Things are heating up in the Donbass

[holdover]

free of offensive threats from the United States and its allies. Having misunderstood why Russia invaded Ukraine, the West is now basing existential decisions on false premises. In doing so, it is deepening the crisis and may be sleepwalking toward nuclear war. This argument, which I now present in detail, is based on the analyses of a number of scholars, government officials, and military observers, all of whom I introduce and quote from in the course of the presentation. These include John Mearsheimer, Stephen F. Cohen, Richard Sakwa, Gilbert Doctorow, George F. Kennan, Chas Freeman, Douglas Macgregor, and Brennan Deveraux.

 

[holdover]

Within months after Russia invaded Ukraine, the explanation offered for America’s involvement changed. What had been pitched as a limited, humanitarian effort to help Ukraine defend itself morphed to include an additional aim: to degrade Russia’s capacity to fight another war in the future. In fact, this strategic objective may have been in place from the start. In March, 2022 —just weeks after the start of the war and more than a month before the new U.S. policy was announced —Chas Freeman, previously Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, observed, Everything we are doing, rather than accelerating an end to the fighting and some compromise, seems to be aimed at prolonging the fighting, assisting the Ukrainian resistance —which is a noble cause, I suppose, but …will result in a lot of dead Ukrainians as well as dead Russians.¹ Freeman’s observation pointed to an uncomfortable truth: America’s two war aims are not really compatible with each other. Whereas a humanitarian effort would seek to limit the destruction and end the war quickly, the strategic goal of weakening Russia requires a prolonged war with maximum destruction, one that bleeds Russia dry of men and machine

https://progressivehub.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/How-the-West-Brought-War-to-Ukraine.pdf

 

[holdover]

You go on and on about how "NATO on their door step was unacceptable to Russia", but you refuse to see the other side that "Russia invading neighbor after neighbor is unacceptable to NATO".

Obviously so, the difference was that 1, Russia has said it would mean war for 30 years, 2 Ukraine was allowed to seperate under the condition that it remain nuetral, it was Ukraine that knowingly violated that agreement , they are in breech of contract which makes that contract void and gives legal rights to Russia to reclaim the land under violation of contract .

Number 2, Ukraine had already been a part of the soviet union since the 1920s , all through the cold war NATO didnt have an Issue with Ukraine being a part of the soviet Union , now its suddenly a problem , and unacceptable. where the fuck does NATO get off telling these people what they should can or cant do? This is basicly more of a civil war than land grab .

 

[spat]

Here's the thing...

If we didn't already have at least 2 Ohio class ssbns within launch range of Russia, the Navy has not performed their duties. We should probably have a minimum of 2-3 on patrol at all times within range of Russia. Essentially we're talking if we have our boomers anywhere in the northern hemisphere they are likely in range of striking Russia. So this whole Trump tweet is actually concerning to me and not for the obvious reason but the subtle reason. Either we didn't actually have a genuine deterrent out to sea on patrol, they weren't within striking range of Russia (which is essentially the same as not being out on patrol) both options mean the navy is not fulfill their role in the strategic deterence triad, or that they've been so gutted over the previous 8 years or Biden wokeism. Perhaps Trump just didn't know we have boomers on alert 24/7/365 and that's also concerning.

Or, we already have our standard deterence patrols in place And we essentially just doubled them to ~5 boomers in position. That's concerning because Russia may very well perceive this as a genuine threat of the US intending on launching an unprovoked preemptive first strike because it deviates so far from the baseline.


All these theories are concerning but for very different reasons.

I doubt the Trump order actually changed any operational details of any SSBNs.

I expect it just made some public that are normally highly classified.

It's the equivalent of the guy pulling back his suit jacked to show his CCW.

So, some more detail.

While we have 18 Ohios currently operational, 4 of them have been converted to SSGNs for conventional attack using Tomahawks.

It could be that 2 of *those* are what Trump redirected, so we have more conventional assets available in the area.

But, the order is really just sabre rattling. We maintain the ability to obliterate the Russian military 24/7/365. They occasionally need to be reminded of that is all.

Now, of the remaining 14 SSBNs, it likely that only 4 or 5 are actually deployed at any given time. Another 4 or 5 will be back in port being re-supplied for the next deployment, and the remaining ones in port for more complex maintenance that keeps them out of service for a longer period.

