Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

They might drive by and take a photograph to see if anything major changed.  I don't think it's any kind of detailed inspection.  Ever.

Russia doesn't want "peace" they just want to stop the bleeding and regroup.  Any deal made with dickface putin is just a delaying tactic on his part.  He won't abide by it.  Anyone that thinks he seriously wants real lasting peace is about the dumbest fucker on the planet.

If he wanted real lasting peace the solution is obvious and immediate-- withdraw from Ukraine and end the war.  It's completely within his power to do so.

I hear this a lot, and while I think there's some truth to it, I don't quite wholly agree with it.  

I have no idea what "Russians" want.  They're not a monolith any more than we Americans are.  I think I have a reasonable idea of what Putin wants (or, possibly more relevant, what the oligarchs he answers to want).  I have no formal education in Russo-European history, but I've tried to learn something about it from reading and from listening to lectures by various historians for the past few years since this war has been going on.  

What I gather is that Russia has always viewed Ukraine as vital to its survival.  Long before Putin, long before the Soviet Union, even before the "modern" era Czars.  There are economic reasons Russia cares so much about what happens in that land, a lot of which have to do with ports and agriculture.  

So where I agree is that Russia (forget Putin, this goes back way before him) is unlikely to ever just walk away from Ukraine and say "we won't interfere anymore."  In that way, I don't think Putin wants "peace," per se.  Actually, to the contrary, I think he's publicly voiced his support for putting something back together roughly resembling the USSR.  

Where I disagree is that it necessarily means war and never-ending aggression towards Ukraine.  There seem to be conditions he's willing to accept in Europe, regardless of what he "wants."  There are lines they're not willing to let be crossed, and NATO winking at Ukraine is one of them.  IMO, a major fault for this whole conflict is us, the USA.  "We" pushed Putin into this as much as any factor, by dangling NATO in front of them and encouraging Ukraine to talk about it and consider it as if it's a real option.  We always knew that would provoke Russia, and we did it anyway.  When things got to a certain point, Russia invaded (again).  When Trump 1.0 was happening, Russia did not invade, and it's worth looking at why, and I don't think the answer is a simple "He was scared of what crazy-ass Trump would do."  

Can Putin be "trusted?"  Well....I trust people to do what's in their best interest, even if they're untrustworthy.  I do think there is a way forward that makes clear to Russia "It's not in your best interest to keep going," and that it can be paired with removing the antagonistic conditions that appear to have fired Russia up in the first place.  There's a difference in what Russia ideally wants, and what they will let be, and I don't buy the whole spiel about "There is no peace.  You can't trust Putin.  The end.  Finito."  I think Russia's broader interests as well as some historical facts support that.

If that makes me the dumbest fucker on the planet, well, here we are.  

I hear this a lot, and while I think there's some truth to it, I don't quite wholly agree with it. 

I have no idea what "Russians" want.  They're not a monolith any more than we Americans are.  I think I have a reasonable idea of what Putin wants (or, possibly more relevant, what the oligarchs he answers to want).  I have no formal education in Russo-European history, but I've tried to learn something about it from reading and from listening to lectures by various historians for the past few years since this war has been going on. 

What I gather is that Russia has always viewed Ukraine as vital to its survival.  Long before Putin, long before the Soviet Union, even before the "modern" era Czars.  There are economic reasons Russia cares so much about what happens in that land, a lot of which have to do with ports and agriculture. 

So where I agree is that Russia (forget Putin, this goes back way before him) is unlikely to ever just walk away from Ukraine and say "we won't interfere anymore."  In that way, I don't think Putin wants "peace," per se.  Actually, to the contrary, I think he's publicly voiced his support for putting something back together roughly resembling the USSR. 

