What to do About Russia and Ukraine?
The consequences of how this aggression by Putin unfolds are enormous. The worst, of course, is the possibility of nuclear war. The best (which would be negatively consequential to Putin) is that Russia has an epiphany and removes its troops from the Ukrainian border. Any move at all by Russian troops into Ukraine, would have massive, probably immediate, economic impacts on Europe, to the world, and, to a lesser extent, America.
President Biden has his work cut out for him as he has opposition from many fronts. The two most critical are: 1) Neville Chamberlain-type appeasement from within the Democratic Party and 2) Trump Republican opposition to anything President Biden tries to do. Those two forces puts President Biden on a tightrope and dangerously limits his ability to act.
How it all plays out is going to affect us all.I forgot to include the article that led to this forum.
https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/29/europe/ru … index.htmlThere are multiple discussion threads on hubpages on this topic.
They all follow the same narrative: Some newoutlets wrote something on Russian troops close to the Ukraine border so everyone has to be terrified.
This cnn report is of the same category.
What real news is behind this? There are "intelligence reports" and satellite images on Russian armored vehicle parking lots. What is new? Can be seen on google maps, was there for years: https://www.google.de/maps/place/Soloti … 38.0494077
In January Blinken was on promotion tour in Europe. He had his intelligence people with hin and tried to convince governments from the immediate threat supposedly posed by Russia.
Mission failed, German government was not convinced and they had their intelligence staff also on board for the meeting. Same for France and Italy.
Of course diplomatic ties within Nato forbid making these disagreements public. But one guy did speak up though (and got fired) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/2 … e-comments
Situation looks more like:
US media stirred war rumble.
US administration followed in, amplifies and threatens with sanctions.
Central and eastern Europe hold a more reserved position.
Russia and Putin know how to play chess. Their gambit already started way last year when the US was occupied with Afghanistan. Russia gradually reduced gas delivery through Ukraine and Belorus but kept direct delivery to Germany at full capacity (North Stream 1). I would not be amazed if Russia itself stirred the media hype about Ukraine. Fits perfectly into their objective to keep Nato away from Ukraine. And sanctions would hurt everyone else more than Russia itself.
Now even Ukraines Zelensky appeases and Biden is somehow stuck in the middle of having advanced too far and now being alone. That is why recent talks between Zelensky and Biden did not go too well according to cnn. Biden insisting on the threat and Zelensky already calming down.
So - no threat from Russia to invade Ukraine, but showing teeth if others come too close.
What is this talk about 100 k troops. Do you know how many Russian troops are in the Kaliningrad oblast? More than 200 k. And that is closer to Poland, Lithuania and my dwelling than Jelnja in the Smolensk district is to Ukraine borders. What are we talking about?Interesting take. It sounds like this is a product straight from Russia Today or GRU unit 54777.
I don´t know what GRU unit 54777 is. Do you mean Главное разведывательное управление, the military equivalent to the KGB?
Probably it is a privilege to digest news information from English, German and Russian language sources. Gives a more unbiased view of the situation. And it is always good to relate information to what you personally whitnessed.
I have the impression that someone is crying war and nobody is going:
Russians don´t go (sentiments among the people totally different from 2014 Crimea)
Ukrainians don´t go (polls show a majority against any further escalation)
Europeans don´t go (German stance is clear, Italy and France are also reserved, UK is already hit hard by limited natural gas availability)
The USA is on their own. This is my assessment.Exactly, well said. For reasons I just mentioned in my last post.
Far more accurate assessment, the "war monger" here is a hyperbolic American "news" media intent on keeping Americans fearful of Russia, Covid, each other, anything but their own horrible corrupt government.
So, are you suggesting it is the American news media that put the 120,000 Russian troops on Ukraine's border? Ludicrous!
Yeah I'm suggesting it's BS meant to distract the population.
Conveniently devoid of informing the people willing to listen to what they spew out as "news" that to start a war with Russia would be to start a war with China as well, China's global interests do not include letting their northern neighbor and trade partner fall to America.
Just so you understand, there is no victory for America in a war against Russia & China, only our own demise. It's a war we cannot win, if it's a conventional war, we lose, if it's a nuclear war we all lose, if it's an economic war, we lose.
China is the world's industrial heart today, not America. Russia is a primary provider of oil and gas, more vital than the rest of OPEC to Germany and China.
This is nonsense... The only concern is that we may have leadership in the White House willing to start a war.
It is hard to see what advantage Russia would gain by invading Ukraine. The Russians have never been happy about NATO's eastward expansion, but they (probably) wouldn't want to risk a war over it.
You speak as if you think Putin is a rational person? He is crazy as Trump is. What rational person would have invaded Ukraine the first time. Now he is going for round two it seems.
Putin is a quintessential autocrat. He reminds one of Stalin. He wants what he wants without regard for others. Putin needs to be stopped. I really can't say what I really think. Let's keep it at that.
I really don't know if Putin is rational or not. But I suspect that there are reasons for everything he does. Unfortunately, we have no idea what he hopes to get out of this.
He has stated many times he wants to reconstitute the old Soviet Union.
US is deploying troops to Eastern Europe in show of support. Good.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/02/politics … index.htmlI didn´t know Germany was Eastern Europe. The USA is shuffling troups around in Europe and sell it as support for Ukraine? Do you believe anyone will take this seriously?
As a commitment of support? Yes, I think the message will be taken seriously. Whether it is successful is another question.
Even knowing as little as I do about this issue, I also wonder who the message was intended for; Putin or our NATO allies?
GAMe too, but I think the more expected benefit would be from NATO allies. I doubt they would expect it to alter Putin's plans. Just speculating.
GACould be. I am thinking the move makes Putin's path to war a little more risky (as well as signaling NATO and Ukraine we are willing to put troops where our mouth is. In addition to those 3,000, there are still the 8,500 on stand-by waiting for NATO to call them up.
Now Biden has said (because he has to and maybe because he believes it as well, that no American troops will go to Ukraine. I wonder if that will hold true for nations like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and the like will send forces to back up the Ukrainians Army?
Hmmm, probably need to read real news better. Poland and Romania are Eastern Europe.
Ok, then the 5 new states of Germany are also Eastern Europe, because 30 years ago they were behind the Iron curtain?
Again, this is moving troups around in Europe, nothing more. For me to visit my son in Bavaria is a longer trip than from Bavaria (where essentially all US troops are located) to Romania. And Poland is not that far away.
I assumes this is more a message for war mongers in the USA than for Russia or any NATO allies.Please recheck your sources, or find more reliable ones. 1,000 troops move from Germany to Romania and 1,000 troops move from the US to Poland and 1,000 troops move from the US to Germany.
The only "war monger" out there are your friends the Russians.
A very myopic and I'll informed post.
If you are expecting to understand what is occurring with Russia based on American "news" sources, you will remain relatively uninformed as to what is really going on.
On January 27, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi warned the United States and its allies not to “hype up the crisis” around Ukraine and called for a peaceful resolution saying Russia’s “reasonable security concerns should be taken seriously.”
There is no military response to Russia without also contending with China, our "news" does not note this, but attacking Russia is no different than attacking Iran, China has said it will not accept it and will consider it an act of war against China itself if any Western nation acts against either.So, it is better to listen to the more truthful Russia Today?
I see you don't watch the real news where I see references to China all of the time.
In case you missed it, it is Russia who is threatening Ukraine militarily while the West is trying to defend it. Are you suggesting the West should simply let Russia invade Ukraine with no consequences?Yeah, I missed it, because this is not a new development, it is an ongoing one that began back during the Obama administration when the CIA helped develop a revolt that overthrew the government and install one more favorable to America's interests.
Just like we created an excuse to overthrow Libya, invade Iraq, and attempt to overthrow Syria.I followed a discussion on German TV about the Ukraine crisis. Someone suggested to look at a virtual scenario like this:
In a not so far future, 2 things may be thought up:
- China is getting cosy with Canada, doing trade deals and this kind of stuff.
- At the same time climate change forces US troops to relocate more north ( to Michigan upper peninsula or whatever is south of Saskatchewan ...)
Then all of the sudden China cries threat. The USA. is threatening our friend Canada because the relocate troops towards the Canadian border.
Of course there is no open conflict between Canada and the USA right now (as there is in real world in the Donbas region), but every other phony or not so phony reason of this virtual scenario can be related to the Ukraine Russia situation. Just replace virtual reason "climate change" by restructuring of Russian military districts in our todays.
It would seem many just can't digest that China has been stating for some time now they will support Russia if war breaks out in Ukraine. The US has no cards to play...It would seem a timely meeting of Putin and Xi, shows Putin was putting a plan together and will wait until after the Olympics to put that plan in action. As I have been saying very scary.
"Feb. 2, 2022
BEIJING — As the United States moves to exert maximal pressure on Russia over fears of a Ukraine invasion, the Russian leader, Vladimir V. Putin, has found relief from his most powerful partner on the global stage, China.
China has expressed support for Mr. Putin’s grievances against the United States and NATO, joined Russia to try to block action on Ukraine at the United Nations Security Council, and brushed aside American warnings that an invasion would create “global security and economic risks” that could consume China, too.
On Friday, Mr. Putin will meet in Beijing with China’s leader, Xi Jinping, ahead of the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics that President Biden and other leaders have pointedly vowed to boycott.
Although details of any potential agreements between the two countries have not been disclosed, the meeting itself — Mr. Xi’s first in person with a world leader in nearly two years — is expected to be yet another public display of geopolitical amity between the two powers.
A Chinese promise of economic and political support for Mr. Putin could undermine Mr. Biden’s strategy to ostracize the Russian leader for his military buildup on Ukraine’s borders. It could also punctuate a tectonic shift in the rivalry between the United States and China that could reverberate from Europe to the Pacific." https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/02/worl … in-xi.html"It would seem many just can't digest that China has been stating for some time now they will support Russia if war breaks out in Ukraine." - You mean if murdering Putin INVADES Ukraine in his desire to take their sovereignty away from them. TELL THE TRUTH NOW
If China actively backs Putin's aggression in Ukraine, then we need to impose the same sanctions on China as we do on Russia.Do you feel realistically we could put any real damaging sanctions on China? The fact is at this point we could not get along without China. Our economy would collapse if we stopped imports. What would happen if the US stopped importing from China? It would make the previous Great Depression a minor period in a down economy. The global economy is integrated as never before in history.
Absolutely we can. Right now China depends on the same international banking system that we do and we control.
Why would our economy collapse if we stopped importing from China. Didn't you support Trump in doing exactly that? What changed your opinion about that? Don't you want America to be independent from China anymore?Trump looked for a far trade balance with China while promoting rebuilding manufacturing here in America, giving tax breaks, and incentives to large manufacturers. Trump never sought to cut all trade with China, just lever the playing field. Trump delt out sanctions, and was making some progress with China, a bit yes, but progress.
Biden could have and should have stopped the flow of the Russian pipeline he rewarded Putin. But he is weak, as I said all words, a kiss-ass politician. He could sanction Russia big time... Have you seen that?
Putin is an intelligent man, he saw an opportunity to jam the US and make us look weak and foolish. Which in my view he has.
And as far as Obama and his red-line. I am on many historians' side --- it was a grave mistake that will live on in Obama's legacy. (Key word many historians --- not all, so save your rebuttal.)
And we are dependent on China, and our economy would collapse if we cut trade. Just simple math, just very much common sense. They are less dependent on us at this point and become stronger each passing day."Trump looked for a far trade balance with China" - No he didn't. He was very clear in his naïve desire to that a net positive trade balance with EVERY nation we trade with. ANY economist will tell you that depending on what supply and demand dictates some trade balances will be negative and some positive. Being one or the other (save for special circumstances) is neither good nor bad. Basically, Trump raised YOUR prices at the store and destroyed a lot of American businesses, based on a stupid "gut feel" about how international trade works. Simple Econ 103 (international trade)
Trump made Zero progress with China. If fact, he made the trade deficit worse by the time the pandemic hit. Boy does he have you fooled.
"Biden could have and should have stopped the flow of the Russian pipeline ... " - Now I see why you are supporting Ken and Chris in their desire for Putin to take over Ukraine. You think America should make Germany do our bidding regarding Nordstrom II. It makes sense now.
Due you even know what Obama's "red line" was or are you just repeating a phrase from Right-wing media. Do you have a clue as to what all was involved? How he - imagine this - wanted Congress' input before acting? I seriously doubt you do.
Having said all of that, I do think Obama was too milquetoast for my liking. I think the same thing of George W. Bush's response to the Russian invasion of Georgia (I wish it had been Alabama or Mississippi, lol) and Obama's response to the first Russian invasion of Ukraine. I was very disappointed that Putin was made to really pay for his aggression. If they had been tougher, maybe we would be about to watch Putin's SECOND invasion of Ukraine.
(Do you see how one can criticize one's on side?)
Why are we "dependent" on China? Because YOU and most other Americans (me to) like cheap stuff.
The truth be known, it would probably be a good thing if we bought a lot less cheap stuff from China and made it ourselves. But no, Americans are too use to the the cheap life.
BTW, you do the math.
Let's say we stopped buying TV's from China. Do you think Americans would stop buying TVs? No, we wouldn't, we would find other sources but pay a little more. Or, heaven forbid, we pay Americans wages to build them here like we use to. Nope, I guess I see your point. That idea would definitely hurt our economy.
...Why would our economy collapse if we stopped importing from China...
Because the leverage for economy on goods imported is much higher for the USA than for China.
Every country on our planet needs some 15% of its GDP in tradeable goods to keep its economy going.
USA only does a generous 12% of its GDP with producing, manufacturing, harvesting, exploiting natural resources. In one word: "making stuff". China contributes almost half of the missing 3% to the making stuff portion of the GDP. If that was missing then the GDP would have to shrink to resettle at the 15% necessary. 1,5% of 15% is 1/10. This is what GDP would have to shrink. More than Leman brothers crisis brought in 2008.
For China a trade war with the USA has much less impact. China is doing some 18% of its GDP with "making stuff". Means they export 3% and again roughly half of it to the USA. As China already produces more than it needs for their own economy, this will only have minor impact on China. Most in China won´t even notice anything.
What i try to elaborate is more than an educated guess. The USA is no more on equal terrain with China economically. If the USA wants to become independent of China, then they have to restructure their economy thoroughly. It does not help to stirr conflicts or control the world bank.
Back to the Ukraine conflict: I don´t see any means to impose effective sanctions on Russia. Not now after 8 years of Russia under sanctions. Could tell many anecdotes from personal experience about this.
In my opinion the 3 countries are all not fit to carry out a conflict, an economic conflict:
Russia (oligarchs and organisational disfunctionality)
Ukraine (full of bribery, oligarchs and lack of resources)
USA (you know yourself about the backpack of problems)"Every country on our planet needs some 15% of its GDP in tradeable goods to keep its economy going." - I will take your word for that. But, as we saw with Trump's trade war, all we did was find new sources.
