Top | Newest First | Oldest First
ArishMell · 70-79, M
Although Armstrong does not say so, nor identify his "sources". his opinion is so close to Russia's publicly-stated stance they are clearly pro-Russian, possibly even in Russia and in which case, possibly in the Kremlin propaganda department.
A negotiated "agreement" would have been in front of all those guns. Ex-KGB officer Putin has never really made any secret of wanting to take Ukraine... followed by whom I wonder.... although he was has always been vague about what his "going to plan" means.
He seemed quite genuinely to believe his "agreement" would have been made in a couple of days just by sending hundreds of tanks and soldiers into Kyyv; and failed to understand that the Ukrainians would not welcome them. Even his own troops were baffled why they were there, having been told right up to the day of invasion that they were on an "exercise" with Putin telling the world he was not planning to invade.
I can understand from his point of view, President Putin's strategy of trying to render Ukraine uninhabitable for its citizens - his main targets have always between their homes and services to starve and freeze them out. (Oh, how courageous he is.)
What I find harder to comprehend is why he wants to only to destroy everything: there was no military or political logic to wiping out Mariupol along with its steel-works, harbour, etc. Not if he wants the territory for its assets; though he did plunder the steel stocks from Mariupol, even though most had already been bought by other countries' industries so was their property.
Nor was there any military sense in evacuating Ukrainians who had survived the destruction of their homes, as far away as possible; and to deprived areas of Russia, too. Many were taken to towns near Vladivostock, a journey taking up to ten days by buses and trains. It makes sense in the context of Putin simply hating Ukraine and Ukrainians: he wants their land but not them.
I expect Martin Armstrong, if that is his real name and not a Westernised version of something ending in"ev", would think it all necessary and good, though.
.
Putin also miscalculated diplomatically (even if he can spell its Russian equivalent). NATO was never a threat to Russia although he and Armstrong think it is; and he hates the EU even though that is not a military alliance. What he's done though, is push the Swedes and Finns nearer to applying to join NATO; and Ukraine the EU. The opposites of what he would have wanted!
For their part NATO is happy to accommodate Finland and Sweden, and they already co-operate anyway. The EU will accept Ukraine but it takes some years to join, and the EU has publicly told Ukraine to stamp out corruption in her own government departments first.
A negotiated "agreement" would have been in front of all those guns. Ex-KGB officer Putin has never really made any secret of wanting to take Ukraine... followed by whom I wonder.... although he was has always been vague about what his "going to plan" means.
He seemed quite genuinely to believe his "agreement" would have been made in a couple of days just by sending hundreds of tanks and soldiers into Kyyv; and failed to understand that the Ukrainians would not welcome them. Even his own troops were baffled why they were there, having been told right up to the day of invasion that they were on an "exercise" with Putin telling the world he was not planning to invade.
I can understand from his point of view, President Putin's strategy of trying to render Ukraine uninhabitable for its citizens - his main targets have always between their homes and services to starve and freeze them out. (Oh, how courageous he is.)
What I find harder to comprehend is why he wants to only to destroy everything: there was no military or political logic to wiping out Mariupol along with its steel-works, harbour, etc. Not if he wants the territory for its assets; though he did plunder the steel stocks from Mariupol, even though most had already been bought by other countries' industries so was their property.
Nor was there any military sense in evacuating Ukrainians who had survived the destruction of their homes, as far away as possible; and to deprived areas of Russia, too. Many were taken to towns near Vladivostock, a journey taking up to ten days by buses and trains. It makes sense in the context of Putin simply hating Ukraine and Ukrainians: he wants their land but not them.
I expect Martin Armstrong, if that is his real name and not a Westernised version of something ending in"ev", would think it all necessary and good, though.
.
Putin also miscalculated diplomatically (even if he can spell its Russian equivalent). NATO was never a threat to Russia although he and Armstrong think it is; and he hates the EU even though that is not a military alliance. What he's done though, is push the Swedes and Finns nearer to applying to join NATO; and Ukraine the EU. The opposites of what he would have wanted!
For their part NATO is happy to accommodate Finland and Sweden, and they already co-operate anyway. The EU will accept Ukraine but it takes some years to join, and the EU has publicly told Ukraine to stamp out corruption in her own government departments first.
View 1 more replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@WalterF Hmm. It's certainly far more reasoned than anything I'd expect from the Kremlin, but it looks several years old so predates the present war.
As far as I could make out he is an economist and historian but it's hard to work out where he stands politically.
More clear is his climate-change denial based on natural cycles of millions of years and a very deep Pre-Cambrian glaciation - a poor model to use in arguments such as his. (Ice Ages occur many millions of years apart; the present Ice Age works in cycles of about a hundred thousand years, and the climate is still comparatively cool; but the effect that is of concern is a rate of change too rapid and too deep for natural behaviour.)
I also read his opinions about the Cypriot economy and the Euro. I don't recall Cyprus being in trouble but Greece certainly was. Despite his fears - or wishes? - the Euro is still here, and so is Cyprus.
The point though was that you copied an essay from him that looks just an apology for Putin's invasion of Ukraine. It would have been better, indeed proper, if he had made it clear he was giving the Kremlin line to explain its reason for the "operation".
As far as I could make out he is an economist and historian but it's hard to work out where he stands politically.
More clear is his climate-change denial based on natural cycles of millions of years and a very deep Pre-Cambrian glaciation - a poor model to use in arguments such as his. (Ice Ages occur many millions of years apart; the present Ice Age works in cycles of about a hundred thousand years, and the climate is still comparatively cool; but the effect that is of concern is a rate of change too rapid and too deep for natural behaviour.)
I also read his opinions about the Cypriot economy and the Euro. I don't recall Cyprus being in trouble but Greece certainly was. Despite his fears - or wishes? - the Euro is still here, and so is Cyprus.
The point though was that you copied an essay from him that looks just an apology for Putin's invasion of Ukraine. It would have been better, indeed proper, if he had made it clear he was giving the Kremlin line to explain its reason for the "operation".
ilikeitlikethat23 · 61-69, M
come back to earth, you've lost it.
WalterF · 70-79, M
@ilikeitlikethat23 Don't shoot the messenger?
BizSuitStacy · M
I believe it.