraine last Sunday. This number made it the most downloaded app in the country on the day.


When Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk first mentioned that Starlink internet was activated in Ukraine, and the necessary terminals were en route, many people were skeptical. However, the first shipment arrived in Ukraine in fewer than 48 hours, and there has been at least one additional shipment since then, which also included Tesla Powerwall batteries, solar inverters, and more.

Starlink is reportedly functioning well in Ukraine, and that officials in the country have been working to alert citizens about the service and the app, which are being provided free of charge at this point.

there had already been nearly 100,000 Starlink internet mobile app downloads from Ukraine's Google and Apple online app stores. While some may feel the internet and mobile apps aren't primary necessities during a time of war, Starlink has already proven very helpful to many Ukrainians, for obvious reasons. Moreover, reliable internet access could prove integral to the Ukrainian government as the war surges on.

With power outages across the country and many people's homes destroyed, internet access is becoming an issue. Tesla's Poweralls can keep the Starlink terminals powered up, at least for a time, and perhaps indefinitely if connected to a solar system. This is a wise plan since the ongoing concern is that Russia will make a more direct attempt to take out Ukraine's internet services and any other forms of communication it can disable.

Musk has also issued various warnings and provided Starlink tips to further help the country. More recently, it appears someone from Tesla and/or SpaceX put together a "how-to" video (linked above) to help people learn to use the Tesla Powerwalls to keep the Starlink internet service online.


Link

[Poitive]

Originally Posted by volkman10

Musk has also issued various warnings and provided Starlink tips to further help the country.

The cynic in me wonders how Starlink too might be weaponised over time. Selectively providing internet access to the masses, and using it to filter content. We're seeing information access getting weaponised right in this conflict - both by restricting and providing.

Influencing masses in countries - democracies or otherwise - is the big boys' game.

[nandadevieast]

She is right. Why isn’t Myanmar a humanitarian crisis? Why isn’t US rallying the whole world to resolve Myanmar issue? What about Palestine? Didn’t US invade Afghanistan for the same reason Putin invaded Ukraine. You don’t go out and attack an entire country because terrorists take out couple of buildings in your country. And how far did they succeed in rooting out terrorism from Afghanistan, the same terrorists they had a role in creating in the first place? Truth is obvious and everyone knows it.

These countries go out, administer a coupe’s, support extremists/terrorists/criminals to do that and then these groups grow into demons.

Why is Africa so backward after all these years? One should ask these hypocrites.

If they have self interests, everyone else can have too.

Western leadership should do some introspection about whether they are looking at a new world with age old tools..

Originally Posted by Samurai

Clare Daly (EU MP) speaking in the European Parliament

https://www.Youtube.com/watch?v=CEtKNqjlUzk

[Poitive]

Originally Posted by nandadevieast

She is right.
...
If they have self interests, everyone else can have too.

IMO:
Don't know about her specifically, but such statements are usually made to further their own interests at a relatively local level. To show down a competing political entity.

International politics is run on self-interests (at country and party/individual level). Everyone else too does that; just that their capacity to influence events is limited.

Emotions are only a practical tool for such things. Elaborated in a prior post of this really long thread (link - see second section).

[DIY410]

Originally Posted by Poitive

The cynic in me wonders how Starlink too might be weaponised over time. Selectively providing internet access to the masses, and using it to filter content. We're seeing information access getting weaponised right in this conflict - both by restricting and providing.

Influencing masses in countries - democracies or otherwise - is the big boys' game.

Apart from it being weaponized for propaganda purposes. It can also act as back up for military communication.

Since Russia can wipe out US spy(visual, thermal, infrared etc) and secure communication satellites. When these two type of satellites are shot down, US battlefield situational awareness is no different then any other country with a Awacs/ISR plane.

[CarNerd]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

We have to remember that Russia also invaded Georgia back in 2008 and sent troops in to Belarus and Kazakhstan to crush local popular rebellions.

When it comes to Invasions and Regime Changes, Russia can't compete with America.
Link: https://https://www.channel4.com/new...ries-elections

https://https://www.google.com/amp/s...e-20th-century

Originally Posted by dragracer567

This war is about Russia's inherent insecurity where post 1991, they lost what was according to them part of their empire though these have historically been independent territories with their own cultures, languages etc.