Russia fully understands the devastation the sanctions the West has approved if he invades. I believe he doesn't think the West will carry through with it because he believes the people of Europe and America won't put up with the sacrifices that will be needed. I think he is wrong, especially on the European side because IF he does invade, there is no reason for them to believe they (you personally) aren't next if Putin sees he can just walk over everybody with no particular consequence.
"These are the casualties of the un-Civil War that broke out in Syria for the goal of regime-change wanted by the US." - If America really wanted regime change in Syria, then it could have forced the issue like it did (unfortunately) in Iraq. But Obama didn't, did he? That said, he should have supported the freedom seeking Syrians more than he did.
My comment was to share my worry over China and Russia's very solid alliance. We are not talking about Syria Which by the way has a close relationship with China. . We at this point looking at a confrontation that we can not win. In fact, we look very foolish on the world stage. As said we no longer have any cards to play.
Yes, Biden can bluster around with words. Anyone can see we have lost the power to do anything but sit and watch Russia do whatever they please.
He is a weak feckless president, and Russia as well as China have taken note of this, and see no better time to move ahead with any aggressions they see fit to promote.
I felt Obama made so many mistakes in regard to Syria. However, why revert to my feelings about a period I hope to live down and be buried in the past. I mean the "red line and all the innocent civilians that died due to chemical warfare. Yeah, not a pleasant memory.Are you blaming all of those innocent civilian deaths on Obama rather than Assad?
How have China and Russia taken note of this? Where has Biden been weak and feckless (or is that just your BDS making things up)?
I wonder how Americans cannot see the truth. Somebody's talking that's a good thing to put troops in Eastern Europe. Are they aware that in a conventional war NATO will be defeated outright And if they go in for a nuclear war they'll be destroyed? Russia will also get damaged but that will leave China as the sole superpower.
Possibly President Biden and the West's approach to the bully Putin is having an effect on the Russian's willingness to fight.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/07/politics … index.htmlThe only bully I see is America which is operating almost 6000 miles away from their homeland. What the hell are they doing there? Looking for another bloody nose like in Vietnam and Afghanistan?
What the hell are we doing there is a good question. I sure hope a lot of folks a lot smarter and better informed than me are thinking about it.
My media-informed perception is looking for a national security rationale because the humanitarian one is misplaced; taking actions that could lead to military involvement.
GAI am confident that our MSM and the Biden Administration will present America's perspective on the matter.
May I suggest that it be important that we consider the Russian perspective?
I would strongly suggest that Ukraine consider as well how America has dealt with Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya. Are those countries better off for America's involvement with them?
Russia has had to watch as the NATO alliance, moved its forces right up to Russia's western border, one nation at a time, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, etc. Until by 2016 Russia had the combined military forces of the EU and America literally sitting on its doorstep, does that make them feel threatened?
Russia has been invaded over and over again. The latest, was when the Nazis, which had signed a non-aggression treaty with Russia, invaded and slaughtered more than 25 million Russians just years after that treaty was signed. Do you think they might feel a little bit hesitant in trusting America?
After all, America's MSM and the Democratic Party have been pushing Russia and Putin as an evil that must be fought against for decades now. Not exactly befriending Russia or enticing confidence that America will do right by Russia.More GRU propaganda, I see. You probably even deny that Putin is a murderer, don't you. Amazing.
What is amazing is this push to do something against Russia.
Why?
Leave the situation alone, let time diffuse it, and don't prompt a Russian response. Simple.
The alternative is war.
So you are advocating for war against Russia and it potentially escalating in the process to Nuclear war. Yes, I can see how this is a far more reasonable position. [facetiousness intended]I wonder who are the "real" strategic advisors for the current administration.
Where have the Brzezinskis, Kissingers gone?
Previous administration did not have any either, the only one with standing left (Bolton).
This guy Sullivan looks like someone "tried and found wanting".
What i want to say is that the USA is ill advised if they mess with Russia now. There are more imminent issues on our planet. And when it comes to powerplay towards the end of this decade, may be the USA and Russia should better team up.I assume you know how to speak Russian. With that worldview of letting Russia have whatever it wants, you will need to be able to.
Your assumption is correct. I do speak Russian. Helps to sense sentiments in a country.
But this is not about sentiments, morals, democracy, ideology ... this conflict is a powerplay. And a powerplay is about interests, nothing else. There is no good or evel in pushing political interests.
Only - i don´t know what the interest of the USA is in this conflict now. I would have understood this if we went back in time some 40 years. At that time the USA was really powerful, a real superpower. Now the USA has lost much of its economic power. Military power by aircraft carrier groups is of no use on the Eurasian continent. I would say the USA can not afford to pursue these "dubious" interests. And Russia´s interest don´t allow an international conflict either.
So we should all calm down. And we should not forget, there is a giant in the far east on the move. This giant will not move fast, but steady to gain influence and push its interests.
No room for sentiments, morals, democracy, but for strategic thinking. Where are the thinkers?" this conflict is a powerplay." - You are correct - by Putin. He takes his attack army away from the Ukraine border and stop talking about taking it over, then the West gets out of its DEFENSIVE posture and things go back to normal. But, so long as Putin is the aggressor here, the West will defend its national interests and that means keeping Russia off of is eastern border. Easy Peasy, no muss no fuss. He just needs to do the right thing.
...the West will defend its national interests ..
I am not sure it is the West. It is the USA only.
Any "standing together" is only political smalltalk. There is no NATO under attack scenario. Why should anyone go if the USA shouts war from far away?
A very insightful and wise post.
Esoteric I believe is a good representation of the thought process and views of our current leadership in the US government.
And I have to tell you, that is a damned frightening concept.
The willingness to come up with an excuse to go to war, the slandering and villianizing of a leader of a nation with a nuclear arsenal should shake most people out of their slumber to realize just what lunacy is running our government today.You are correct, mine are for peace and a diplomatic solution to murdering Putin's aggression while yours is in support of giving a murdering dictator anything he wants, including the lives of millions of people.
Actually it is your outlook and desire to take on Russia that will lead to the loss of millions of lives, obviously.
Russia has not taken over any nation, it did not take over Georgia when it reacted to CIA led insurgency there. Russia did not take over the Ukraine when CIA led insurrection occurred there.
Russia has done what it felt was necessary to keep NATO and its weapons of mass destruction from encircling Russia. It has prevented Georgia and Ukraine from joining NATO, a wise and prudent move for any Russian leader to do.
Considering how often Russia has been invaded in its history, and considering how America paints Russia (Putin) as an evil taint on the world that must be defeated, I think Russia's reactions to all the hostility is quite refrained.
NATO does not need to expand, quite simply it should shut its doors to new membership, this would no longer be an issue if that simple step were taken.I have to ask again, what is your motive for supporting Russian aggression, as you clearly are. Your claim that the West is the aggressor is a well-known falacy.
What are you getting out of throwing the Ukrainians to the wolves?Talk about getting out of the 21st century. I guess you like being hypocritical.
But in any case, let's count them.
1. The Mongols
2. Napoleon.
3. Hitler.
You make it sound like dozens, why:?
"What is amazing is this push to do something against Russia." - Who is doing the pushing? Who has 130,000 troops ready to invade Ukraine? Russian appeasers and apologists like you will simply let Russia get away with murder again. Why is that?
No, I am advocating protecting an ally from being invaded by Russia. You are supporting forcing an ally into the Russian orbit.The Ukraine is not an ally, it is a satellite state to Russia where we inserted ourselves into their election process and helped facilitate a revolution and then installed a Western sympathizing government.
We now arm the Ukrainians to facilitate a conflict with Russia which has always been the goal.
If we don't want war, stop arming Ukraine, stop pushing pro-western leadership with billions of dollars in funding.
Hmmm, I see you oppose democracies and support murderous dictators like Putin. Only conclusion I can draw from that statement.
BTW, are you suggesting that America already has a division or two of military forces actively operating in Ukraine? Sorry to disappoint, we don't.
Famous Indian political thinker of the third century BC Chanakya in his political treaties had stated that to beat an enemy you must divide them. Unfortunately, Joe Biden by his stupidity has cemented a de facto military alliance between Russia and China I wonder how foolish a man can get.
The Post carried an article with the headline "Biden must show that the U.S. stands ready to support Ukraine, militarily if necessary."
The piece was authored by Michael G. Vickers, whom the Washington Post describes as "a former Special Forces officer and CIA operations officer, served as assistant secretary of defense for special operations, low-intensity conflict and interdependent capabilities (2007–2011) and undersecretary of defense for intelligence (2011–2015)."
In December 2015, Vickers was appointed to the board of BAE Systems, Inc.
BAE Systems is multinational arms and security firm. It is the largest defense contractor in Europe and ranked the seventh-largest in the world based on 2021 revenues.
There are many such articles appearing in different publications pushing for armed conflict where the "presenters" and authors stand to profit from the war.
This is our American Military Industrial Complex at work, and our MSM sources are complicit in supporting such efforts.
The war-mongers are relying on the lack of curiosity on the part of casual news consumers to push their propaganda.
But war with Russia is different.
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria were third-world countries with no retaliatory capabilities. U.S. armed forces were able to prevail upon them in a matter of weeks.
Russia is a different proposition. The Russians have a strong military and arms capability, which they will be justified in using if they sense a threat to their existence. They are armed with nuclear weapons and they have the backing of China.
It has to be remembered that Biden empowered Russia by shutting the Keystone XL pipeline and waiving off sanctions on Nord Stream II, Russia's state-owned energy company subsidiary. This has increased European dependence on Russian gas. Hence, either war or even sanctions on Russian gas could skyrocket global gas prices.
Of course, it wouldn't surprise me if the Biden Administration wants that, they seem intent on making energy prices skyrocket while claiming they are trying to do the opposite.
Ukraine's "Freedom" their inclusion into NATO is NOT worth the price we may all pay, an entire world at war. Ukraine most of all, has everything to lose, and they will gain nothing other than a massively high death toll and the destruction of their cities if war ensues.
I think you are right in a way. The US has been crying wolf ever since 1950 hundred and thousands of miles away from the homeland and sadly every time it has resulted in defeats. I would advise Joe Biden to stop crying wolf on Ukraine; it might end in another defeat for him and the USA.
Why are you supporting Russian aggression? Do you want them to take over your country to?
Can someone please tell me exactly why the Russian bear is getting up on its hind legs and posturing?
According to Ken, Chris, and MG, they are not, but then that is to be expected of pro-Russian operatives.
Russian painter Ivan Shishkin is famous for this painting:
3 bear cubs are playing in the forest, protected by their mother bear. To the amusement of many Russians, someone came up with this alteration:
This image emerged many years ago. It was never challenged in Russia. Not by Putin himself, not by the opposition, not by the people.
The picture still reflects: Putin bear is protecting the cubs from the dangers of wilderness. No aggression.
Well, Putin is one step closer to invading Ukraine it seems. So close that Biden has told Americans to get out now!
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/uk … index.htmlAnd at the same time surveys in Germany show that people are less worried about any invasion than a month ago. Now 63% think nothing will happen. A month ago it was 50%.
I think we are a little closer to the Ukraine than the USA is. And people get less worried? The media hype is wearing off.
Kiev is fortifying its evacuation plans -why?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/11/politics … index.htmlIsn´t this a game of make belief?
You can´t cry: "Aggression and please, please defend us" if you don´t do anything to defend yourself. Without action your plea will not be trustworthy.
Ukraine is trapped in their own words.You know the old saying "you've made your bed now sleep in it"?
Unfortunately what is going to occur to Ukraine will most likely be similar to the suffering that has befallen any other nation that "the West" decided to interfere with in recent years.
Good examples of our supportive helpful interference can be seen in Syria, Libya and Iraq the populations of these nations are living in much better conditions, excellent cities, top notch schools, fantastic infrastructure due to our "aid".
Whatever befalls the Ukraine is directly tied to our interference and no one should forget that, without the CIA's manipulations, without billions of dollars pouring in to support anti-Russian sentiment, we would not be on the brink of war with Russia, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians wouldn't be at the precipice of their demise.Only a Russian operative or sympathizer would think that helping a nation that Russia is threatening is causing Russia to be aggressive. You are a fountain of disinformation for Russia, aren't you?
I suppose that could be true - if you reported the truth. But, you didn't.
Case belli? Britain does not recognize Voronezh and Rostov to be part of Russia
https://then24.com/2022/02/10/case-bell … of-russia/
It is this kind of news that should leave deep concerns about the competence of decision makers.
British foreign minister Truss had talks with Lavrov in Moscow. After some time of controversial negotiations Lavrov asked the lady that Britain would certainly accept that Voronezh and Rostov belong to Russia. Her response showed absolute absence of any knowledge on geography.
This is no childplay with hidden world maps. But this incidence well fits with previous glitches by other prominent government officials:
- Jen Psaki (under Obama) put fleet manovers to the coast of Belorus (which doesn´t have any coast)
- Condoleezza Rice (under George W. Bush) was irritated by how far Afghanistan was away.
These kind of glitches don´t only make people laugh but they compromize the competence of administrations.
I am not into conspiracies, but sometimes i have the impression that western administrations are governed by their intelligence bodies, simply because elected officials lack insight and basic knowledge on world affairs. - While the Russian administration still has the say over their intelligence. I leave it up to you which is better and causes less harm.
A last word on the Truss/Lavrov talks. If you ever participated in a negotiation for more than an hour, you will have a clear picture of how your counterpart is thinking. You may not know in detail the true objectives, but you will understand their thinking from their body language, from how often they ask for advice, from how knowledgable on the subject your counterpart is.
I am sure that Lavrov read Truss all right and toward the end of the conversation, he placed his "landmine" with Rostov and Voronezh. And Truss directly stepped into the trap. You should listen to the Russian media coverage of this incident, very entertaining. Includes all blends of Russian opposition.
This leaves me troubled. Not by any CNN news or the 50ties repeat of 100.000 troups being on the Ukainian border. Where are the real strategic thinkers and advisors?You have every right to be concerned, but it is not ignorance that is driving this issue, it is a well calculated plan set in motion many years ago, decades actually, since the fall of the USSR.
They methodically toppled all former USSR allies and now work to topple Russia, intent on making it a 'banana republic" and all but enslaving the population to the International Corporate and Banking interests.
This has become even more critical in their eyes to accomplish, they want to be able to encircle China before it gets even more powerful, not only ensuring they do not have a Russian threat to contend with, but ensuring China has an enemy, not an ally to its north.
Take it from someone who would know and has significant in-depth knowledge of how these things operate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=505uQahvKvgKen, as i stated above, i am not into conspiracies.