I expect that we have at least 2 deployed targeting Russia at all times minimum. One for the east and one for the west. And probably one or two babysitting China and the remainder keeping watch over the middle east.

A single Ohio SSBN can carry up to 24 Trident 2 missiles with up to 12 MIRV warheads each.

That's 288 independently targetable 90kt warheads.

A more typical load is only 20 Tridents, with probably fewer warheads (fewer warheads increases the range of a Trident, from 4500 miles fully loaded to about 7500 miles downloaded to 3 warheads).

No you dont seem to get it, It wasnt about the valuable land , thats all bonus for them . not the main objective . Ukraine took the risk to join NATO despite the fact That would mean war with Russia , they threw the dice , they knew the risks , Maybe they felt Russia was in no position to invade which wasnt far off the mark, Maybe they figured, with the well equipped NATO trained military they could beat them back to previous borders, maybe they were told NATO would come in on thier behalf and didnt. Maybe they figured Putin would be forced to back down altogether.

In any case, they understand the mistake now .

Obviously so, the difference was that 1, Russia has said it would mean war for 30 years, 2 Ukraine was allowed to seperate under the condition that it remain nuetral, it was Ukraine that knowingly violated that agreement , they are in breech of contract which makes that contract void and gives legal rights to Russia to reclaim the land under violation of contract .

Number 2, Ukraine had already been a part of the soviet union since the 1920s , all through the cold war NATO didnt have an Issue with Ukraine being a part of the soviet Union , now its suddenly a problem , and unacceptable. where the fuck does NATO get off telling these people what they should can or cant do? This is basicly more of a civil war than land grab .

Oh, Ukraine was "allowed" to separate ?

The Soviet Union was *not* Russia. Russia needs to get it out of their fucking head that they have some claim over the other former republics.

If the United States broke up, and California decided they owned Arizona and Nevada because they also used to be states, we would rightly tell them to fuck off.

*This* is what you just don't get. That was never Russia's call to make.

Ukraine should have never given up *their* nukes. Russia promised to respect their sovereignty in exchange for that. Obviously trusting them was a mistake.

The US and UK promised to guarantee their defense under the same agreement. We are not honoring that either. If we were honoring our obligations under the Budapest memorandum, the only thing Russian in the Donbass right now would be graves.

And threatening something for 30 years doesn't suddenly mean it's justified.

France had a lot more than 30 years warning of a German Invasion. That doesn't mean the Germans were justified in WWII.

The Soviet Union *ceased to exist* in 1991. Russia and Ukraine were both just equals at that point. Russia doesn't get to decide who can or cannot leave. when the Soviet Union broke up, all the republics were expelled from it. Russia doesn't have *any* claim over any of them.

 

[Robin]

Its not over til the putin blow job sings!

Robinoinovich

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Just curious how it would be viewed here if China or Russia or some hypothetical quasi-BRICS hostile military alliance was trying to setup shop in Quebec and Ontario and maybe Mexico.

Would the US just sit back and say cool, no problem set up hostile forces within easy striking distance of our borders? Or would the US forcibly prevent that situation from occurred?

It's easy to judge from afar. But make the situation more personal to what you can relate to. I certainly wouldn't want a hostile alliance to the US who's purpose is to contain America operating in any strength or capacity directly on our borders by subverting our neighbors into gaining a foothold there.

If some brics military alliance led by China was trying to get Mexico or Canada on board to join their alliance, we wouldn't allow that to happen. So for us to sit back and judge Russia for doing the same thing we would likely do is a bit hypocritical.

And I'm not insensitive to the Ukrainian people. I feel for them. It sucks. Their country is being destroyed, their families will be ruined and have experienced much pain and suffering. Their demographics are now ruined for a generation. In fact, I think the west is the bad guys here. I think we are using Ukrainian blood as unwitting mercenaries to fight Russia on behalf of NATO to try to weaken Russia the same way we did with Afghanistan in the 80s. Morally, I don't like it at all that many in the US are cheering this on. I think the most pragmatic ethical thing is to sue for peace ASAP and save what is still left to be salvageable.

 

[spat]

Just curious how it would be viewed here if China or Russia or some hypothetical quasi-BRICS hostile military alliance was trying to setup shop in Quebec and Ontario and maybe Mexico.