At least those were part of the Soviet Union and share borders with Russia unlike Vietnam, Iraq, etc that had nothing to do with the US. Why do you think the Soviets placed Missiles in Cuba? Because the Americans had placed Jupiter Missiles in Turkey. Nobody is as insecure as America!

This file has all the instances of US using its armed forces abroad: Link: R42738.pdf

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Perhaps, even more than Russia's insecurity, this is about Putin's insecurity. He was a KGB agent, part of great Soviet apparatus that was once a global superpower, so it hurts him to see that Russia with its weak economy is not able to exert influence into its former territories as Western Europe & the US can or does.

Any leader with ambitions will try to project power - Putin is no different. Xi has similar plans about South China Sea, Taiwan, etc. Look at Kim Jong-Un, Do you think he cares about his people starving when he carries out Missile Tests?

America invaded Iraq just to send a message that it means business. They thought Afghanistan was too weak and they wanted some other country which was a little more powerful than Afghanistan and beat it. They chose Iraq.

Link: https://https://www.inquirer.com/phi...d-in-Iraq.html

https://https://www.google.com/amp/s...to-war-in-iraq

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Why does it make sense to deny them that right just because Russia or rather Putin is insecure?

There is a Wikipedia article about American Imperialism: https://https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w...an_imperialism

Why does the US deny the right of countries to live as they like? Insecurity?

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Recently, the Venezuelans hosted Russian troops, but did we see the Americans invade Venezuela? Such invasions made sense in the 20th century, not in the 21st.

Invasions don't make sense in any century. Why don't they invade North Korea just like Iraq? They won't because it's Chinese Territory. By the way, America invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in the 21st century not the 20th. Maybe they need some rest before they invade a new country!

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by CarNerd

When it comes to Invasions and Regime Changes, Russia can't compete with America.

At least those were part of the Soviet Union and share borders with Russia unlike Vietnam, Iraq, etc that had nothing to do with the US. Why do you think the Soviets placed Missiles in Cuba? Because the Americans had placed Jupiter Missiles in Turkey. Nobody is as insecure as America!

America invaded Iraq just to send a message that it means business. They thought Afghanistan was too weak and they wanted some other country which was a little more powerful than Afghanistan and beat it. They chose Iraq.

Why does the US deny the right of countries to live as they like? Insecurity?

Invasions don't make sense in any century. Why don't they invade North Korea just like Iraq? They won't because it's Chinese Territory. By the way, America invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in the 21st century not the 20th. Maybe they need some rest before they invade a new country!

More 'what about-isms'! You will really need more arguments than "America did it" to defend Russian actions here.

[thanixravindran]

Originally Posted by CarNerd

The points you mentioned are some of the issues Russia used inorder to get the West to negotiate with it. Obviously they were not resolved and hence this war. But at present they have two non-negotiable demands - No NATO & Crimean recognition along with DPR, LPR which I don't think Ukraine will agree to.

I think there are indications that the first one will be agreed (No NATO) by Ukraine. Second one, the breakaway regions were already recognized by Ukraine for self rule way back in 2015/16 after the Minsk agreements. So it may be possible to wriggle out a solution there in the talks. The only way a peace treaty can be signed is to side step the Crimea since it has been annexed by Russia. I can only think of how USA recognized the 'One China' policy without mentioning which is the actual China when the embrace happened with PRC in 1972.

I have read the Russian proposal and the impatience shown to get the US response which obviously shows it is a ruse to start the war. Regarding NATO, I don't know which other European country is left to join NATO apart from Georgia and Ukraine that has borders with Russia (Not counting Belarus with their current affinity). But going back to 1997 is simply not possible which Russia itself will be knowing.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

NATO expansion is made out to more than it actually is.

It also doesn't help that the ex-Warsaw pact and the ex-Soviet republics loath the economic stagnation and oppression brought about by the Soviet system and will do anything to stay away from the Russian sphere of influence even if it means joining NATO.

Recently, the Venezuelans hosted Russian troops, but did we see the Americans invade Venezuela? Such invasions made sense in the 20th century, not in the 21st.