So i have my doubts about any kind of masterplan. Too many butterfly effects that change conditions of world weather.
However i would concede that those capable with respect to means and decade ahead planning are the intelligence agencies. For me it is no surprise that the last US president to be titled "strategic thinker" was Bush senior. And he came from which agency?
Bush senior was in power when the Soviet Union crumbled. He certainly gave his word on how to destruct the Soviet Union from the inside. I could give examples from personal experience on what happened.
But that was more than 30 years ago. Those in power today are from the wikipedia and powerpoint generation, shiny from the outside, but hollow and negligent from the inside. This includes the journalist profession.
Having said this - no, i don´t think there is a plan to encircle China. If there was so much control over "banana republic" Russia, then why let someone like Putin come to power? Doesn´t make sense. Another one of the butterfly effects?
No conspiracies, no long term planning. Only some people being smarter than others. And i don´t necessarily mean Xi or Putin to be smarter, i mean domestic players as well.It is not a conspiracy to have a plan.
Yes, the flow of the years changes things, people come and go... but often these efforts pass on and are continued, even if in modified form.
Context is very important. Geopolitics was born in the context of the British Empire in the beginning of the 20th century when the British Empire was still flourishing, at what might have been the peak of the British Empire, that had such colonies as India, China (which was almost a colony, not formally, but under Great British influence), Japan, Iran, the Middle East, Turkey, and almost all of Africa.
In addition to this they had a strong alliance with America, in many ways still a colony state to Britain.
Whereas the German colonies were very small, the French and British shared most of Africa. The British Empire was alive and flourishing. The context of Geopolitics was thus the “Great Game.”
The “Great Game” was the idea that the most important enemy of the British Empire, just before the “age of geopolitics”, was Imperial Russia, which exercised growing control over Central Asia and threatened English colonies in the Middle East and India, trying to go South to Afghanistan, and also considering Russian expansion in the Caucasus.
The growing power of Russia was considered the main enemy of the British Empire. This was the “Great Game.” Many aspects of global international geopolitics during the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries can be explained in terms of the Great Game.
The British Empire needed to control trade routes on the continent, but mostly throughout the oceans and seas, as the power of the British Empire was based on the control of trade routes.
Not much has changed today regarding control of trade routes and as I stated in a Hub that I wrote (still readable) called "Does America Want War with Russia?":
there is estimated to be over [40] Trillion dollars worth in oil and gas resources in the North Pole region which is now becoming accessible due to the warming/melting of the North Pole, there are also trade routes now open for a few months of the year, and should the global warming trend continue as expected, control of this region will be more valuable than control over the Middle East and the Suez Canal combined.
The British Empire controlled the trade routes throughout all the world. That was the basic aspect of British strategy, the system of colonies, as Britain controlled and exploited many colonies in Africa, Asia, and so on.
After WWII this control passed on to America, which became the dominant military power in the world in Britain's place (but never totally separate from London).
One of the main concerns of British imperialism, was to conserve the British Empire. Geopolitics was born as the theoretical reflection on Anglo-Saxon imperialism. It was a purely Western, imperialist approach.
The modern geopolitics of the 21st century is the same. You can see this in the decisions to interfere with or invade former Russian/USSR allies, almost singularly those were the nations we have focused on during the last 30 years since the USSR collapsed.
As well as our more secretive insurrection activities is Georgia, Ukraine and other nations that orbit Russia.
This is NOT a matter of conspiracy, it is a matter of policy.
Whatever excuse is used to start a war... whether they use a washed up child on the beach... or the threat of WMDs... it is NOT left to chance, it was a deliberate effort. What is occurring in the Ukraine today is no different.
And yes, you are right about Bush Sr, a key element in many years of leadership in Washington DC, for decades. It was Bush Sr. who first declared we had entered into a "New World Order" as a former CIA director he had much in common with Putin....Whatever excuse is used to start a war... whether they use a washed up child on the beach... or the threat of WMDs... it is NOT left to chance, it was a deliberate effort. What is occurring in the Ukraine today is no different....
You are right.
Let me ask a question: Who is commanding to put the child on the beach? Who is ordering provocations?
Concerning Bush sr.: I think it was one his advisors, Samuel P. Huntington who wrote "Clash of Civilizations". I got a copy when it was published in the early nineties. I noticed the text got updated many times with every new release. Early on China was in the focus for the far future, but this was revisited release after release. Kind of reflects that "world weather conditions" are constantly changing and can not be used for politics.
However what was set up by imperial powers in history was what is called a doctrine. They have a much longer cycle.
An example for the British empire was the need for derangement on the European continent. In the 1850ties Britain took side with Turkey over the Crimea. Already almost 200 years ago the doctrine of deranging the Eurasian landmass was in place. (The USA only took over after WWII).
I am only curious if decision makers really know about the Sykes-Picot Agreement which still causes lots of trouble. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2% … _Agreement
Of course analysts and intelligence people know, but do politicians?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyBRMMCyRCQ
At least 600,000 dead, including 55,000 children. About 12 million people forced to flee their homes to find refuge. These are the casualties of the un-Civil War that broke out in Syria for the goal of regime-change wanted by the US.
The decisive intervention of Russia kept this from happening as Putin supported president Bashar Al Assad.
Such is what awaits Ukraine. Russia will no more let the Ukraine "decide" to join the West & NATO than it was willing to let Assad be overthrown, in fact I think it considerably less likely that Putin will allow it.
To avoid war all NATO has to do is assure, in writing, that they will not accept Ukraine as a member. Since they refuse give Russia any assurances, then clearly they are fully accepting of the alternative, knowing as evidenced by his actions in Syria and Georgia that Putin will not be cowed and will not give in.
In conclusion it is the leadership of "the West" that is fating those in Ukraine to suffer the same horrors the people in Syria suffered.
Unfortunately the people of "the West" do not understand the arrogance and the audacity of the position American and NATO leadership is taking in regards to Ukraine... the people of America will be told that it is Russia's fault and that Putin is a madman, an evil that must be extinguished from the world even if millions of people must be sacrificed to do so.
They have been programming the American people to believe this for years, he stole the 2016 election for Trump after all, didn't you know?"To avoid war all NATO has to do is assure, in writing, that they will not accept Ukraine as a member." - But what if Ukraine WANTS to become a member. What right does murdering Putin have to tell them they can't. I guess you don't believe in sovereign nations other than Russia.
Is North Korea worth starting WWIII over?
Is Mongolia worth starting WWIII over?
Where do you draw the line?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKcmNGvaDUs
The Above is an excellent movie Ukraine on Fire
It explains how "the West" and the CIA caused this war.
Late investigative journalist Robert Parry appears in this film to describe his investigations into the role of the US Embassy; CIA-funded foundations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID); George Soros’s Renaissance Foundation and the Dutch Embassy.
Anyone looking to get a better understanding of what is really going on in the Ukraine should watch it."Where do you draw the line?" - I certainly don't draw the line at bending over and spreading America's cheeks for the likes of murdering Putin. I guess you do though since you posed the question
The ONLY way your YouTube piece can lead ANYONE to believe the West is CAUSING "this" war is if they already want to believe that is true. It didn't even hint at it.
If by coming right out and saying it, and providing the references and facts that support their position that the West/America caused it, is your definition of "didn't even hint at it"... then I agree.
For those who do watch it, but want the recent references to which I speak, you need to jump past the first 20 minutes which deal with the history of Ukraine, mostly WWII.
Ken, please answer the TWO questions I posed.
1. What if Ukraine WANTS to become a member of NATO?
2. What RIGHT does murdering Putin have to tell them they can't?
- or are you unable to?What if North Korea wants to become a member of NATO?
What right does America have in telling them they can't?
I don't deal with such simplistic and biased questions to satisfy those looking for something to gloat over. The history that leads up to such events that are occurring in the Ukraine and put us on the precipice of nuclear war, go way beyond that.
I have answered your questions, read my previous posts and watch the movie I left a link to, that will provide you all the answers you need.
I participate in these threads to offer the few who read them facts and information to digest so that they can see there is something other than the propaganda our sorry MSM sites like CNN pump out to deceive them, a differing opinion to counter those unfortunates that believe the MSM misinformation is legitimate.There you go deflecting again by asking ridiculous questions.
You don't deal with those questions because you don't have an answer to them.
BTW, you do not offer anything close to the facts. You propagate Russian propaganda.You seem to accuse one of incorrect information frequintly. Yet you are vague, and never point out the as you call it "propaganda". It is a deflect, and a poor deflect at that. It is very telling. You do this frequently.
I have followed this conversation, and I see nothing that indicates Ken offering Russian propaganda.I'm sorry. I thought my questions were very "unVague". I asked "Doesn't Ukraine have the Right to join NATO if they want (and since Ken was sharpshooting, I will add "if NATO wants them)? How is that "Vague"?
I also asked "What RIGHT does murdering Putin have to tell Ukraine they cannot join NATO?" How is THAT "vague"? Seems pretty clear to me.
Then you must be with Ken in joining the Russians if you can't see he is advocating for Putin and the invasion of Ukraine.
"You seem to accuse one of incorrect information frequintly. " - Yes I do - when it is incorrect. Would you prefer that I let the disinformation, misinformation, and outright lies go unchallenged?What I derived was Ken's true opinion on the matter. He certainly in no terms was he supporting Russia moving into Ukraine. He certainly did not "advocate" Russia moving into Ukraine. You are far away from the context of his posts here.
AGAIN what lies what propaganda?. Stop spinning and give some true quotes that prove your accusations.If Ken is not supporting Russia, then why is he putting so much effort into 1) defending Putin's actions and 2) trying to shift through dis- and mis-information the blame for what is going on away from Putin to the West and specifically America? Why does he insist Putin is not the one who is threatening to invade Ukraine?
A lie from Ken:
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKcmNGvaDUs
The Above is an excellent movie Ukraine on Fire
It explains how "the West" and the CIA caused this war."
His source there does nothing of the kind! The closest it comes is noting that our CIA (as does all CIA-type organizations across the world) use various organizations to help influence public opinion to further our national interests. They IN NO WAY "caused a war" that hasn't happened yet.
[b]Apparent propaganda{/b] (according the British.
From this short blurb about what a Russian foreign minister said. Chris goes on to build a mountain of misinformation.
https://then24.com/2022/02/10/case-bell … of-russia/
Yet in response, Britain (who is much more trustworthy that Russian agents) says "
MOSCOW, Feb 11 (Reuters) - The Kremlin on Friday cited a geographical gaffe by British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss as an example of how poorly informed Western leaders were about the subject matter in the East-West standoff over Ukraine.
Britain dismissed the comments as propaganda and said Truss had simply misheard Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during a meeting.
"This is the reality in which we have to defend our position," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told a briefing.
Report ad
Russia's Kommersant newspaper quoted two diplomatic sources as saying that during their closed-door meeting on Thursday Lavrov had asked Truss if she recognised Russian sovereignty over Rostov and Voronezh - two regions in the south of the country where Russia has been building up its forces.
Kommersant said Truss replied that Britain would never recognise them as Russian, and had to be corrected by her ambassador.
Report ad
Britain does not dispute the sovereignty of the regions in question. A British source said Truss had misheard during the meeting, and rejected Peskov's characterisation of the West's understanding of the conflict.
"It's total rubbish and classic Russian propaganda," the source said."Ken as well as Chris offered what certainly appears well-thought-out, well-research views. They have joined in with lengthy comments to help you understand their views. You seem to be reading into their opinion, and selectively taking words out of context. They gave very common sense opinions. I am not sure where you get off using the word propaganda.
Again, your dramatic terminology seems to have got the best of you. You might want to realize we all can share different views on any given subject. There is no reason to assume anyones' views are meant to be propaganda, just because they do not correlate with your own. You toss that word as well as the word lie frequently.
BTW, what did you derive as Ken's "true" opinion? It seems to me he categorically states America is trying to provoke a war with Russia. That comes through loud and clear.
Yes, my opinion and my answers are laid out very well in this thread.
As are your own.
I wonder why it is, you feel the need to slander anyone that does not agree with your views?
I am here to share information and insight, and to debate with people who will consider new information... not to argue with someone who has no interest in anything other than expressing their opinion and putting down anyone that doesn't agree with it.
Where does Ukraine get that Right to join NATO from? My Understanding is that NATO is an invitation-only club.
Now, before you charge me with being facetious, that was a serious question.
GAI'm sorry, I thought the "invitation" part was simply understood and didn't bear adding to and complicating the comment. Next time I will.
But once extended (and it hasn't been yet), then Ukraine has every
RIGHT to join if it wants. It also has the right to not join if it doesn't want to. It is their choice.
Murdering Putin disagrees, however, and thinks the choice is his, not Ukraine's. Further, Ken and Chris seem to agree with Putin's wrongheaded notion. I certainly hope you don't as well. In fact, Putin seems to believe that so much that he appears willing to go to war over it nevertheless.That clears up your "Right" comment, a little bit. I do agree that Ukraine should be able to make their own choice as to whether to join NATO if invited, but I don't see it as a "Right." I think that is also the U.S position.
I don't agree with your characterization of the views of Ken and Chris57. Particularly in Ken's case, I only see a valid opinion, not propaganda. With the historical proof of U.S. meddling in other nations' affairs, it seems your objections are on shaky ground.
If I presumed to know more about this issue than I do, I would say Ken's comments, (mostly), are accurate. We have done what he claims before, so why is it so silly to think we haven't done it in Ukraine too?
Logic seals the deal for me. If the current geographical issues, relative to Ukraine and Russia, were considered with the substitution of Cuba or Mexico, et al. and the USA I would expect us to have the same logical response as Putin—not on my doorstep or in my backyard.
Don't you see the Cuban missile crisis, (weren't we also risking war with our position then?), as a twin to Russia's Ukraine `crisis'? I do, so the explanation Ken and Chris provided seems logically correct to me.
GA"but I don't see it as a "Right." " - If invited, why wouldn't it be their "right" to make that choice?
There are certain differences. If we wanted to put nukes on Russia's doorstep, we already can, with or without Ukraine. We have, as far as I know, chosen not to (nor should we). Russia was introducing a nuclear threat to the US that was not there to begin with and it is in our national interest to prevent them from doing so. (I wonder if Castro had a say in the matter given his whole nation would be turned into crispy critters in the event of war?)
As to Cuba becoming an ally to Russia? That was a done deal already and wasn't part of the reason for the blockade.
That is why I think Ken and Chris' reasoning does not hold logical water and why they are Putin's ally..
The better analogy is Mexico joining the Russian block in some fashion. Would we like it? NO. Would we do diplomatically whatever we could to prevent it? Absolutely. Would we put 130,000 troops along the Mexican border? NO. Would we invade Mexico to stop it? NO.