Would the US just sit back and say cool, no problem set up hostile forces within easy striking distance of our borders? Or would the US forcibly prevent that situation from occurred?

It's easy to judge from afar. But make the situation more personal to what you can relate to. I certainly wouldn't want a hostile alliance to the US who's purpose is to contain America operating in any strength or capacity directly on our borders by subverting our neighbors into gaining a foothold there.

If some brics military alliance led by China was trying to get Mexico or Canada on board to join their alliance, we wouldn't allow that to happen. So for us to sit back and judge Russia for doing the same thing we would likely do is a bit hypocritical.

And I'm not insensitive to the Ukrainian people. I feel for them. It sucks. Their country is being destroyed, their families will be ruined and have experienced much pain and suffering. Their demographics are now ruined for a generation. In fact, I think the west is the bad guys here. I think we are using Ukrainian blood as unwitting mercenaries to fight Russia on behalf of NATO to try to weaken Russia the same way we did with Afghanistan in the 80s. Morally, I don't like it at all that many in the US are cheering this on. I think the most pragmatic ethical thing is to sue for peace ASAP and save what is still left to be salvageable.

You mean if China was doing exactly what they're doing now in Canada and half the college campuses in the US ?

You think we'd invade Mexico ?

Now, I can see us pulling some CIA backdoor bay of pigs bullshit, but what Russia has done is the equivalent of sending in a full on USMC amphibious landing into Cuba when the bay of pigs failed.

And I'd like to remind you that this is not the height of the cold war, and nobody was talking about putting nuclear missiles in Ukraine.

Imagine if Finland said "it's unacceptable to have Russia right on our doorstep" and then proceeded to send in NATO troops to occupy a few hundred miles of Russia ?

Would it matter if Finland threatened that for 30 years first ?

 

[tgenec86]

Not sure how much difference they will make, but I can say with certainty that there will be quite a few of these delivered to the Ukraine over the next year.

 

[Mosinitis]

This story may, or may not be accurate

Ukraine War: British Officers Captured in Russian Special Forces Raid

Ochakov, Ukraine (Agencies) August 2, 2025 — In a dramatic escalation of covert hostilities, Russian special forces reportedly executed a lightning-fast operation in the Ukrainian coastal city of Ochakov, capturing three senior British military personnel allegedly involved in coordinating drone...

www.thekhybermail.com

If it's accurate it will be worth keeping an eye on.

More sources are reporting this story and it's not being denied by either side. There are actual names and faces that go with it, which makes it credible.

Russians knew about it all along, now they obtained evidence of NATO's direct involvement. This will be used during ongoing negotiations.

Not just non-NATO status for Ukraine, but a ban on NATO or other hostile foreign forces in any capacity on Ukrainian territory is a part of Russia's demands.

Russian position is based on facts and supported by hard evidence. Unlike hollow drivel that is coming from the West.

 

[holdover]

Just curious how it would be viewed here if China or Russia or some hypothetical quasi-BRICS hostile military alliance was trying to setup shop in Quebec and Ontario and maybe Mexico.

Would the US just sit back and say cool, no problem set up hostile forces within easy striking distance of our borders? Or would the US forcibly prevent that situation from occurred?

It's easy to judge from afar. But make the situation more personal to what you can relate to. I certainly wouldn't want a hostile alliance to the US who's purpose is to contain America operating in any strength or capacity directly on our borders by subverting our neighbors into gaining a foothold there.

If some brics military alliance led by China was trying to get Mexico or Canada on board to join their alliance, we wouldn't allow that to happen. So for us to sit back and judge Russia for doing the same thing we would likely do is a bit hypocritical.

And I'm not insensitive to the Ukrainian people. I feel for them. It sucks. Their country is being destroyed, their families will be ruined and have experienced much pain and suffering. Their demographics are now ruined for a generation. In fact, I think the west is the bad guys here. I think we are using Ukrainian blood as unwitting mercenaries to fight Russia on behalf of NATO to try to weaken Russia the same way we did with Afghanistan in the 80s. Morally, I don't like it at all that many in the US are cheering this on. I think the most pragmatic ethical thing is to sue for peace ASAP and save what is still left to be salvageable.

