4 ms·

>Nobody believed Russia would actually invade Ukraine Who is 'Nobody' in this context? Because most analysis on this since Russia took Crimea in 2014 have pre

>Nobody believed Russia would actually invade Ukraine Who is 'Nobody' in this context? Because most analysis on this since Russia took Crimea in 2014 have predicated that Russia would make further attempts at capturing Ukrainian territory. Even the U.S defense establishment knew this and were preparing the Ukrainians for since 2015.

nobodyandproud 4y ago
Excuse my hyperbole. The better term would be “divided”. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/qa-what-is-risk-war-between-russia-ukraine-2021-11-23/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/qa-what-is-risk-war-bet... https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/12/3/how-real-is-the-threat-of-a-russian-invasion-of-ukraine https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/12/3/how-real-is-the-thr... vs. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/us-warns-russia-plans-large-scale-attack-on-ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/us-warns-russi... for example.
- thrashh 4y ago
  They’re just random news sites you’re linking though. They’re not even political news magazines. News editors don’t enact policy. Who cares what they thinks.
  - nobodyandproud 4y ago
    Gaslighting doesn’t work here. I provided my evidence. Show me proof of the contrary.
    - thrashh 4y ago
      You didn't provide evidence. Your argument is that "the government didn't take Russia seriously enough" Proper evidence would be an study of government officials in power and their position at the time. It is not 3 hand-picked private industry news articles.
      - nobodyandproud 4y ago
        > Proper evidence would be an study of government officials in power and their position at the time. > It is not 3 hand-picked private industry news articles. It reflects public sentiment. Analysts aren’t the ones in power. Public sentiment and leadership’s will to bend the public sentiment are what matters. See GWB’s bullshit invasion of Iraq.
        serf 4y ago
        >See GWB’s bullshit invasion of Iraq. on that point, I seem to remember all (most) of the analyst think-tanks for public policy (RAND corporation, etc) pointing the administration at the time towards the idea of war and 'obvious' WMD proliferation. Also public sentiment was pretty on-board with (apparent) retribution after 9/11. The country got tired of the war effort quick, but the trumpets were blowing pretty loud for a long time after 9/11, both from government and the people around me at the time. The analyst groups supporting that decision just sped the steamroller.
        nobodyandproud 4y ago
        > on that point, I seem to remember all (most) of the analyst think-tanks for public policy (RAND corporation, etc) pointing the administration at the time towards the idea of war and 'obvious' WMD proliferation. I remember the UN inspectors unable to convince the US leaders that evidence was lacking. > Also public sentiment was pretty on-board with (apparent) retribution after 9/11. The country got tired of the war effort quick, but the trumpets were blowing pretty loud for a long time after 9/11, both from government and the people around me at the time. My point exactly. A bullshit war was waged by persuasion with only tenuous evidence: https://www.vice.com/en/article/9kve3z/the-cia-just-declassified-the-document-that-supposedly-justified-the-iraq-invasion https://www.vice.com/en/article/9kve3z/the-cia-just-declassi... It’s leaders and public will, not analysts.
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
> Because most analysis on this since Russia took Crimea in 2014 have predicated that Russia would make further attempts at capturing Ukrainian territory. That’s very much untrue. It was hard for experts to form a solid opinion after the Crimean invasion. It had some characteristics which the current one doesn’t have which made it rational from a realpolitik point of view. The invasion had a clear strategic benefit: keeping access to Sevastopol, came at a time when the relationship between Russia and Ukraine was quickly shifting and was made easier by the complicated relationship between Crimea and Ukraine. None of these applies to the current conflict.

nobodyandproud 4y ago

Excuse my hyperbole. The better term would be “divided”. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/qa-what-is-risk-war-between-russia-ukraine-2021-11-23/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/qa-what-is-risk-war-bet... https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/12/3/how-real-is-the-threat-of-a-russian-invasion-of-ukraine https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/12/3/how-real-is-the-thr... vs. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/us-warns-russia-plans-large-scale-attack-on-ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/us-warns-russi... for example.

thrashh 4y ago
They’re just random news sites you’re linking though. They’re not even political news magazines. News editors don’t enact policy. Who cares what they thinks.
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  Gaslighting doesn’t work here. I provided my evidence. Show me proof of the contrary.
  - thrashh 4y ago
    You didn't provide evidence. Your argument is that "the government didn't take Russia seriously enough" Proper evidence would be an study of government officials in power and their position at the time. It is not 3 hand-picked private industry news articles.
    - nobodyandproud 4y ago
      > Proper evidence would be an study of government officials in power and their position at the time. > It is not 3 hand-picked private industry news articles. It reflects public sentiment. Analysts aren’t the ones in power. Public sentiment and leadership’s will to bend the public sentiment are what matters. See GWB’s bullshit invasion of Iraq.
      - serf 4y ago
        >See GWB’s bullshit invasion of Iraq. on that point, I seem to remember all (most) of the analyst think-tanks for public policy (RAND corporation, etc) pointing the administration at the time towards the idea of war and 'obvious' WMD proliferation. Also public sentiment was pretty on-board with (apparent) retribution after 9/11. The country got tired of the war effort quick, but the trumpets were blowing pretty loud for a long time after 9/11, both from government and the people around me at the time. The analyst groups supporting that decision just sped the steamroller.
        nobodyandproud 4y ago
        > on that point, I seem to remember all (most) of the analyst think-tanks for public policy (RAND corporation, etc) pointing the administration at the time towards the idea of war and 'obvious' WMD proliferation. I remember the UN inspectors unable to convince the US leaders that evidence was lacking. > Also public sentiment was pretty on-board with (apparent) retribution after 9/11. The country got tired of the war effort quick, but the trumpets were blowing pretty loud for a long time after 9/11, both from government and the people around me at the time. My point exactly. A bullshit war was waged by persuasion with only tenuous evidence: https://www.vice.com/en/article/9kve3z/the-cia-just-declassified-the-document-that-supposedly-justified-the-iraq-invasion https://www.vice.com/en/article/9kve3z/the-cia-just-declassi... It’s leaders and public will, not analysts.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago

> Because most analysis on this since Russia took Crimea in 2014 have predicated that Russia would make further attempts at capturing Ukrainian territory. That’s very much untrue. It was hard for experts to form a solid opinion after the Crimean invasion. It had some characteristics which the current one doesn’t have which made it rational from a realpolitik point of view. The invasion had a clear strategic benefit: keeping access to Sevastopol, came at a time when the relationship between Russia and Ukraine was quickly shifting and was made easier by the complicated relationship between Crimea and Ukraine. None of these applies to the current conflict.