Also, I need to point out that at no time in American history was America the aggressor UNLESS there was a Conservative in charge. (If Putin were smart, he would help put Liberals in the White House, lol)Perhaps he did put a liberal in the White House so he could initiate this easy take over of Ukraine. As I have said he is an intelligent man. He certainly will walk in and take Ukraine with the least trouble. All this strategizing seems a bit late. I think common sense should sink in soon ---
The US has no cards in this game. They could have pulled that pipeline but a day late buck short Biden forgot to.Perhaps he didn't since all our intelligence points to Putin working very hard to keep his servant, Trump, firmly in place. The take over of Ukraine would have been much easier had Trump been in office. Hell, Trump might have even helped him do it.
". He certainly will walk in and take Ukraine with the least trouble." - ROFL!!!! I'll leave it at that.
"The US has no cards in this game. " - Again, ROFL a lot!!!!I like facts... and they do me well. I don't rely on my imagination, selective thinking, sticking my fingers in my ears, and humming to prevent from hearing facts. Or ROFL, but I think that also helps when one does not want to face facts, and I see you admit to doing this frequently.
The facts are Trump sanctioned Russia heavily, he stopped the pipeline they so badly wanted (and actually that would have been a wonderful bargaining chip at this point). But Joe gave the go-ahead on the pipeline. And the biggest fact, Russia did not become so aggressive and move troops to the border of Ukraine until Joe took over.
Source --- "President Donald Trump has signed a law that will impose sanctions on any firm that helps Russia's state-owned gas company, Gazprom, finish a pipeline into the European Union.
The sanctions target firms building Nord Stream 2, an undersea pipeline that will allow Russia to increase gas exports to Germany.
The US considers the project a security risk to Europe.
Both Russia and the EU have strongly condemned the US sanctions.
Congress voted through the measures as part of a defense bill last week and the legislation, which described the pipeline as a "tool of coercion", was signed off by President Trump on Friday." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50875935
Biden to waive Trump-era sanctions on operator of Russian pipeline
https://www.ft.com/content/22555df1-0b8 … 0c8f03cc6a
Source Trump sanctions on Russia --- "the Trump administration’s policy actions often seemed at odds with the President’s rhetoric. To set the record on policy actions, rather than rhetoric, Alina Polyakova and Filippos Letsas tracked the administration’s concrete actions on Russia from 2017 to 2019."
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-fr … on-russia/
"As a result, during Trump’s four years in power, a record forty-plus rounds of sanctions have been slapped on Russia. Many of them are enshrined in law, meaning they are here to stay. There is, however, hope that the frantic competing to pass new measures will finally subside as Congress stops trying to block the president at any cost."
https://carnegiemoscow.org/commentary/83282
Let me reorient you to the fact Trump ultimately supplied Ukraine with weapons - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/jos … o-ukraine/
In my view, we never would be having this conflict if Trump were in office. He was a problem solver, not a problem creator.
Your opinion is weak in this case just due to actual factual acts Trump initiated while in office, and the pure fact Russia did not have troops sitting on the Ukraine border. Your logic seems to be skewed by bias.
And let me remind you of the current news out of the Durham camp... The Russiagate was promoted by the Clinton campaign. The facts are coming into the light, and the picture is clear to who was the despicable character in the 2016 election. That would be Hillary Clinton. This all could not break at a better time... The Democratic party is slimy, and always has been, and IMO they are about to drown in their own slime.
Not sure why anyone would want to be associated with the Democratic party.
By the by --- It would seem, and thus far only accusations that Hunter and old Joe have problems being compromised by China and Russia. Hunter is currently under investigation by the FBI. We do not know what will come from this investigation. So, not worth discussing. But none the less, the FBI is currently investigating the president's son. And IMO,he certainly has a disgusting questionable character. Drugs, prostitutes... YUCKThe key part is WE made Russia the bad guy.
WE pushed NATO up to Russia's borders... why?
If you want the answers I STRONGLY Recommend this review by Distinguished Service Professor in Political Science and Co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
If you find lectures boring go to minute 29 and watch just 15 minutes.
America has done a lot to harm its future interests.Ken, I will defiantly listen to the link. Always up to learn...
And I agree our Government is responsible for harming our future interests. They seem to be on a path to destroy our very fiber.After watching your link I am feeling smarter than I really am. Prof. Mearsheimer* seems to validate my thoughts in my most recent comments.
An exchange with opposing views, directed at specific points he made, should be interesting.
*As a preemptive note, this is not my first view of the Professor, and I did take a look at his reputation before following your link.
GAWhat I found most interesting was his rather optimistic projection that the West (America) would have to pivot to deal with Asia (China) and in order to do so we would have to unite in this effort with Russia.
He therefore concluded that our efforts in the Ukraine up to that time (this lecture was in 2015) were nonsensical and shortsighted.
This projection of his has proved to have been insightful and spot on, because as we can see today, by not bringing Russia into the fold, we have pushed them into the arms of a now very powerful/dangerous China that is looking for all the allies it can pull together... for what is going to be an effort in the near future to upset the world order and supplant America as THE global leader.
As I have stated repeatedly the shortsightedness and ignorance of our decision to continue to antagonize Russia is without doubt going to lead to conflict.
While the "Military Industrial Complex" may be able to rake in hundreds of billions of dollars over this confrontation, ultimately America will lose its position of dominance on the global stage.
We cannot invade Russia, the nuclear threat prohibits any such thought, we cannot sanction them into oblivion, China and other states allied with Russia will not go along.
The IDEAL solution is to END entry into NATO, for any and all nations.
And once that is done, then make long term efforts to neutralize Ukraine and get Russia to back down (and the first step to that is to recognize Crimea as part of Russia and not contest its secession).
Is that so hard?
Shut down NATO to new entries and recognize Crimea's secession in return Russia recognizes Ukraine's government and stops supporting separatists within Ukraine.
Of course, if that were done and hostilities died down... who would you sell all those missiles and jets too?
I have a feeling some very strong lobbyists will ensure no such commonsense efforts to peace with Russia are allowed.Given the spookiness, (as in more covert than overt), of the MIC's actions, it is no wonder that a lot of conspiracy theories grew. I suppose some are extrapolated to unbelievable levels, but I can see where there are others that aren't so unbelievable.
I guess it would help if I looked for it, but I recall hearing something about the dangers of the Military/Industrial Complex from Pres. Eisenhower at the end of his presidency. Coming from a military mind that also had to deal in the political world, I think his warning carries weight.
And you are right about the professor's prescience. Considering today's reality relative to his statements in 2015 it seems he may know what he is talking about.
GAMay be it is interesting to listen to what George Friedman (Stratfor) had to say also in 2015.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UcXiUYLgbo
I think this is part of a much longer speech with a Q&A session.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeLu_yyz3tc
and Vladimir Pozner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ
Might be interesting, even though some videos are lengthy. These 2 gentlemen are sometimes cynical, sometimes wrong, but they present a more differential view of the issues in Europe, Ukraine, Russia.The Pozner link was interesting, I quote:
"Take the time from when Gorbachev came to power, March 1985, to 2007 when Putin had been in power for seven years, that's 22 years. I ask you to find a single thing in foreign or domestic policies done by the Soviet Union, and later by Russia proper, that might in any way anger, irk, disappoint the United States."
"Let me answer that for you, nothing, not one thing during that period."
"Now what did Russia get as a result of that?"
"First, the enlargement of NATO."
"Then the bombing of Yugoslavia."
"That was done by NATO which is dependent on the United States"
"The UN did not condone this."
"Then in 2,000 after Putin [took control] he asked to become a member of NATO [and was told absolutely not, never]."
"Then Putin asked to become a partner, a member of the European Union, and he was told no, you're too big."
"So here we have Putin, as you all know, as soon as 911 happened he calls up Bush Jr. and offers his help. And does help in Afghanistan. And gets nothing in exchange."
"So finally in 2007, when speaking in Munich to the 20, on Feb 10th, Putin says this:
'I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the Alliance itself or with securing security in Europe. On the contrary it represents serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask against whom is this expansion intended?'
----
I could go on quoting him, Pozner was a wealth of information and sources, adding much to some of the other links provided in this thread that help explain this matter.Lengthy? Yeah. 2+hours of evening lectures. Woooweee.
The Friedman piece was a meh . . . because of my previous viewing of the Mearschriemer(sp?) lecture. But your Pozner link was something else. Interesting is the safe description.
Conditionally I say Pozner seemed as credible as Mearschriemer, and I believe him to be very credible. Pozner's perspective makes a lot of sense. It seems very logically grounded and I am feeling more confident with my current perspective. I think it is supported, as in grounded in reality and not on `national perspective', (ie. Pozner's view of the media and governmental narrative, and my view of partisanship).
So, it was worth the time. Thanks. But, here is the condition I started my comment with. Ponzer's career is one of persuasion and apparently he was professionally very good at it. I looked him up before the lecture and was not impressed. I was prepared to dismiss him, relative to the sense of credibility I get from Mearschriemer. That didn't happen.
The content of events he discussed seems to be, (mostly), historically and chronologically documentable, and—relative to human nature, logically sound. I was very surprised and enjoyed the talk.
So now I have to condition my view of the lecture with the question of Have I been sold?. That answer will take some time.
GA
Reuters:
Special Report: Why Ukraine spurned the EU and embraced Russia
DECEMBER 19, 2013
KIEV (Reuters) - On September 4, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich called a meeting of his political party for the first time in three years, summoning members to an old Soviet-era cinema called Zoryany in Kiev.
For three hours Yanukovich cajoled and bullied anyone who pushed for Ukraine to have closer ties to Russia. A handful of deputies from his Party of Regions complained that their businesses in Ukraine’s Russian-speaking east would suffer if Yanukovich didn’t agree to closer ties with Russia. That set him off.
“Forget about it ... forever!” he shouted at them, according to people who attended the meeting. Instead the president argued for an agreement to deepen trade and other cooperation with the European Union.
Some deputies implored him to change his mind, people who attended the meeting told Reuters. Businessmen warned that a deal with the EU would provoke Russia - Ukraine’s former master in Soviet times - into toughening an economic blockade on Ukrainian goods. Yanukovich stood firm.
“We will pursue integration with Europe,” he barked back, according to three people who attended the meeting. He seemed dead set on looking west.
Less than three months later Yanukovich spurned the EU, embraced Russian President Vladimir Putin and struck a deal on December 17 for a bailout of his country. Russia will invest $15 billion in Ukraine’s government debt and reduce by about a third the price that Naftogaz, Ukraine’s national energy company, pays for Russian gas.
It is not clear what Yanukovich agreed to give Russia in return, but two sources close to him said he may have had to surrender some control over Ukraine’s gas pipeline network.
What caused the U-turn by the leadership of a country of 46 million people that occupies a strategic position between the EU and Russia?
Public and private arm-twisting by Putin, including threats to Ukraine’s economy and Yanukovich’s political future, played a significant part. But the unwillingness of the EU and International Monetary Fund to be flexible in their demands of Ukraine also had an effect, making them less attractive partners.
And amid this international tug-of-war, Yanukovich’s personal antipathy towards his jailed political rival, Yulia Tymoshenko, was a factor, according to Volodymyr Oliynyk, an ally of Yanukovich and a prominent member of the ruling party. The EU accused Ukraine of treating Tymoshenko unfairly - to the annoyance of Yanukovich, according to his supporters and one of her lawyers.
The upshot is that Yanukovich, 63, has split his party and his country. Some leading party officials have deserted him. His hopes of re-election in 2015 - if there is a free and fair vote - look weak.
Hundreds of thousands of protesters have taken to the streets, demanding he step down and the country pursue closer links with the EU. Yanukovich, who has been increasingly cut off in his sprawling residence outside Kiev and distant even from some of his oldest friends, did not respond to requests for comment.
PROUD EGO
Risen from humble roots, Yanukovich likes to be treated with respect and as an equal, a characteristic that has informed much of his reluctance to join the customs union of former Soviet states that Putin wants to create.
Colleagues describe the burly leader as an intuitive politician who cannot abide being patronized. Inna Bohoslovska, a member of Yanukovich’s Party of Regions until last month, said Yanukovich made clear at the cinema meeting his dislike of Russia treating Ukraine as second rate.
“He told us Russia was not fit for talks, Russia did not consider Ukraine to be an equal partner, that it tried to force us to act by its own rules, that Russia does not act in Ukraine’s best interests in any negotiations, and therefore there can be no talk of having negotiations with Russia,” she said.
Yanukovich felt he was better treated by EU officials, two party members said, despite finding it hard to grasp the complexity of EU bureaucracy. Hailing from Ukraine’s industrial east, Yanukovich also seemed the perfect man to persuade Ukraine’s pro-Russian eastern regions to agree to closer ties with Europe.
“That a president from the east would bring Ukraine into Europe was the ideal combination for us. We were willing to do anything,” said David Zhvaniya, a former member of the Party of Regions who helped lead efforts to prepare Ukraine for deeper cooperation with the EU.
Now deeply disillusioned, Zhvaniya feels misled by Yanukovich: “He tricked us all ... It was a complete, utter lie.” He accuses Yanukovich of acting like a tsar.
Others say Yanukovich’s desire to forge closer links with the EU was genuine, but that he became dismayed when he felt the EU failed to acknowledge the scale of the financial difficulties he would face if he chose Brussels over Moscow.
Yanukovich estimated that he needed $160 billion over three years to make up for the trade Ukraine stood to lose with Russia, and to help cushion the pain from reforms the EU was demanding. The EU refused to give such a sum, which it said was exaggerated and unjustified.
The EU offered 610 million euros ($839 million) immediately. EU officials said increased trade, combined with various aid and financing programs, might go some way to providing Kiev with the investment it needed.
An EU source said Ukraine could have been in line to receive at least 19 billion euros in EU loans and grants over the next seven years if it had signed a trade and cooperation agreement and reached a deal with the IMF. But that sum was not mentioned to Ukraine officials during negotiations, said the source.
To Ukraine, there seemed little prospect of getting the EU, already struggling to help its indebted members, to offer a better deal than its original offer.
Oliynyk, who is Ukraine’s permanent representative for NATO, and others were furious. He told Reuters that when Ukraine turned to Europe’s officials for help, they “spat on us.”
Next year Ukraine will have to cover foreign debt payments of $8 billion, according to its finance ministry. It was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, partly because Moscow was blocking sales of Ukrainian-produced meat, cheese and some confectionery, and scrapping duty-free quotas on steel pipes. Some officials said the restrictions showed what life would be like if Ukraine signed the EU agreement.
Yanukovich’s other hope was the IMF. It rescued Ukraine during the onset of the global financial crisis with a $16.5 billion loan in 2008 when Tymoshenko was prime minister. It also approved a $15.5 billion stand-by program for the Yanukovich government in 2010, disbursing about $3.5 billion, before freezing the program in 2011 because Ukraine failed to meet its conditions. A year later, the program had expired.