The Monroe Doctrine is a United States foreign policy position that opposes European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. It holds that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers is a potentially hostile act against the United States.[1] The doctrine was central to American grand strategy in the 20th century.[2]


In 1842, U.S. president John Tyler applied the Monroe Doctrine to Hawaii and warned Britain not to interfere there. This began the process of annexing Hawaii to the U.S.[24]

On December 2, 1845, U.S. president James K. Polk announced that the principle of the Monroe Doctrine should be strictly enforced, reinterpreting it to argue that no European nation should interfere with American western expansion ("manifest destiny").[25]

In the 1870s, President Ulysses S. Grant and Secretary of State Hamilton Fish endeavored to supplant European influence in Latin America with that of the U.S. In 1870, the Monroe Doctrine was expanded under the proclamation "hereafter no territory on this continent [referring to Central and South America] shall be regarded as subject to transfer to a European power."[11]: 259 


In 1902, Canadian prime minister Wilfrid Laurier acknowledged that the Monroe Doctrine was essential to his country's protection. The doctrine provided Canada with a de facto security guarantee by the United States; the U.S. Navy in the Pacific, and the British Navy in the Atlantic, made invading North America almost impossible. Because of the peaceful relations between the two countries, Canada could assist Britain in a European war without having to defend itself at home.[39]


In 1954, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles invoked the Monroe Doctrine at the 10th Pan-American Conference in Caracas, denouncing the intervention of Soviet communism in Guatemala. President John F. Kennedy said at an August 29, 1962, news conference:

The Monroe Doctrine means what it has meant since President Monroe and John Quincy Adams enunciated it, and that is that we would oppose a foreign

power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere [sic], and that is why we oppose what is happening in Cuba today. That is why we have cut off our trade. That is why we worked in the OAS and in other ways to isolate the Communist menace in Cuba. That is why we will continue to give a good deal of our effort and attention to it.[57]

During the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, Kennedy cited the Monroe Doctrine as grounds for the United States' confrontation with the Soviet Union over the installation of Soviet ballistic missiles on Cuban soil.[60]


President Donald Trump implied potential use of the doctrine in August 2017 when he mentioned the possibility of military intervention in Venezuela,[64] after CIA director Mike Pompeo declared that the nation's deterioration was the result of interference from Iranian- and Russian-backed groups.[65] In February 2018, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson praised the Monroe Doctrine as "clearly… a success", warning of "imperial" Chinese trade ambitions and touting the United States as the region's preferred trade partner.

 

[Mosinitis]

The Soviet Union was *not* Russia. Russia needs to get it out of their fucking head that they have some claim over the other former republics.

Actually Soviet Union almost entirely was sitting on the territory of pre-Soviet Russia.

 

[spat]

Actually Soviet Union almost entirely was sitting on the territory of pre-Soviet Russia.

And almost all of that territory is now post Soviet Russia.

But, it's the almost that we're discussing.

You know, Mongolia used to cover a ton of what is today Russia. How many years warning do they need to give before they just get to take it back ?

 

[fresch]

Where have I seen this movie before?

 

[Mosinitis]

And almost all of that territory is now post Soviet Russia.

False. Soviet Union was much smaller than pre-Soviet Russia and post-Soviet Russia is much smaller than Soviet Union. Significant loss of the territory at every stage.

 

[Robin]

The quality of air is so bad that people are dying! All due to Canadas' inability tp, or purposefully not putting out their fires, C'mon its been three years!!!! I say we invade!
Robin

 

[K9Patriot]

Putin's daughter speaks out against the war.

Putin’s ‘secret daughter’ laments father who killed ‘millions’ and ‘destroyed’ her life as she pivots to support Ukraine

“It’s liberating to be able to show my face to the world again,” she wrote.

nypost.com

 

[Mosinitis]

"alleged secret daughter"

"believed to be Putin’s youngest daughter"

I wouldn't even wipe my ass with NY Post. Neocon tabloid.

 

[holdover]

The US and UK promised to guarantee their defense under the same agreement. We are not honoring that either. If we were honoring our obligations under the Budapest memorandum, the only thing Russian in the Donbass right now would be graves.

Washington did not promise unlimited support. The Budapest Memorandum contains security “assurances,” not “guarantees.” Guarantees would have implied a commitment of American military force, which NATO members have. U.S. officials made clear that was not on offer. Hence, assurances.

