David P <imbibe@mindspring.com> wrote

> Why the US and Nato have long wanted Russia to attack Ukraine
> by Robert H. Wade, March 30, 2022, London School of Economics

He's a fool.

> Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine has come at a substantial cost for
> Russia, with the country so far failing to achieve its military
> objectives and the Russian economy suffering under unprecedented western
> sanctions. Robert H. Wade argues that while nothing can excuse Russia’s
> invasion, the Kremlin has effectively fallen into a trap laid by the US
> and Nato that is intended to bring down Putin’s regime.

Mindless bullshit.

> On 26 March, President Biden, speaking in Warsaw, said, unscripted: “For
> God’s sake, this man [Putin] cannot remain in power.” Such an overt
> statement of intention for regime change in Russia

That's not an intention for regime change in Russia.

> has not gone down well in most of Europe. US Secretary of State Antony
> Blinken later clarified Biden’s Warsaw remark: “As you know, and as you
> have heard us say repeatedly, we do not have a strategy of regime change
> in Russia, or anywhere else, for that matter”. Blinken has apparently
> forgotten Vietnam, Chile, Iraq, Afghanistan, and quite a few more.

Even more stupid. He said DO NOT HAVE not that other admins haven't had.

> Consider the following quotes. On 24 February, during a White House
> press conference on the first day of Russia’s invasion, Biden said
> sanctions are designed not to prevent invasion but to punish Russia
> after invading “…so the people of Russia know what he has brought on
> them. That is what this is all about.”

That says nothing about regime change, fool.

> On 27 February, James Heappey, UK Minister for the Armed Forces, wrote
> in the Daily Telegraph: “His failure must be complete; Ukrainian
> sovereignty must be restored, and the Russian people empowered to see
> how little he cares for them. In showing them that, Putin’s days as
> President will surely be numbered… He’ll lose power and he won’t get to
> choose his successor.”

That's not intention for regime change in Russia either, fool.

> Finally, on 1 March, Boris Johnson’s spokesperson said the sanctions on
> Russia “we are introducing, that large parts of the world are
> introducing, are to bring down the Putin regime.”

Just because some fool claims something...

> These statements reflect long-standing US strategy for regime change in
> Moscow, with Ukraine as the pivot.

Bullshit.

> On one hand, send sufficient military and other equipment to Ukraine to
> sink the Russian military in a quagmire. On the other hand, impose
> severe, far-reaching sanctions on Russia so as to cause major disruption
> to the Russian elite and a major contraction of living conditions for
> the Russian middle-class.

Even sillier.

> The combination should last long enough for Russians to rise up to
> overthrow Putin and install a Yeltsin-like President more sympathetic to
> the West.

Yeltsin was never sympathetic to the west, fool.

> But this weapons-plus-sanctions strategy needed a cause. Putin’s
> invasion was the required casus belli. It in no way excuses Russia’s
> invasion and its despicable tactics to say that the Kremlin fell into a
> US and Nato trap.

Even sillier.

> Two clashing mega forces
> -----------------------
> Our “free” mainstream media has tended to stick to the narrative of a
> “wicked, revanchist Putin” attacking “innocent and unified Ukraine, as a
> first step to conquest of other parts of eastern and central Europe and
> restoration of the erstwhile Soviet Union”.

Only the fools have done anything like that with the last shit.

<reams of even sillier shit flushed where it belongs>

We should not really argue with this one as it posts the same stuff
everywhere. I suspect to start with Putin only wanted to put down the unrest
in that part of Ukraine, as he apparently did in Crimea, but got too big for
his boots shall we say and now won't consider backing down due to the loss
of face. Maybe somebody will bump him off.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.1t8z18q1byq249@pvr2.lan...
David P <imbibe@mindspring.com> wrote

> Why the US and Nato have long wanted Russia to attack Ukraine
> by Robert H. Wade, March 30, 2022, London School of Economics

He's a fool.

> Putin's decision to invade Ukraine has come at a substantial cost for
> Russia, with the country so far failing to achieve its military
> objectives and the Russian economy suffering under unprecedented western
> sanctions. Robert H. Wade argues that while nothing can excuse Russia's
> invasion, the Kremlin has effectively fallen into a trap laid by the US
> and Nato that is intended to bring down Putin's regime.

Mindless bullshit.

> On 26 March, President Biden, speaking in Warsaw, said, unscripted: "For
> God's sake, this man [Putin] cannot remain in power." Such an overt
> statement of intention for regime change in Russia

That's not an intention for regime change in Russia.

> has not gone down well in most of Europe. US Secretary of State Antony
> Blinken later clarified Biden's Warsaw remark: "As you know, and as you
> have heard us say repeatedly, we do not have a strategy of regime change
> in Russia, or anywhere else, for that matter". Blinken has apparently
> forgotten Vietnam, Chile, Iraq, Afghanistan, and quite a few more.

Even more stupid. He said DO NOT HAVE not that other admins haven't had.

> Consider the following quotes. On 24 February, during a White House press
> conference on the first day of Russia's invasion, Biden said sanctions
> are designed not to prevent invasion but to punish Russia after invading
> ".so the people of Russia know what he has brought on them. That is what
> this is all about."

That says nothing about regime change, fool.

> On 27 February, James Heappey, UK Minister for the Armed Forces, wrote in
> the Daily Telegraph: "His failure must be complete; Ukrainian sovereignty
> must be restored, and the Russian people empowered to see how little he
> cares for them. In showing them that, Putin's days as President will
> surely be numbered. He'll lose power and he won't get to choose his
> successor."

That's not intention for regime change in Russia either, fool.

> Finally, on 1 March, Boris Johnson's spokesperson said the sanctions on
> Russia "we are introducing, that large parts of the world are
> introducing, are to bring down the Putin regime."

Just because some fool claims something...

> These statements reflect long-standing US strategy for regime change in
> Moscow, with Ukraine as the pivot.

Bullshit.

> On one hand, send sufficient military and other equipment to Ukraine to
> sink the Russian military in a quagmire. On the other hand, impose
> severe, far-reaching sanctions on Russia so as to cause major disruption
> to the Russian elite and a major contraction of living conditions for the
> Russian middle-class.

Even sillier.

> The combination should last long enough for Russians to rise up to
> overthrow Putin and install a Yeltsin-like President more sympathetic to
> the West.

Yeltsin was never sympathetic to the west, fool.

> But this weapons-plus-sanctions strategy needed a cause. Putin's invasion
> was the required casus belli. It in no way excuses Russia's invasion and
> its despicable tactics to say that the Kremlin fell into a US and Nato
> trap.

Even sillier.

> Two clashing mega forces
> -----------------------
> Our "free" mainstream media has tended to stick to the narrative of a
> "wicked, revanchist Putin" attacking "innocent and unified Ukraine, as a
> first step to conquest of other parts of eastern and central Europe and
> restoration of the erstwhile Soviet Union".

Only the fools have done anything like that with the last shit.

<reams of even sillier shit flushed where it belongs>

Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote

> I suspect to start with Putin only wanted to put down the unrest
> in that part of Ukraine,

Don't buy that. He clearly wanted to grab at least the eastern parts of
the Ukraine.

> as he apparently did in Crimea,

The Crimea is quite different given that it was part of russia and
was handed to the Ukraine before his time and he wanted it back.

> but got too big for
> his boots shall we say

That remains to be seen. The fat lady aint sung yet.

> and now won't consider backing down due to the loss
> of face.

It is very far from clear that he does want to back down.

> Maybe somebody will bump him off.

Easier said than done given that he has an organisation of 50K
whose sole purpose is preventing that from happening.