The IMF, like the EU, was unwilling to grant the sort of loans Yanukovich wanted under a new program. In a letter dated November 20, it told Ukraine that it would not soften conditions for a new loan and that it would offer only $5 billion, Oliynyk said. And Kiev would have to pay back almost the same amount next year, he said, as part of repayments for the earlier $16.5 billion loan.
The IMF declined to comment. According to IMF figures, Kiev should pay back $3.7 billion next year.
“We could not contain our emotions, it was unacceptable,” said Oliynyk.
Yanukovich was furious, party members said. He believed the IMF had ignored what he saw as reasonable demands to lift tough conditions for its earlier help, such as increasing the retirement age and freezing pensions and wages. Worse, the IMF was asking him to repay a loan that had been negotiated by his arch enemy, Tymoshenko.
JUSTICE ON TRIAL
Despite his reputation as a hard man - he was sent to Soviet prisons twice for theft and assault when he was a youth - Yanukovich has a particular weak point: jailed opposition leader Tymoshenko. He both detests and fears her, according to his aides and diplomats.
Conspicuous for her plaited blonde hair, Tymoshenko was one of the leaders of the 2004 Orange Revolution, which snuffed out Yanukovich’s first bid to be president. She served as prime minister in 2005 and then from 2007-2010, and their enmity deepened when a plan to form a coalition against a common enemy failed in 2009.
Tymoshenko, who has said she wanted to “kill” Yanukovich over his policy U-turn, was jailed in 2011 for abuse of office after a trial Western governments say was political. Most Ukrainians think she should be released, though many question how she amassed her wealth.
To the EU, Tymoshenko’s case represented an unacceptable standard of justice. As part of the trade pact, the EU demanded Ukraine release Tymoshenko or, as some officials suggested, make a commitment to do so.
Yanukovich and his supporters resisted. “We had done most things on the list for the EU accession agreement, but there was a question mark over Tymoshenko ... We believe she is guilty ... and among those people who think she is guilty, 80 percent are our voters,” Oliynyk said, going on to document the dozens of perceived slights Tymoshenko has made against Yanukovich.
Tymoshenko has never acknowledged his legitimacy as president and refuses to ask for forgiveness so he can pardon her, he said.
Serhiy Vlasenko, a lawyer for Tymoshenko, said his client was a factor in Yanukovich’s decision not to accept a deal with the EU: “He (Yanukovich) had dozens of reasons not to sign it, and yes, one of the reasons is that he acknowledges Mrs Tymoshenko as his main political opponent and he does not want to see her free as she is the only politician who could beat him.”
Yanukovich was also offended when he found out Kiev would not be offered a firm prospect of full membership of the EU; he felt Ukraine was being treated as a lesser country to “even Poland”, with which it shares a border.
“Many citizens have got it wrong on European integration. It is not about membership, we are apparently not Poland, apparently we are not on a level with Poland ... they are not letting us in really, we will be standing at the doors. We’re nice but we’re not Poles,” Oliynyk said.
Poland became a full member of the EU in 2004. EU enlargement chief Stefan Fuele suggested after Yanukovich’s U-turn that perhaps the bloc should have offered Ukraine membership at some point.
Amid the acrimony, leading officials, including Mykola Azarov, Yanukovich’s prime minister, performed a volte-face.
In September, just after his government had approved signing the pact with the EU, Azarov had painted a glowing future for Ukraine in Europe. “We all want clean air and water, safe food, good education for our children, up-to-date medical services, reliable legal representation, etc. All these are not abstract terms, but norms and rules that are already in place in the EU, which we need in Ukraine,” he said.
But on November 21, Azarov suspended discussions with the EU in the interests of “national security” and ordered a renewal of “active dialogue” with Moscow.
EU negotiators had no time to renegotiate before a meeting in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius seven days later, where Yanukovich had been expected to sign an agreement with the EU. He failed to do so.
Last week Azarov was on the streets of Kiev explaining the change of direction to pro-Yanukovich supporters. “So-called leaders tell us fairy tales about how, once we had signed, we would be able to travel to Europe without visas. Nothing of the sort. To get that we would have to fulfill a whole raft of conditions,” he said.
two advisers with stronger ties to Moscow than others have grown influential. Andriy Kluyev, secretary of the National Security and Defence Council, and Viktor Medvedchuk, who has no formal role in government, are called Putin’s emissaries by opposition leaders and Yanukovich allies alike.
Both have business interests in Russia. Kluyev arranged the purchase by Russians of Prominvestbank, a private bank in Ukraine, and Putin is godfather to one of Medvedchuk’s children, sources close to both men say. Both helped on Yanukovich’s 2004 and 2010 election campaigns.
“Kluyev is the direct agent of Putin’s influence in Ukraine. He is a big friend of Medvedchuk, who has family ties with Putin,” Bohoslovska said.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the Russian leader and Medvedchuk “know each other well” and have “very good relations,” but declined to comment on whether Medvedchuk and Kluyev were advocates of Putin’s interests in Ukraine.
Sources close to Kluyev and Medvedchuk said they were committed to supporting Ukraine’s interests.
It is clear that Yanukovich’s more liberal advisers are weaker than before the protests, or even out to distance themselves from him. His chief of staff, Serhiy Lyovochkin, offered to resign on November 30 over the violence meted out against protesters, but Yanukovich said no. Lyovchkin declined to comment.
Two senior members of the Party of Regions have already quit; and more than a dozen others remain on board only through fear that their businesses will be raided if they fail to support Yanukovich, according to a businessman who asked not to be named.
For Yanukovich, it’s a daunting balancing act. His best hope may be to portray his sudden reversal of strategy as a masterstroke of negotiation - pulling EU and U.S. officials back to the table and forcing them to reconsider what they can offer.
“Ukraine is at a crossroads and there’s a huge boulder there. We go one way to Russia and we get hit. We go the other way, to Europe, and we get hit. We stand still, and we get hit,” Oliynyk said, drawing a diagram on a notebook.
“But it will hurt less this way,” he said, pointing in the European direction.
You like facts, you say. Then why don't your use them without distorting, twisting, misdirecting, misinterpreting their meaning?
For example, you said "The facts are Trump sanctioned Russia heavily" - The FACT is he did no such thing. Yes, he applied SOME sanctions when FORCED to by Congress, but rarely if ever on his own volition. If he didn't do it voluntarily it doesn't count and by claiming he did, you are abusing a FACT, turning it into something unrecognizable..
Here is another way that "you like FACTS" - you lie about them, such as "But Joe gave the go-ahead on the pipeline. ". That is just a lie and you know it.
"And let me remind you of the current news out of the Durham camp... " - And let me remind you this is another great example of taking a couple of facts and twisting and turning them until they are unrecognizable. Hell, even the FBI witness says he doesn't have a good memory of Sussmann lying to him - sheesh! And that is what you build your case on?, ROFL
While Mueller came up with real crimes or evidence of crimes on a person he was not allowed to indict and this Durham guy may not even be able to prove Sussmann lied to the FBI. Don't you see the irony in that?
So you don't think people who think your gender are only good for cooking and raising babies (and making babies) is not despicable. Interesting take from a woman.
Or you don't think a guy who on public radio said he would like to date his daughter isn't despicable? What if that were your husband talking about YOUR daughter?
"Drugs, prostitutes... YUCK" - You most be talking about Rep Gaetz.You seem to ignore all facts and just say whatever you please. It was Trump that sanctions the pipeline, it was Biden that lifted the sanction.
I offered you the list of sanctions as well as action Trump put on Russia. You ignored them. He was very hard on Russia in regards to sanctions, as well as China and Iran.
You are not worth having a conversation with. Once again you call me a liar for no reason at all. I provided the source with a factual list of the sanctions and actions the Trump administration put on Russia.
Drugs prostitutes, I am talking about Hunter Biden. His tapes are pretty famous online and have been for a while now.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … aptop.htmlI know who you were talking about, but why do you only think what Hunter did was wrong and not Rep Gaetz? Seems very unfair to me.
"You seem to ignore all facts and just say whatever you please. " - You should really stop projecting your issues on to me.
Oh, by the way, where was I incorrect in challenging the truthfulness of what you say? Shouldn't I be doing that when you are demonstrably wrong and ought to know it? I didn't ignore your Brookings piece, there was truth in that. But where you are deceptive is in forgetting to tell the readers
1) all the times Trump (or his administration) was FORCED to apply those sanctions
2) how many times Trump refused to sanction Russia, breaking the law in doing so.
3) how many times Trump sided with Russia against the America
4) how many times Trump PRAISED Putin
5) how many times he believed Russian intelligence over American intelligence
6) how many time he belittled our intelligence on the world stage
7) HOW much longer do you want me to go on, because I know you know there is an almost endless list of Trump's pro-Russian activities."I know who you were talking about, but why do you only think what Hunter did was wrong and not Rep Gaetz?"
How in the hell did Gaetz get into the conversation? WE could use many examples of perverts. The point is the president's son has some pretty raunchy stuff floating around and is being investigated by the FBI.
I would share my opinion with you. But it is unkind, and I think I will leave it at that.
And I am very sure you could go on and on about Trump, you do daily. I will say this seems odd at best.How did Gaetz get in? Isn't it obvious? You deflected to Hunter Biden..
Sharlee - Ken just wrote the LIE "8 years ago Crimea seceded from Ukraine.". Only a Russian or Russian sympathizer would put it that way. Honest people would say it this way "8 years ago Crimea was INVADED BY RUSSIA and stolen from Ukraine." OR do you think Ken spoke the TRUTH?
Why do you defend such a liar?You're funny.
Crimeans vote overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine, join Russia
UPDATED ON: MARCH 16, 2014 / 6:38 PM / CBS/AP
SIMFEROPOL, Ukraine - Fireworks exploded and Russian flags fluttered above jubilant crowds Sunday after residents in Crimea voted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. The United States and Europe condemned the ballot as illegal and destabilizing and were expected to slap sanctions against Russia for it.
In a phone call to Russian President Vladimir Putin, President Barack Obama said the referendum, "which violates the Ukrainian constitution and occurred under duress of Russian military intervention, would never be recognized by the United States and the international community," the White House said.
But after the polls closed late Sunday, crowds of ethnic Russians in the regional Crimean capital of Simferopol erupted with jubilant chants in the main square, overjoyed at the prospect of once again becoming part of Russia.
You have to love Obama's reaction to it, after our own CIA helped support the coup d'etat that overthrew Ukraine's elected government just weeks prior.Ken's statement in regard to Crimea is factual. I am not sure why you think differently? And once again you call someone a liar when they stated pure facts, but you choose not to believe or want to believe the facts. Like I have said it's very hard to converse with you due to this habit.
The people or residents of Crimea VOTED overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. So, blame them... Yes the US did not like it... But Putin claimed that Russian troops in the Crimean peninsula were sent in to ensure proper conditions for the people of Crimea to be able to freely express their will.
So, where is the lie? They most likely will walk into Ukraine and yes there will be a fight, but who do you think would win?"Ken's statement in regard to Crimea is factual." - ROFL a lot. Do you actually think Russian elections are not totally rigged? Give me a break, how gullible are you?
I suggest you travel to Crimea. An absolutely lovely place to go, by the way.
If you would talk to the people, you would notice how mad they are at Putin, about the economy, how corrupt and disorganisational everything is.
But you would also notice that people stand behind their Russian passport.
Elections in Russia are free. You can vote for whatever you want to. But elections are also totally rigged by corruption. You can buy votes, either directly or by "funding" the counting officers. Don´t misinterpret rigged elections to be not free.
But if someone asks old grandma to make the mark on a certain face and get enough money for a monthlong of decent food on the table...I am sure I would love it there, until Putin throws me in jail for being a spy.
You write as if these people have the same ability to talk and express their feelings as you or I do. You know as well as I do, if they wrote or talked about Russia like Ken talks about America, they would be in a cell next to Navalny.
But that is really beside the point, isn't it. Crimea was an internationally recognized part of Ukraine. If fact, Russia agreed with that arrangement at one point. Russia said they were going to capture Crimea and they sent in their little green men and did just that. While Crimea became a slave to Putin in 2014 and remains a slave today, they are still legally a part of Ukraine.
No ifs, ands, or buts about that.
"Elections in Russia are free" - Now YOU have me rolling on the floor laughing. You seem like an intelligent (mental, not organization) guy. How can you possibly say that when Putin jails or kills any viable opposition and only gives them one candidate to chose from, that is not "free". There is not a damned thing "free" about that other than to say the Russians are "free" to vote for Putin and nobody else.People here in America might argue that our elections are not rigged... but when it comes to Senate and Presidential races... if you don't have the BIG money backing you, and if you don't have the support of those in control of the Party, you aren't winning anything.
The rarest of exception, the only time in anyone's lifetime this wasn't the case, is Trump.
Trump did not have the support of the RNC and he did not have BIG money backing him, but he had billions of his own money to work with, he was already a famous personality, and he was a populist with overwhelming appeal, he could fill football stadiums with people.
Politicians like AOC will never be more than a Representative because she will never have the backing needed.
So, is America really so different than what you are talking about?
You say in Crimea they can buy votes... in America if you can't get support worth many millions of dollars you likely can't even become a Representative in Congress, let alone a Senator.
In America, its all about connections, the Clintons have been there for over 30 years, Pelosi for over 30 years, the Bush family was there for decades, the Cheney family decades, etc.
Its a corrupt clique, a cabal, supported by massive amounts of backing from Corporations and Banking to keep it that way, and agencies like the FBI, CIA, DOJ that have no accountability to the people.
We have a 79 year old with over 40 years experience in DC who is as corrupt as they come as President... how do you think that happened?
July 2, 2019
Our new CNN/SSRS poll shows movement in the Democratic race after last week's debate. Following a weak performance in last week's debate, Joe Biden has dropped 10 points from 32% in late May to 22% now.
Feb 12, 2020
Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary Tuesday night, giving Democrats their first definitive winner in the presidential nomination process.
Joe Biden crashed to fifth place on a disastrous night having already fled to South Carolina, where he said in a gaffe 'Nevada has spoken'
It was the citizens of Crimea that voted. What did Russia have to do with the way these citizens voted? The people or residents of Crimea VOTED overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and join Russia.
IT would appear you are saying Russia fixed the vote. Sound very familiar, you claimed Russia was responsible for Trump's win. Wonder why they did not fix the vote in 2020. or did they fix the 2020 election so that Biden would win? Do they just fix all elections around the world? Are they ultimately in control of the entire world?
Maybe you have rolled around on the floor one too many times.
I forgot you make up anything that you please, current or historical, does not matter.