Why care about Ukraine and the Budapest Memorandum | Brookings

The furor over President Donald Trump’s sordid bid to extort the president of Ukraine into investigating his potential 2020 political opponent raises an obvious question: Why should the United States care so much about Ukraine, a country 5,000 miles away?

www.brookings.edu

he 1994 Budapest Memorandum is often misrepresented as a binding military agreement that obligates the U.S. to defend Ukraine. That is simply not true. The memorandum, signed by Ukraine, the U.S., the U.K., and Russia, was a diplomatic assurance in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons. The agreement reaffirmed that all signatories would respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, refrain from using force or economic coercion against it, and seek United Nations Security Council action if Ukraine was threatened with nuclear weapons. However, nowhere in the memorandum does it state that the U.S. or U.K. are required to provide military aid or intervene in a conflict. Unlike NATO’s Article 5, which explicitly requires mutual defense, the Budapest Memorandum contains no military commitments and has no enforcement mechanism.

This also means the memorandum does not justify the U.S. going to war with Russia over Ukraine. The only specific action mentioned is seeking U.N. intervention in the event of nuclear weapons being used. There is no legal or military obligation for the U.S. to send troops or weapons. Ukraine did not secure a defense guarantee like Japan or South Korea, which have formal treaties ensuring U.S. military protection. If Ukraine wanted that level of security, they should have negotiated for it instead of relying on vague diplomatic assurances. It’s not America’s fault that Ukraine signed a weak deal. Unlike Japan and South Korea, which ensured their defense with explicit treaties, Ukraine gambled its security on an unenforceable promise. That is a failure of their leadership, not a U.S. responsibility to fix.

Despite this, the U.S. has funneled billions of dollars into Ukraine’s war effort, not out of legal obligation but for geopolitical strategy. This is about using Ukraine as a proxy to weaken Russia, not about fulfilling some ironclad defense commitment. The most reckless take is the idea that the U.S. must escalate the conflict, even at the risk of nuclear war, simply because of an old diplomatic agreement. The Budapest Memorandum does not require America to fight World War III over Ukraine. The U.S. never committed to guaranteeing Ukraine’s security—only to respecting its sovereignty. That is a crucial difference, and it is one that should end the argument that this agreement justifies endless funding and reckless escalation.
https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu...22_ukraine-the_budapest_memo.pdf?m=1645824948

 

[holdover]

Ukraine should have never given up *their* nukes. Russia promised to respect their sovereignty in exchange for that. Obviously trusting them was a mistake.

Agreed.

 

[holdover]

And threatening something for 30 years doesn't suddenly mean it's justified.

Thats correct, If your neighbor says he will shoot you in the head if ever catches you in his yard and you go in his yard and he shoots you, IS he justified because he warned you 100 times? No Of course not , WHy the fuck would you go into his yard? Yes he is going to jail for murder. But it was you who put yourself in that position , you ignored the warnings And now your dead,

The justification for russia was /has always been national security derived from enemy forces on her border, thats always been a trip wire for war , a red line that cannot be crossed as part of her own national policy. You may not agree with it, but it is what it is , thats how they roll. Ignore the warning at your own peril.

 

[spat]

Thats correct, If your neighbor says he will shoot you in the head if ever catches you in his yard and you go in his yard and he shoots you, IS he justified because he warned you 100 times? No Of course not , WHy the fuck would you go into his yard? Yes he is going to jail for murder. But it was you who put yourself in that position , you ignored the warnings And now your dead,

The justification for russia was /has always been national security derived from enemy forces on her border, thats always been a trip wire for war , a red line that cannot be crossed as part of her own national policy. You may not agree with it, but it is what it is , thats how they roll. Ignore the warning at your own peril.

And Russia has been warned over and over than their imperialist activities against their neighbors are unacceptable to the west.

So if Europe or NATO really get involved, then they have nobody to blame but themselves.

 

[Mosinitis]

After the break up of the Soviet Union and with Internationally accepted 1991 Russia's borders, U.S. still continued a policy of breaking up what was left of Russia. U.S. and British governments supported separatist movements in Chechnya and Dagestan. There were even plans for break away of Tatarstan.