NATO and EU membership are quite different and shall not be used interchangeably. I have not read Russia objected Ukraine joining EU for the economic aspiration of Ukraine. Actually it is interesting, when Russia pitched the Eurasian Economic Union against the European union in far better terms before the ouster of Yanukovich. In fact, EU has several conditions that it is not so easy for Ukraine to join EU because it is both Political and Economic union. Turkey is waiting for decades and won't get it in near future.

Another little pointer about NATO. With NATO membership, each country has to contribute 2% of their GDP for the common military budget. Most of this budget will go to buying and harmonizing with US war machines. Already many countries in NATO are not able to maintain this budget. I am not sure how this helps Ukraine achieving better economic prosperity by joining NATO.

Let Venezuela host ICBM or other Nuclear tipped missiles from Russia and then we can see whether there is any invasion happening in Latin America.

[dragracer567]

Another great piece from Palki Sharma.

The main point that caught my attention was how both the US and Russia failed India as an ally at various stages in the past one year. While the Americans packed and fled Afghanistan with no warning to India, the Russians invaded Ukraine with no discernable warning to India (though it seems that the Chinese knew) despite the fact that they knew more than 20,000 Indians lived in Ukraine, the evacuation of whom was mostly done by Ukraine while Russia just peddled fake news (her words, not mine).

The best scenario for India is a quick end to hostilities as a win from either side can hurt India badly in its bid to counter Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKAYO3wVWOw

[vishnurp99]

Originally Posted by thanixravindran

The only way a peace treaty can be signed is to side step the Crimea since it has been annexed by Russia. I can only think of how USA recognized the 'One China' policy without mentioning which is the actual China when the embrace happened with PRC in 1972.

One of Russia's main concerns was water security for Crimea. Russia annexed Crimea back in 2014 but shutting off the water supply to Crimea was a no-cost option for Ukraine/US/West to punish Russia. Apparently the cost of supplying water to Crimea for 2.5 million people & the black sea fleet has been greater than the cost of the war effort so far. Russia will want to ensure that it never happens again.

Russia couldn't even get a hearing in international forums for water flow arbitration since Crimea was considered as a part of Ukraine and hence Russia had no locus standi on the issue. So formal recognition of territory is important.

The access to sea of Azov is also tightly controlled by Russia today since they essentially control the entire southern and western ukraine coast today. A wider Donbas region would ensure that Ukraine is cut off from most of Black sea and Azov sea. Russia would probably push for that.

I have a feeling that Russia is only applying pressure on Ukraine but not bombing Kiev to stone age hoping that they can get them to comply. If they do get Ukraine & west to comply, then that would be a big win for Russia.

Thanks to the coverage in most US and European outlets, most common folks have no idea what the fight is about. They think that it's an attempt to capture all of Ukraine, bring about regime change, roll back NATO to 1997 status, abolish democracy etc. A compromise that recognizes Russian status of Crimea (which they already annexed long time back), independence to Donbass region (which was again fighting with forces from Kiev) would look like a win for Ukraine which is the weaker power here. I feel that Russia's core demands will be accepted but sold as a win for Ukraine.

By the way, I am not trying to justify Russia. When we come to countries, there is a lot of moral posturing that goes on but ultimately countries go by their core interests. Russia needed Crimea to survive in it's current state. A Crimea controlled by a western proxy would have resulted in a Russia that would have become like Germany or Japan both of which are dependent on USA for security and hence have no strategic autonomy.

[DIY410]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

NATO expansion is made out to more than it actually is. We have to remember that Russia also invaded Georgia back in 2008 and sent troops in to Belarus and Kazakhstan to crush local popular rebellions.

And who was responsible for Georgia, Bush just a year before in 2007 made it into Law NATO expansion to include Georgia and Ukraine.

Kazakhstan and Belarus who do you think was responsible for the rebellions. They both are Russian allies with Russian security umbrella.

We had a protest on Russian nuclear plants in TN, which according to the investigations by Manmohan singh government points fingers at US.

Lets not forget next stage of coups starting with Bolivia

Originally Posted by dragracer567

This war is about Russia's inherent insecurity where post 1991, they lost what was according to them part of their empire though these have historically been independent territories with their own cultures, languages etc.

Insecurity on russia part, seriously ?. When US is insecure enough to push on Nato expansion, when Putin asked Russia to be included in Nato, not one but two US presidents refused to do so. Nor did either listen to Russia concerns on Nato expansion, the US made a promise not to expand nato, which is there in the archives.