I don't think sticking to the facts is gullible. I think ignoring facts to suits one's own agenda shows a lack of accepting reality."It was the citizens of Crimea that voted. What did Russia have to do with the way these citizens voted? " - Oh come on, Sharlee, how naïve can you possibly be??? You actually think 1) that Putin didn't make that election happen (he stole the that part of Ukraine, after all) to prove he did the right thing and 2) Russian elections are fair?? Give me a break please.
Next you are going to tell me that if 50.1% of your state votes to leave the United States, you would say fine, if that is what they want? - Absolutely amazing, no wonder you are under Trump's spell.
Then "stick to the facts".
The FACTS is, Putin INVADED the Crimea.
The FACT is Putin, by FORCE, occupied (occupies) part of a sovereign nation.
The FACT is Ukraine DID NOT hold an election to see if the Crimea wanted to join Russia.
The FACT is the sham election Putin held in Crimea is just that - a sham.
Those are all provable FACTS yet you chose to believe Putin (just like Trump does). To me, that is the definition of gullibility.
As to Trump, I claim that BUT FOR a few things (please quote me correctly and stop fabricating things), that Trump would have lost the 2016 election, it was that close. I SAID:
- BUT FOR Clinton running such a flawed campaign, she would have won (that is the biggest But For)
- BUT FOR Comey idiotically jumping to the side of Trump by publicly releasing flawed information about Clinton, she would have won. I watched the polls in WI, MI, and PA move in Trump's direction after that)
- BUT FOR Putin running a well documented, massive disinformation/misinformation campaign in those states (which Manafort provided information on), Clinton would have won.
I maintain logic and common sense demand that if ANY ONE of those three things hadn't happened, Clinton would have been president and America and the world would be so much better off for it.
"I forgot you make up anything that you please, current or historical, does not matter. " - ANOTHER of your fabrications. Proof? You have NEVER, NOT ONCE, shown any fact I have presented to be wrong. I think you are confusing your version up Trump reality with my articulation of actual realityYou live in an odd world I must say. Hard to converse with a person that does not accept truth or facts. You live on conjecture, bits, and pieces of inconclusive information. It is very much apparent it is you that has been badly affected by Trump, not I. And you really spin out of control when other users here provide facts, you become discombobulated.
Facts are facts, you may see them differently, or you see an alternative motive to what happened in Crimea, but history shows they voted to become part of Russia. And I would venture to say all or most that comment here on this forum have a very poor opinion of Putin. However, that just does not change the facts as written. Neither will your derogatory mentions of me as a Putin supporter in other posts here.AND yet you totally ignore all of the FACTS I just laid out and stick with your story that Putin, like Trump, is a wonderfully good guy who would never invade another country.
"Hard to converse with a person that does not accept truth or facts." - Yes, I agree, that is why it is hard to converse with you. While you do not offer as many lies as say Ken does, you often do string disparate facts into a false narrative that is called deception.
I have asked you to give concrete examples where my facts and truths are wrong - you have failed to do so for obvious reasons, you can't find any.
I guess you really don't believe Putin. He SAID he was going to annex a part of another sovereign nation which he did. Yet you keep saying he didn't very interesting.Sharlee never said Putin was a good guy.
What she said is you ignore all the facts that don't fit your opinion.
The West, like you, will not recognize Crimea as part of Russia (despite its long history of being part of Russia prior to 1954) despite it voting overwhelmingly to secede from the Ukraine and rejoin Russia.
The West, like you, will not even acknowledge that the people of Crimea speak Russian, are Russian, they were not invaded, the Russians were already in Crimea and always have been.
The West will not give assurances that the Ukraine will NOT become a member of NATO.
Why?
Well, since they know that is a non-negotiable point for Putin, I guess they must want this conflict to continue.I have asked you to provide a quote where I said, Putin is a wonderful guy or actually said anything of that nature. You have not provided a quote, and it seems non-sensical for you to keep repeating I said that. I would think if anyone has followed this thread they will see I have not praised Putin.
I have offered a link in regards to the vote in Crimea to become part of Russia. Not sure why you continue to dispute that tact.
Once again
"The official result from the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was a 97 percent vote for integration of the region into the Russian Federation with an 83 percent voter turnout, and within the local government of Sevastopol there was also a 97 percent vote for integration of the region into the Russian Federation with an 89 ." SOURCE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crim … %20an%2089
Not sure why you say I don't believe Putin will take over Ukraine by force. I predicted Putin will wait until after the Olympics and quickly start a war. I predict most likely to take Ukraine in a matter of weeks.
This is much different than the situation that occurred with Crimea.
It's clear you will not accept the facts of what happened with Crimea is very different that is what is happening in the conflict we are about to witness in the Ukreains.
And yes Russia will, unfortunately, take Ukraine. One thing is clear to me, Putin visited Xi on Feb 2, and he did not just drop in to say hello... He garnered China's support to take Ukraine. China has already put out indications that will back Russia. SOURCE
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ch … 022-02-19/
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-co … d-the-west
WE HAVE NO CARDS TO PLAY IN THIS MESS. ZERO, unless that fool in the White House gets us involved in a war with RUSSIA!
And in my opinion --- I do not want to be at war with Russia and China. Just call me crazy..."I have asked you to provide a quote where I said, Putin is a wonderful guy or actually said anything of that nature." - The thing is Sharlee, when you defend his invasion of Crimea - that implies you agree with his decision to do so - hence the "wonderful good guy" sarcasm.
I recognize you have, based on other things your have said, that you have the proper perspective about his murderous nature. But you detract from that stance when you insist his actions regarding Crimea were legal and warranted and that he ran a free and fair election there where the People got to vote their will when the FACTS and TRUTH point in the opposite direction.
"I have offered a link in regards to the vote in Crimea to become part of Russia. Not sure why you continue to dispute that tact." - Exactly WHERE have I disputed they had a vote - you are making that part up to fit your narrative. I know they had a vote. But, unlike you, I know that vote was neither free nor fair nor LEGAL. That was and is Ukraine's territory and Putin can't hold a so-called "vote" to justify his invasion. This is a FACT YOU set aside in your opposition to America and Ukraine interests in favor of Putin's.
As to your link - it is POINTLESS since the vote was illegal to start with.
This situation is NO different from what happened in Crimea. The FACT (which you claim to hold so dear - until it is inconvenient) is that Putin invaded a sovereign nation and stole (politely that is called annexed). He also invaded the Donbas region before pulling back and leaving it in separatists hands. All that is different is Putin waited all this time to complete his mission of absorbing Ukraine into Russia.
Since you don't decry his actions, it can only be assumed you support them.
So what if he has Xi's support? Does that make what he is doing OK now?
As to Cards - clearly you know more than the leaders of all of Europe (I know you already think you are smarter than Biden). They seem to think we have plenty of "Cards".
At what costs do you not want war with Russia. What parts of the world are you willing to give up to him?I am of the opinion that any invasion of a sovereign nation should be of concern to us all, NATO membership not withstanding. Is it a territorial concession in order to satisfy a tyrant, much like the surrender of the Sudetenland to Hitler in 1938? Does anyone really know what Putin would do or would not do if pressed to the wall? Are we all so confident that this situation cannot escalate out of control? I don't think we or our allies are really ready to put the necessary skin in the game to deter Putin from his plans for the Ukraine.
But my problem is this, what was our justification to invade Iraq in 2003, was it any more credible when seen from the outside?
For international diplomacy to have any meaning we all have to subscribe to same expectations and standards.Iraq justification? - there was none. It was all concocted by the Bush administration through various forms of lying.
Bush was correct in what he did up to the invasion. He should have maintained the pressure he applied, left it at that, and maintained his focus on Afghanistan and al Qaeda. The invasion was a huge mistake for both Iraq AND Afghanistan.
That said, Ukraine is not a threat to the world - Hussain was. That is a big difference.We will be correct in what we do to deter aggression from Russia regarding the Ukraine, everything short of troop commitments.
I did not see Hussain as a global threat, more just a third rate power with a tyrant at its head. Iran was/is far more menancing. Like you said, the real threat was missed. Do you think that Putin would be emboldened by the example of America invading a nation on the other side of the world?
I would ask if I were Putin, if America can pursue its interests through invasion on the other side of the globe, why can't I pursue my interests and do so regarding an adjacent neighbor?Indeed.
Russia has allies, those nations we have alienated or are currently hostile to, China being one of them, even if Washington hasn't come around yet to accepting that fact.
This determination to undermine Russia and push right up to its borders. This consistent effort especially by the US to paint Russians as the bad guys and Putin as an unhinged warmonger. Has pushed Russia and China (and smaller players like Iran and Syria) into one another's arms.You are right, I don't see Hussein as a "global" threat. Unlike the story Bush wanted to believe, he would not support al Qaeda. He also wouldn't support Hezbollah who are funded by Iran.
What he was, besides committing genocide within his own borders, is a threat to the stability to the Middle East - he invaded Kuwait once and wanted to do it again. Before that, he invaded Iran. He was very disruptive in the gulf and even took shots at American warships there.
He needed to be, and deserved to be squashed - neutralized. But invading Iraq was never the right way to do it.
No, I think Putin would be emboldened to do what he is doing because, as someone else said here, America seems to get our nose bloodied whenever we get too adventurous. It is mostly due to incompetent political and sometimes military leadership which often leads to loss of public will.
Vietnam, in my estimation, was a combination of all three. Iraq failure was political. Afghanistan was mostly political with a dash of military. Yes, the people got tired of it (especially BIden apparently) once they figured out the political leadership from Bush to Trump didn't have a clue as to what they were doing.
This is what I have stressed in these comments.
First, try to understand the opposition's perspective.
I am not so well adapted to do so with more intrinsic social issues as I am with geopolitics and historical relevance in regards to such issues as this.
The American position is absolutely uncompromising and unconditional, much like Esoteric's position seen throughout this thread.
Lets go back to where this really started...
With the overthrow of the official, legally and freely elected government of Ukraine, which was supplanted by hand picked leaders chosen by representatives of America/EU/IMF.
That overthrow was funded (if not directed) by certain parties outside the Ukraine.
What caused that?
The pivot of Ukraine leadership from the West and to Russia, which promised Ukraine billions in support, much lower natural gas prices, a trade agreement, etc.
Ukraine leadership was able to get funding and support from Russia that the various entities (IMF, EU) refused to give it.
Fast forward to today, the current Ukrainian leader is full of bluster and demanding Crimea back, demanding entry into NATO, etc.
I mean seriously, the former puppet they supported in Georgia to help them turn it pro-West (which failed) they had Ukraine appoint to run the Odesa region for them, Mikheil Saakashvili.
The West does not want to recognize the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. It does not want to give Russia any guarantees about NATO. And it spends billions on arming Ukraine and paying for anti-Russian propaganda within Ukraine.
But we want peace....
I had some time to take a deep dive into policy, history, etc.
So to answer that question directly.
1. Too bad, they can't.
Ukraine is NOT of vital strategic interest to America.
Ukraine is of vital strategic interest to Russia.
America has it's Monroe Doctrine, Putin and Russia has said there will be no NATO allowed in Ukraine or Georgia.
Which leads us to 2.
2. Putin has the RIGHT of THOUSANDS of Nuclear Missiles aimed at America and an ARMY on the doorstep of Ukraine.
That is all the RIGHT he needs.
Why do we stay out of Mongolia, out of North Korea?
The same reasons apply to Ukraine."2. Putin has the RIGHT of THOUSANDS of Nuclear Missiles aimed at America and an ARMY on the doorstep of Ukraine." - And that says it all about where Ken is coming from Sharlee. I hope you join me and bidding this Russian agent/sympathizer good-bye. (Actually, I'll drop the "agent" part as they wouldn't be so dumb to use that as propaganda.)
Yeah... having common sense and wanting to avoid WWIII makes me a Russian Agent.
Your position is the exact same as if you were Russia or China trying to incorporate Canada or Mexico and put troops and missiles there.
You are essentially advocating that America should do nothing if Canada decided to join in an alliance with China and allow troops, missiles, bases, etc. be placed all along our border.
The warmonger is not Putin... you however seem all for it.
Everybody knows you are by your pro-Russian comments: 1) part of the SGU, 2) an American communist, or 3) a Russian sympathizer.
"Case belli? Britain does not recognize Voronezh and Rostov to be part of Russia" - Your source looks like it is Russian. Besides, it provides no context. Also, what does that have to do with the fact that murdering Putin doesn't want the Ukraine to be a sovereign nation and is will to invade to stop it?
You aren't into conspiracies? You could have fooled me by asserting that murdering Putin is the good guy here.https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/kr … 022-02-11/
As is written in the article above: .. west doesn´t understand ukraine conflict ..
That is why this anecdote is so important.
And as i said before. There is no good or evil in politics.
Murdering Putin? I don´t dispute that there is always blood on the hands of political leaders. But i am not sure who has more deaths on his conscience: Putin or the drohne wars of Obama or Trump or Biden?Sense you didn't back up your source with facts, I must presume it was untrue Russian propaganda.
Clearly Putin does, since neither Obama nor Biden has murdered innocents. For example, Biden's latest target (which didn't use a drone by the way) was responsible for killing his own kids.
You notice I left out defending Trump. I will, but only to this respect - as far as I know, Trump has not ordered a hit on anyone. Having said that, his stupid, dangerous policies HAVE led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans and hundreds of Kurds and wanna-be American immigrants.
Since you disapprove of our drone strikes, does that mean you favor having left their terrorist targets alive to kill some more?
"There is no good or evil in politics." - Of course there is! Politics is solely a function of the actions of humans and humans (take Trump and Hitler for example) can obviously be evil....Since you disapprove of our drone strikes, does that mean you favor having left their terrorist targets alive to kill some more?...
There are terrorists and state terrorists. Where is the difference? Both are bad.
As your compass is biased, i recommend that you relate all information to what you personally whitnessed, directly or indirectly.
A little anecdote: In 2016 i rented an appartment to a kurd refugee. My young tennant was the only one of his large family to make it to safe grounds in Europe. I asked where he was from and what had happened? His answer: all houses in our town were destroyed by airstrikes. I asked: Who did it? His answer: US bombers.
I sold the appartment in 2019. The young refugee had found education, profession, job in G. He was lucky. But how much harm is done in the name of western values?
Don´t you think the unreflective dealing of the USA with foreign countries inflicts more damage than just leaving them alone for the good or the worse of their fate?Yes, countries like Iran are state terrorists and terrorists like the insurrectionists on Jan 6. Both are very bad
Did you check out your tenet's story or just take it as gospel even though his story is very counter-intuitive? Where are allies, the Kurds, the targets as your anecdote wants to unfairly imply or was it ISIS? Are you in favor of ISIS?
BTW, in no way do I try to absolve America from the many wrongs it has done to its own and others. I just make sure my ire and comments are fairly directed and not biased by a hate of everything American.BTW - you deflected from this question - "...Since you disapprove of our drone strikes, does that mean you favor having left their terrorist targets alive to kill some more?..."