Where I disagree is that it necessarily means war and never-ending aggression towards Ukraine.  There seem to be conditions he's willing to accept in Europe, regardless of what he "wants."  There are lines they're not willing to let be crossed, and NATO winking at Ukraine is one of them.  IMO, a major fault for this whole conflict is us, the USA.  "We" pushed Putin into this as much as any factor, by dangling NATO in front of them and encouraging Ukraine to talk about it and consider it as if it's a real option.  We always knew that would provoke Russia, and we did it anyway.  When things got to a certain point, Russia invaded (again).  When Trump 1.0 was happening, Russia did not invade, and it's worth looking at why, and I don't think the answer is a simple "He was scared of what crazy-ass Trump would do." 

Can Putin be "trusted?"  Well....I trust people to do what's in their best interest, even if they're untrustworthy.  I do think there is a way forward that makes clear to Russia "It's not in your best interest to keep going," and that it can be paired with removing the antagonistic conditions that appear to have fired Russia up in the first place.  There's a difference in what Russia ideally wants, and what they will let be, and I don't buy the whole spiel about "There is no peace.  You can't trust Putin.  The end.  Finito."  I think Russia's broader interests as well as some historical facts support that.

If that makes me the dumbest fucker on the planet, well, here we are. 

Great post.

Russia is currently an autocracy. The Russian people--although likely patriotic for their country--are not driving this, Putin is. Putin has been fairly clear that he is after a return to Russian greatness--probably not USSR style, probably more Tsarist style. 

Current national borders are mostly the result of the end of imperial Europe, and there's no question that Tsarist Russia included vast swaths of Ukraine, but Ukraine also always had its own identity. Where the borders start and finish is a tricky question--just ask the good people of Toledo, Ohio.

What does autocratic Russia want? The same thing it has always wanted: a warm water port (and the [grudging] respect of Western Europe).

The $6.4 trillion question is how important it is to the U.S. to maintain the world order that the U.S. built after WWII? I put it that way intentionally--the most likely result to us in the short term is economic more than actual security risks. BUT, there comes a point at which there are real security risks because of changes to our economic security.

I hear this a lot, and while I think there's some truth to it, I don't quite wholly agree with it. 

I have no idea what "Russians" want.  They're not a monolith any more than we Americans are.  I think I have a reasonable idea of what Putin wants (or, possibly more relevant, what the oligarchs he answers to want).  I have no formal education in Russo-European history, but I've tried to learn something about it from reading and from listening to lectures by various historians for the past few years since this war has been going on. 

What I gather is that Russia has always viewed Ukraine as vital to its survival.  Long before Putin, long before the Soviet Union, even before the "modern" era Czars.  There are economic reasons Russia cares so much about what happens in that land, a lot of which have to do with ports and agriculture. 

So where I agree is that Russia (forget Putin, this goes back way before him) is unlikely to ever just walk away from Ukraine and say "we won't interfere anymore."  In that way, I don't think Putin wants "peace," per se.  Actually, to the contrary, I think he's publicly voiced his support for putting something back together roughly resembling the USSR. 

Where I disagree is that it necessarily means war and never-ending aggression towards Ukraine.  There seem to be conditions he's willing to accept in Europe, regardless of what he "wants."  There are lines they're not willing to let be crossed, and NATO winking at Ukraine is one of them.  IMO, a major fault for this whole conflict is us, the USA.  "We" pushed Putin into this as much as any factor, by dangling NATO in front of them and encouraging Ukraine to talk about it and consider it as if it's a real option.  We always knew that would provoke Russia, and we did it anyway.  When things got to a certain point, Russia invaded (again).  When Trump 1.0 was happening, Russia did not invade, and it's worth looking at why, and I don't think the answer is a simple "He was scared of what crazy-ass Trump would do." 

Can Putin be "trusted?"  Well....I trust people to do what's in their best interest, even if they're untrustworthy.  I do think there is a way forward that makes clear to Russia "It's not in your best interest to keep going," and that it can be paired with removing the antagonistic conditions that appear to have fired Russia up in the first place.  There's a difference in what Russia ideally wants, and what they will let be, and I don't buy the whole spiel about "There is no peace.  You can't trust Putin.  The end.  Finito."  I think Russia's broader interests as well as some historical facts support that.