Hell, US was so insecure about the Soviet union they had to fly U2, A12, Sr71 into soviet airspace to spy on them. Did soviets do the same, No.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Perhaps, even more than Russia's insecurity, this is about Putin's insecurity. He was a KGB agent, part of great Soviet apparatus that was once a global superpower, so it hurts him to see that Russia with its weak economy is not able to exert influence into its former territories as Western Europe & the US can or does.

Putin was the first head of state to call Bush after 9/11. Putin wanted closer ties with the west.
Very first page if you really looked at it, will explain how friendly Putin was.
https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/shift...ml#post5263217 (Impact of the Russia-Ukraine war)

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Recently, the Venezuelans hosted Russian troops, but did we see the Americans invade Venezuela? Such invasions made sense in the 20th century, not in the 21st.

Its only because of Russia that elected president was not overthrown by US coup. Russian mercenaries protect the president Maduro. He was on multiple occasions survived assassinations.
Venuzulas gold reserve was frozen by the west.
They go one step further, when two sovereign countries trade, US steals their oil and sell it.
https://www.france24.com/en/live-new...for-40-million

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Just look at this video, it almost feels like Putin is a Tsar conducting a royal court.

Kremlin buildings are huge, they follow covid distancing. I am sorry the white house is small.
Biden or any US president are just not intelligent enough, Putin knows US history more then US presidents. His knowledge on world matters, history, intelligence is second to none compared to other heads of state and is own people in his government.

US presidents are manipulated by their own intelligence agency. CIA director on camera said they are trained to lie.

US intelligence chiefs lie under oath in congress. Ask Snowden.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Looks like Ukraine has been on the offensive as well. Satellite images show that Ukraine has Kherson airfield which Russia is using as a Forward operating base and they managed to destroy multiple aircraft and helicopters. It's unknown what weapons they used but likely to be those Turkish drones that has proven deadly. Pointers for India since Pakistan operates those same drones.

It was a artillery/MRLS strike and not drone. 4 helicopters where destroyed and rest where ground equipment, trucks.
Ukraine is winning the twitter war.

[CarNerd]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

More 'what about-isms'! You will really need more arguments than "America did it" to defend Russian actions here.

I'm not defending Russia's actions but calling out the hypocrisy of the US. I have read your previous posts and I get the sense that you are somehow defending America without mentioning any of their misdeeds.

You have criticized Russia for their selfish motives in supporting us during the 1971 war. But you forget that the generous US wanted to scare us by encouraging the Chinese to threaten us. Why this negativity with Russia?

Tell me about the sanctions faced by US and its allies after killing millions of innocents in all the wars. There are none! Putin is now being probed by the west for war crimes. But did anyone probe Bush, Blair and others? Why this hypocrisy mate?

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by CarNerd

I'm not defending Russia's actions but calling out the hypocrisy of the US. I have read your previous posts and I get the sense that you are somehow defending America without mentioning any of their misdeeds.

Tell me about the sanctions faced by US and its allies after killing millions of innocents in all the wars. There are none! Putin is now being probed by the west for war crimes. But did anyone probe Bush, Blair and others? Why this hypocrisy mate?

You are right, I did selectively call out Russia’s actions because this thread is about the RUSSIAN INVASION OF UKRAINE, not about American colonial exploits. If there is a separate thread on the latter, I have quite a bit to say about that as well but this is not the topic of discussion here. It’s beyond me as to why there is a singular focus is on the west’s actions when Russia is the aggressor here. As a few people before me have pointed out quite diligently, a lot of the posts in this thread delve mostly into how western actions have been somehow construed as an approval for this invasion, almost parroting Russian propaganda which even many Russians don’t believe in. You can’t invade a country because of a verbal agreement made before most of your troops were even born.

And yes, as the Bhpian - V. Narayan had pointed out in an earlier post, all hegemonies are lousy, just that some are more tolerable than others. So I would prefer a American hegemony to Chinese or a Russian one anyday because had we been living in one of the latter systems, we wouldn’t have the freedom to even have this discussion. Anyway, that’s just my opinion.

Why this negativity with Russia?

Nothing against Russia. Know quite a few Russians from my ERASMUS days and a lot of my views are formed around my discussions with them.