You have a valid point, but you might ask yourself who has the better fate - people of North Korea or South Korea. Would the people of Kuwait be better off had we not intervened when Iraq invaded there?
This is not the same thing.
For one, did you know that Crimea voted overwhelmingly, by over 95% to secede from the Ukraine and rejoin Russia?
Is that not Democracy, is that not the will of the people?
Did you know the history of Crimea, which was always part of Russia from 1783, when the Tsarist Empire annexed it until 1954, when the Soviet government transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federation of Socialist Republics (RSFSR) to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (UkrSSR)... and then they were all still part of the USSR.
Ukraine was part of the Russian empire for centuries, and was also part of the USSR. It became independent in 1991, when the Soviet Union dissolved after the Cold War.
HALF of Ukraine identifies with Russia over Ukraine, HALF of Ukraine fears the other half and believes they will suffer a horrible fate should Russia fail to protect them.
Before formulating an opinion on what has occurred and is occurring in the Ukraine, people should LEARN about the facts, the history of Ukraine.You need to get your facts correct before embarrassing yourself.
wilderness, i live in a country that was divided as Korea is now. Of course South Koreans are much better off, while there is famine in North Korea. At least that is what i get from news media. I think the question is not who has the better fate but why.
Obvious answer could be that the capitalist system is better, that democracy is better. But then look at Koreans neighbour China. Not a democracy, not fully capitalist, but managing to let the vast majority of their people thrive. Answers are not always simple and obvious.
Concerning Kuwait: Yes Saddam Hussein did invade. He misinterpreted his options and got rightfully punished. That was 30 years ago and Bush sen. had the insight to just "compliment Iraqi troups back to their home turf". Bush sen. knew that a power vacuum would destabilize the region even further.
His son did not have this insight. We all know and suffer from the consequences today. This is how nasty organisations like ISIS came into play.
Saddam Hussein was a crook, call him murderer, whatever. But under his regime the major cause of death was heart attack, as in most countries on our planet. This has changed since 2003.
In todays conflicts, who of our political leaders is thinking beyond the next step? Who does something like Bush sen. did in Iraq? I don´t see anyone in the west - and that is my main concern.
Did you read your Reuters article where "Britain dismissed the comments as propaganda and said Truss had simply misheard Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during a meeting."
If you are familiar with how medium and high level negotiations go, then you will know that there is no such thing as "misheard".
Call it propaganda or whatsoever, the Russians (Putin, Lavrov) only got confirmed how lightweight British foreign policy is on Ukraine.I like your ability to see through the BS. Not too many can.
Probably as much as you are - unless you have actually participated in them? If you have, please be specific in your bona fides
I do call it propaganda because that is what it was - Russian lies (unless you can PROVE differently)...I do call it propaganda because that is what it was - Russian lies (unless you can PROVE differently)...
What lie? It was admitted by the British delegation. With the excuse "misheard" they admitted that it happened. And i already said what to think of this kind of excuse.
In the press conference afterwards you could see Lavrov chuckle. Must have been a "very entertaining" meeting for the Russians, nevertheless totally void. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdbywq9tVwM
What is it about (modern) tanks not going through the mud? That was 80 years ago with Unternehmen Barbarossa - but today? What have they been talking about? Is this what we should expect from our political leaders?Siggghhhh. Twist and turn. "Misheard" does not imply they didn't know those two places don't belong to Russia. What you just engaged in is called disinformation. Fancy this - "misheard" implies they didn't understand what was said. Maybe the Russians were purposefully vague to cause this kind of situation. I wouldn't put it past them.
oh gawwwd, now bona fides are required. I guess that leaves me out. *sigh
GA
More nations leave Ukraine ahead of the Russian invasion.
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/uk … index.htmlThe only place that doesn't know they are on the brink of war (besides a couple of commentators here) is Moscow.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/12/europe/r … index.html
Boy are they going to be surprised when the body bags start turning up.CNN... what garbage. People I know ignore CNN and understand it to be ignorant tripe:
CNN president Jeff Zucker abruptly resigns
CNN fires anchor Chris Cuomo
CNN fires ex-Cuomo producer accused of Pedophilia
Jeffrey Toobin back on CNN after masturbation scandal
CNN Caught Lying (Again); Gets Legal Notice From Angry DEMOCRAT Politician
Charlie Chester, one of CNN‘s technical directors, was caught on tape admitting that the news network “got Trump out” by spreading lies and disinformation about his presidency.
Among other deceptions aimed at steering the public into panic and unrest, CNN told its viewers to be afraid of President Trump.
Chester stated that he “100 percent believes that if it wasn’t for CNN, I don’t know that Trump would have got voted out.”
“I came to CNN because I wanted to be part of that,” he added, further revealing that the news network engaged in propaganda to “create a story” about Trump versus Biden.
“[Trump’s] hand was shaking or whatever, I think,” Chester stated. “We brought in so many medical people to tell a story that was all speculation – that he was neurologically damaged, and he was losing it.”
“He’s unfit to – you know, whatever,” he added. “We were creating a story there that we didn’t know anything about.”
BREAKING: CNN Caught in HUGE Lie
CNN ran with the false claim that the Wisconsin massacre driver had been in a knife fight and was fleeing police. This, as the Police Chief said today in a press conference, was disinformation.
Darrell Brooks Jr. shared a series of disturbing memes and messages on social media, most of which have since been deleted since his arrest, about his intent to kill.
CNN caught red-handed fabricating fake news, fake sources… Watergate legend Carl Bernstein complicit… refuses to retract news HOAXThat means people you know don't care about the TRUTH.
And all of that garbage you listed are either lies, incomplete, out of context, misinformation, disinformation, false. I am guessing you are Qanan-type as well.Actually the people I know are well informed about the truth.
On occasion I try to disseminate some of that here, to counter the lies and misinformation I see.
Lets deal with some basic "truths" regarding this issue, shall we?
Russia (Putin) will never allow any country to make it a victim of such a situation as a world war, condemning its citizens to suffer tens of millions of deaths. But that isn't to say "the West" won't try to force him into it.
The people of the United States do not have the slightest idea of what it means to lose millions of fellow citizens in an armed conflict. Americans have never fought or seen the devastation of a domestic war save for their own internal conflict (the Civil War)... unfortunately there is no one alive to remember those horrors, or for that matter precious few that even remember WWII.
Because of the ignorance Americans have in this regard we do not hold our government accountable for its decades of warmongering and nation toppling. And unfortunately most Americans are woefully ignorant of just how capable Russia is of destroying us if pushed to that.
The principle that those launching a nuclear attack should expect a symmetrical response, still stands, despite the rhetoric one might hear in American MSM news, Russia is very capable of reigning destruction on Europe and America... they have rebuilt their missile and other technological capabilities to be on par with anyone.
So, one wonders for what reason NATO & America would want to trigger such a cataclysm?
What wealth prospects could the oligarchs of Wall Street and the City of London ever have once their main partners (Europeans, Americans, Russians, Chinese) are reduced to ashes?
The real industrial profit for the military industrial complex, working hand in glove with Wall Street and London, stems from the preparation for war and engaging in controllable conflicts against lesser foes (Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan).
I doubt anyone at Raytheon or Boeing would derive higher profits from a nuclear exchange with tens of millions of deaths, least of all because those who finance them (citizens paying taxes) would themselves be reduced to ashes.
Russia’s behavior in Libya, Syria and now the Ukraine leave little doubt that Moscow's involvement in international affairs has increased exponentially in recent years.
But it is always carried out in a proportionate way, accompanied by unceasing diplomatic overtures to Europe and the United States. The carrot and stick always feature prominently in Putin’s global vision of the foreign affairs for Russia.
Esoteric would paint him as a madman, he is far more rational and capable than our own President who in his best day was no match for Putin, unfortunately Biden is far from whatever best days he had.
The engine of the conflicts America has instigated these past decades are money and power. A nuclear war would lead to the exact opposite: poverty, famine and a general absence (for the remnant of the world's population) of any form of power. A nuclear war would mean the end of civilization as we know it, would mark the end of the financial profits, war, industry, energy, banking and other sectors of the global economy.
It is not the calculating Putin I fear of putting us in harms way of Nuclear war, it is the arrogance within the Pentagon, the misinformation put out by our MSM, and a President in clear cognitive decline that concerns me.... It is not the calculating Putin I fear of putting us in harms way of Nuclear war, it is the arrogance within the Pentagon, the misinformation put out by our MSM, and a President in clear cognitive decline that concerns me....
Fair assessment, well said.
Do you think that Putin is so eager to take over Ukraine that he won't even wait until the Olympics are over and will embarrass his neighbor in aggression China?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/13/politics … index.html
You do know what will happen if Putin is successful don't you? China will invade Taiwan (which I suspect you support in any case).I think the regular contributors to the very interesting discussion will have to agree to differ. It's clear that there are two opposing viewpoints that simply can't be reconciled.
I doubt that this will end in war, the main players have too much to lose. I do hope I'm not looking at this through rose-tinted spectacles. I'm perfectly aware that common sense has played a small role in diplomacy but surely to God no one is going to push us over the brink.One must hope Putin won't go there for sure, but those he is aggressing against must be prepared to act in the event his desire for conquest overrules his common sense.
I sure as hell would like to know what arms the West has shipped Ukraine recently to help it protect itself from Putin.
Although I haven't read it directly, I wonder if the "training" exercises in Belarus are what our intelligence is thinking Putin will use as the launching point for his attack. Unlike the mass of troops sitting on the eastern and southern borders of Ukraine, those to their north are actively maneuvering in hopefully "mock" war.Good insight.
Unfortunately Ukraine is literally separated into two competing halves.
The Eastern half is primarily Russian speaking and pro-Russian.
The Western half is a remnant of what was once pro-Nazi and currently pro-Western and non-Russian speaking.
The Western media wants to paint what occurred in Crimea as an occupation. But the people of Crimea overwhelmingly voted to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia.
The separatists in the southeastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk are less certain and contested.
Trump’s first impeachment was triggered by his suspension of military aid and arms exports to Kyiv.
Biden on the other hand has sent weapons and advisors to the Ukraine and under his Administration it appears they are attempting to instigate an event to escalate the crisis.
Ukraine being a satellite state of Russia makes it far more important to Russia for economic and security reasons than it ever could be to American interests.
The Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC) united several ex-Soviet republics, Putin had desperately sought Ukraine’s membership in this Moscow-dominated free-trade bloc which launched in 2000.
With a population of 43 million and a strong agricultural and industrial output, Ukraine was supposed to be the most essential part of the EAEC after Russia, but right when Ukraine leaders agreed to join, the overthrow of the elected government began and was eventually replaced by a pro-western temporary new gpvernment through violence and murder.
World prices for grain and steel, Ukraine’s main exports, skyrocket, and Ukrainian companies and labor migrants find new ways to the West, the time for consolidation into the EAEC seems to have passed.
There could be a multitude of ploys Putin is trying to attempt, as well, there could be any number of machinations that the US is now attempting and Russia's presence along the Ukraine could very well be in preparation of that.
Hard to trust America's motives after Iraq... Libya... Syria... and how with each whatever tragic event or horrible threat it needed to feed to the MSM to instigate/justify conflict... was later exposed as false.
Win or lose, Ukrainians are going to give murdering Putin a black-eye.
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine … t-defense/
And is murdering Putin's will starting to crumble a little bit?
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/uk … a802fc6b4eThe major empires of the world like the Ottoman Empire, the Mughal Empire, the Roman empire lasted hundreds of years but unfortunately because of American foolishness and superiority complex it will last less than hundred years. I expect everything to be over by 2030.
May i draw your attention to an article worthwhile to read from emge:
https://discover.hubpages.com/politics/ … o-invasion
Imho the articles summarizes accurately the political landscape. The Ukraine conflict is only one tile.
Cooperation Russia China:
May i add that in my active time not so long ago i was involved in joint industrial projects between China and Russia. I could sense that the Russian side was not very comfortable with China. China´s superiority in financing and organisation made the Russian side look like junior partners from the very beginning.
It is beyond my comprehension why the USA and the "West" in general have not teamed up with Russia. This alliance would be the only heavyweight counterbalance to the rising giant. But that is just my thought.If you cannot comprehend why the USA and the "West" have not teamed up with Russia then you fail to recognize what has driven American foriegn policy and actions since WWII.
The Military Industrial Complex.
Without an enemy to scare Europeans with, how do you convince all those nations to purchase billions, if not trillions, of dollars worth of military equipment?
But specific to the Ukraine, this is worth the watch "The Causes and Consequences of the Ukraine Crisis":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4You are right. The industrial military complex, as you put it, has always dealt the cards. Wasn´t that called "Halliburtonomics" during the Bush/Rumsfeld era? Almost forgot about this.
I always had the impression that every 10 years, when expiration date in the stock piles for ammunition was coming to an end, a new hot conflict had to be kicked off.
Kind of sarcastic, but i lost my political virginity in the early 80ties, when i personally whitnessed how Nato stock (tanks and ammunition) was shipped from a hidden Italian habour over to Libya. All under supervision of an American officer. Totally disturbing because at that time the USA and Libya had frequent dogfights and kills in the skies over the Mediterranian.
"It is beyond my comprehension why the USA and the "West" in general have not teamed up with Russia. " - [i]I will give you two reasons. 1) Putin and 2) Bush-Clinton. The first reason is obvious. Obama and Biden both indicated to him we would prefer friendlier relations but he rejected them. The second reason is that IMO, Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton both blew through wonderful opportunities to make Russia a partner rather than an enemy. Effectively, once we won the cold war, we gave them the COLD shoulder (yeah, pun intended). Where was the help we gave Japan to recover after nuking them? Where was the help we gave Germany and the rest of Europe after defeating Hitler?
I worked for the Dept of the Air Force and DoD back then so world affairs was front and center in my life. It was patently obvious America was screwing up big time in its relationship with Russia - and we are paying the price today for that, what, hubris.
I am glad President Clinton was president for economic reasons and the fact that he wasn't one of those soon to be Trump Republicans who want to destroy America, but he sure did blow it on two fronts - relations with Russia and (yes, I know I said economic) for is part in tearing down the regulatory wall between banks and other financial institutions (I found in my research on my book on the subject, little or no financial regulation is one of the five pillars necessary for big recessions)I'll be damned...
I had to re-read that twice...
You have put forth something I 100% agree with and in fact this is part of what I have been trying to relay in my commentary throughout this thread.
The reason why we are where we are today has everything to do with OUR OWN decisions, how we treated Russia, how we violated and warred against Russia's allies (Syria, Iraq, etc.) how we made encouraging remarks in the mid 00s toward Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO and "the West" knowing full well Russia (Putin and others) said they would not accept those border nations becoming NATO.... to Russia...Where was the help we gave Japan to recover after nuking them? Where was the help we gave Germany and the rest of Europe after defeating Hitler? ....