If that makes me the dumbest fucker on the planet, well, here we are. 

this is a heckuva post. you basically nailed it. this line in particular got me...."I trust people to do what's in their best interest, even if they're untrustworthy." - true words.

Slick Willy on Putin.


https://twitter.com/DefiyantlyFree/status/1896660935525416969

Bashing someone in public isn't a great idea if you want to get anything productive done. Clinton was probably the last great statesmen we had- even if his expansion of NATO was extremely shortsighted and reckless- no one handled other world leaders quite like ol' Billy. Bush I was just a fucking retard in every sense of the word, Obama was way in over his skis and over his head, Trump is too aggressive/bombastic/confrontational, and Biden well he gets a pass because he was literally senile and brain dead.

"Ukranian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin's sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests."

that was from a classified memo written right before the Bucharest summit in 2008 to the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice by one of the top diplomats in the US at the time- William Burns- who would go on to serve as the director of oh only the freaking CIA. We only know about this and other classified information because of the incredibly important and ground breaking work of a true hero to freedom of the press and transparency in government- Julian Assange and his organization WikiLeaks. You can read the entire thing. Burns was advising the administration he worked for to put the kibosh on the whole Ukraine to NATO thing- and well- Bush I was a a fucking retard so of course- they didn't.

this guy is probably one of the best most interesting follows on twitter right now- he's a French entrepreneur/writer and liberal critic of the EU, and to a lesser degree their masters the US- and this thread he has on it brings the receipts. And no- he and all of the incredibly accomplished people who are significantly more plugged in, informed, in tune to the whole deal, and leaps and bounds far more knowledgeable/intelligent on the topic than anyone on this internet message board- are not the dumbest motherfuckers on planet earth.


https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1700719265635246114


https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1700719261466128485


https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1700719257477378424


https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1700719270647538048


https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1700719274816651556


https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1700719281590198376


https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1700719286896238756


https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1700719291426087247


https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1700719296455037089


https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1700719301072953812

i trust dickface putin to continue attempting to invade and conquer Ukraine.  He's already proven he wants no peace, by invading twice.  And he's openly stated it as one of his imperialist goals.  I trust him when he says that, because his actions have been in complete agreement.

Putin is a pretty bad guy. There's no denying that. But there is not any world in which any leader of Russia would allow Ukraine to join what Russia perceives as a potential threat/hostile foreign military alliance. Putin gets shit in his own political establishment for not being hard line enough and too much of a softy. The devil you know is often better than the one you don't. The next Russian autocrat might be even more of a scumbag. Or an alcoholic cretin like Yeltsin. Putin is most definitely a dick (your words) but the man did bring Russia back from the brink. The "shock therapy" on the economy + that drunk Yeltsin imposed on that country by the US turned it into a wild wild west of corruption and left it in complete and utter shambles. That place was in dire fucking straits when Putin took it over and he brought it back from the brink and stabilized it. Probably why he's reasonably popular in Russia. Controlling media also probably helps.

Going back a while, I believe it was Kruschev who gave Crimea to Ukraine, because, well, why not?  Ukraine had a UN vote while part of the USSR oddly enough.  They were a kind of "affiliated state" of sorts.

When Nazi troops invaded Ukraine in 1941, many greeted them as liberators because ... Stalin (who wasn't Russian).  Some think had the Germans treated them decently they would have eagerly fought the Russians when in fact, then ended up often being partisans.  Germans viewed Slavs as slaves for some reason, maybe language.

Hitler had some pretty "grand ideas" of course, had his forces been able to secure the oil fields in the Caucusus in 1942, well, that would have probably changed the outcome.

It is said Russians are paranoid, but they keep getting invaded, over and over.