This was 30 years ago. At that time China was not considered a real threat. And Russia was easy prey for humiliation, easy turf to exploit resources, but nothing more.
There is some behavior we should know from stone age on: Two tribes fight each other (for whatever reason, territory, resources, food, ...) until - until a third tribe shows up. Then two tribe may cooperate to fight the third tribe.
30 years ago there was no third tribe in sight. China was still fully occupied with restructuring (the Deng Xiaoping stuff).Basics, always look to the basics first. Your point about the stone age is the most basic point: human nature, of all. The "tribes" thought is spot on. I think the current discussion should include it in all considerations.
Consider our current level of society; from the stone age level of security concerns to our modern level of security concerns. Then look at that scale as an onion, (humans are the onion). Each layer is a layer of our security. From the core of a caveman finding food & shelter, to our current outer layer where the concern is instant gratification, (of whatever ambition is discussed).
Start peeling away those layers and we get closer to our inner, but still very real, caveman. Apply that analogy to Putin and our current situation, toss in all the emotional tangents, (national pride, national fear, etc.), and you have support for your, (and Ken's), perspective. The actions of the West have bored their way through more than a few layers of Russia's, (meaning Putin), security.
One thought makes me comfortable with holding that perspective. I understand that an attack on a NATO nation will require a U.S., (along with all member nations), military response. I do not believe Putin wants a direct conflict with us, it would be WW III. So I don't think he will invade a NATO nation.
I think our current administration positions are, (mostly), wrongheaded public pablum.
But hey, what do I know, I'm just some guy on the 'net.
GALet's take " So I don't think he will invade a NATO nation." with "I think our current administration positions are, (mostly), wrongheaded public pablum."
What conclusion should I draw about your perspective of Putin taking over whoever he wants so long it isn't a NATO nation. I know the one I want to draw is that it is of no nevermind to you if Putin completes his expansion plans throughout the rest of the world. Why should I not draw that conclusion?You should not draw that conclusion because you are smarter than that, at least relative to my `partisan' positions. Relative to the perspective at issue, I am not so sure your bias hasn't affected your objectivity.
I do believe the two quoted statements. I think they are supportable. Your assumptions are not just wrong they are baloney. They reek of an `America, love it or leave it' position that in other circumstances I can imagine you denigrating as something coming from one of America's `deplorables'. Even if I charitably described it as a `My country, right or wrong' inference it is still baloney.
I didn't say it was okay for Putin to take over any non-Nato nation he wanted. That is what you read because that is what you wanted and expected to read, (I bet an apology that you won't find support for the basis of your assumption in anything I have written in this thread), not what was actually written.
GAIn one sentence you imply Putin is not the problem, that he is the victim in all of this and that at best he is bluffing and that he has no ill-intentions by threatening Ukraine
In the second sentence, you call America and the West's response to Putin's aggression "pablum"; If that doesn't mean what I think it clearly implies, which I articulated, what does it really mean? That the West is just fabricating the 150,000 troops Putin has amassed on Ukraine's border in order to bend him to his will - that they don't actually exist? If you do agree they are there, what are they there for.
I learned something new today as well. Unlike the claims of the pro-Russian propagandists on this forum (you haven't exhibited that, btw) that the West drove Putin to amass his attack army, it was actually President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
He called a summit to protest Putin's invasion in the Crimea to draw attention to Putin's aggressions. Shortly thereafter, Putin started moving troops to the border.
https://www.euronews.com/2021/08/23/cri … mea-summit
"I didn't say it was okay for Putin to take over any non-Nato nation he wanted. " - Of course you didn't "say" that, but you implied it. Same differenceBrussels reaffirmed its "unwavering" support for Ukraine over Crimea as President Volodymyr Zelenskyy vowed to do “everything possible” to get back control of the peninsula so that Ukraine “becomes part of Europe”.
"I am here to reaffirm the EU's unwavering stance: we do not and will not recognize the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol by Russia," European Council President Charles Michel said during a speech at the first International Crimea Platform Summit.
Well thank you, you have brought forward the last piece of the puzzle.
Now we know why Russia has reacted the way it has.
8 years ago Crimea seceded from Ukraine.
8 years Crimea has again been part of Russia (Crimea's long history was Russian, for centuries).
And now Ukraine and the EU want to say... hell no, we don't and never will accept that.
SMH... I know the EU is run by arrogant egotistical priks, but I didn't know they were so totally stupid.
March 18, 2014
MOSCOW
A signing ceremony Tuesday between Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Prime Minister of Crimea and the mayor of the city of Sevastopol made it official, the Kremlin said in a statement.
Crimea and Sevastopol, where the Russian Black Sea fleet is based, are now part of the Russian Federation, it said.First, to your last. I didn't intend that implication. Looking back, I read my comments as consistently speaking to whether Putin would invade a NATO nation. I never intended any `could or should' inferences just because I didn't continue to say anything about whether he should or could invade any nation.
A simple explanation for my position:
Prior to this topic, the only thing I knew about Putin was whatever the media or government had said. And that, without the more descriptive adjectives, is that he was a dangerous authoritarian leader of a powerful but struggling nation.
I haven't intended my comments to be about who was a victim or aggressor, I have simply given my perception of the facts and explanations in the chronology of the contrarian view, (as in contrary to assumptions of the current public perception).
When I looked at that chronology, its claims and explanations seemed supported. The logic seemed right. Even more convincing, for me, was to consider the same real current events and the events presented in that Contrarian view from the perspective of replacing Putin/Russia with our President/America.
Events in our modern history show that we would, and did, react the same way Putin is now. Instead of thinking that mentioning the Cuban missile crisis, et al. is a tired misdirection, think of our position then, facing a perceived national threat, and consider Russia/Putin's position now. I don't see that they are different. Except that, with us, it was the good guys standing tall and defending our nation, but with Putin, it is the bad guy aiming to dominate Europe.
And so on. I hope you get the idea. Try this, Take a look at Prof. Mearschriemer's lecture: The Causes and Consequences of the Ukraine Crisis Be ready, the subtitle is; Why is the Ukraine the West's fault. It's worth the time.
Then, let's talk about what you disagree with in the lecture. For instance, the contrarians say that until 2007 Putin didn't make any aggressive moves. Is that right? I only took a quick look and it does seem right. Maybe you will see otherwise.?
Then there is the `explanation' that it wasn't until 2007-8 that Putin became aggressive. Why? Historical events support the claim that it was the expansion of NATO to encircle Russia's border that put Putin on this current road. I think that to consider this fairly it is impossible not to bring the analogy of our Cuban missile crisis. Maybe you will see that differently also.
Anyway, I'll stop. Give it a shot Scott. I don't think you can reasonably dismiss that contrarian view. I couldn't, it made too much sense. But if you still feel it is all propaganda I'd like to hear why. I am still worried that that Professional Russian propagandist Pozner was too good and sold me on a bunch of stuff in the 2-hour `talk' that Chris57 offered: Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin
GAAmerica is obviously not without its sordid history, that is for sure. We go from good to bad and back to good again depending on who the President and Congress were at the time. We have invaded countries without cause (Spain, Mexico, Iraq). We committed genocide against Native Americans. We enclaved people for 150 years and semi-enslaved them for another 100; I feel a disturbing number of Americans would do so again if given the chance and if the right demagogue came along (if the recent rise in racism is any gauge).
We have made and are again making a laughingstock (as the current Conservative Court keeps nudging us back to 1890) out of the meaning behind our Declaration of Independence because that was what was needed to form this great nation. I don't deny any of that.
But THIS is what sets us apart from people like Putin and his ilk - we keep trying to do better as a nation. We believe in and continue to strive for the ideals contained in the Declaration of Independence.
America would be so much better if people like Aron Burr, Andrew Jackson, Jefferson Davis, Andrew Johnson, George Wallace, Donald Trump, Roger Taney, William Rehnquist, and a host of others had stayed out of politics. But they didn't and we have to live with their terrible legacies.
But to counter those mistakes, we have George Washington (slave-holder not withstanding), James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, John Marshall, Earl Warren, and another host of others that did there best to keep America progressing to the ideals that Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston penned in our Declaration.
Only at our worst, did we act as what comes naturally to Vladimir Putin. We did it when we made war on Spain, Mexico, and Iraq. But, because we did it then, doesn't make it OK for Putin to do it now. People seem to forget, Putin is what none of our presidents have been - a violent, murdering dictator that rules his country by force of arms and fear. That carries over into his foreign policy. America has nothing to do with him being that way - yet people like Ken seem to think we do.
Why was NATO created in the first place? To counter the threat posed by Soviet Union when they made no bones about wanting to defeat the West. Why have people forgotten that? Putin is just a modern version of Khrushchev with the same goals and desires - yet his sympathizers think he is some sort of George Washington.
At NO time in history has NATO threatened Russia (other than not submitting to its domination). And that includes NOW. Not once has NATO amassed 150,000 troops on the Belarus' border threatening to take it over - yet Putin has effectively made that country a satellite again (which the Belarusian people obviously hate). Nor has NATO ever put masses of troops into the Baltic States threatening to invade Russia proper. The West has done none of those things - it has simply tried to defend itself from Russian aggression.
But what has Putin done. He invaded Georgia. He invaded Moldova. He invaded Ukraine. He is set to invade Ukraine again. Please don't tell me he is not the threat here.
Russia-Putin, will go to almost any lengths to prevent any more of the former Soviet Republics from escaping its clutches. Over the last 20 years, Putin, or his surrogates, have interfered in the domestic politics of at least 24 nations - including the United States. Part of the current division within the United States today is a result of Putin's cyberwar with America.
He has cyberassaulted the Baltic States, the United States, many nations in Europe, Ukraine and anybody else he thinks will help expand his power. Yet sympathizers like Ken blithely brushes that off, says none of that is true and is just the West's disinformation campaign against innocent Putin, and blames America for it all.
BTW, how much of what Pozner said were the type of lies Mearsheimer spoke about?
Having Contrarian views is fine, so long as they are based on the truth.
For example, I can say slavery is bad. The contrarian often said (until it became politically unacceptable) that slavery is good, that the blacks liked being enslaved. I even had a guy I unfortunately hired tell me that a couple of years ago!
Another example, I can say giving women the right to vote is good. The contrarian (including many women) said it was bad and gave many reasons why including women were too stupid to make such choices.
When contrarianism is based on such foolishness, That is illegitimate in my view (as is supporting Putin's view of the world).
On the other hand, I say Build Back Better is a good thing and give my reasons. The contrarian (such as Manchin in this case) says it is bad, at least right now, and gives his reasons. That is legitimate, in my view.
Contrarianism has its place and is often beneficial (because it turns out to be right). But, it can also be very dangerous when it is used as deception.
Well, this did its job. I couldn't sleep and came out to write about inflation, but found this instead. Now I am sleepy again.Wow... America has literally been a wrecking ball of the Middle East these past 30 years.
We have instigated and intimidated Russia wherever we could, from moving US troops right onto it's doorstep, to supporting with billions of dollars anti-Russian politicians in the Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, etc.
We did this of course so we could sell trillions of dollars of military equipment to the new NATO nations and to Middle East nations like Saudi Arabia.
Not to mention spending trillions over the 20+ years in Afghanistan and Iraq, just to walk away from those nations and leave them to their fate.
Did you ever stop to consider that your support of such intrigues and interference is why there have been hundreds of thousands of deaths and tens of millions of lives displaced and disrupted?
You say Russia is a threat because it interferes with former USSR states at its borders ... What about our interference throughout South and Central America?
What about what we have done throughout the Middle East?
So America has the right to dictate to the rest of the world and destroy whatever nation it so chooses... But Russia has no right to protect its own interests and its own allies?
This is why there will be war with Russia, because views like yours dominate within DC.I'm gonna let this one go. Although it is not my intention, it seems you read every explanation as a defense of Putin. I thought I was clear, from the start of this exchange, that I was not defending him, I was just trying to understand the "why."
Whether the contrarian view is truthful or not will have to be something I discover. Right now, based on what I know*, that view makes logical sense. Maybe all those points I accepted are like a string of tiny islands of truth surrounded by an ocean of more truths that outweigh the anomalous ones I agree with. *shrug
*The bar of how little I know has already been set.
GA
Oh, and another thing.
" think of our position then, facing a perceived national threat, and consider Russia/Putin's position now. I don't see that they are different. " - [i]1) Khrushchev WAS putting nukes on Cuba. Where are we doing a similar thing today relative to Russia? Are we deploying more nukes to Europe? (We have actually decreased the number) Is that why he is massing so many troops on Ukraine's border?
2) there are two kinds of "perception", one based on reality and the other not based on reality. Putin's perception is like this analogy. Assume I am blind and can't see the moon at night. My perception is there is no moon at all (and I will get Pozner to help give credibility to my perception, lol) . Worse, I am willing to go to war over that "perception". Will you give my perceived unreality the same benefit you appear to be giving Putin perceived unreality?
"This was 30 years ago" - So what? That is another thing I have learned about Conservatives - they don't want to learn from history - they just want to keep repeating the same mistakes.
If Trump and Trump Republicans remain in the picture, you may be correct.
One bright spot which may bring down Trump is his accounting firm Mazar just announced it can no longer act as Trump's accountant and told the WORLD not to trust the last 10 years of financial returns. I bet that went over well with the banks he owes billions of dollars to.
Russian withdrawing Troops? Yeah, I don't believe it either. Maybe a head fake for tomorrows possible invasion.
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/uk … 35bbc51892Perhaps Putin is open to a last-ditch effort to diplomacy, and opening talks with NATO.
NATO exists to deter Russia.
Article 5 guarantees that all NATO members will come to the aid of any member that is attacked.
Based on "the West" POV Russia is currently occupying (attacking) Ukraine, because we do not recognize Crimea's secession.
So an invitation to Ukraine to join NATO automatically is a decision to go to war. It seems we want to go to war with Russia, and have been pushing this matter for a couple decades now. If we didn't, we wouldn't be meddling in Ukraine with such insistence.
I don't trust Putin. But, he is no dummy. Inspite of that, even he may recognize that his reach may well have exceeded his grasp this time. Regardless of the appearance of Putin's withdrawal, it has been at least a light at the end of the tunnel. Presenting a United international front against aggression in the region has to have given Putin a taste of Western resolve. If this happens, it will be a win for Biden on the international scene. Very much reminiscent of the prudent judgement and leadership demonstrated by John Kennedy, carefully extracting the world from the precipice we were on in October, 1962.
If we can come away the brink, then let's sit down with Putin and find areas where we can compromise so he does not have to lose face in totality. A win/lose attitude tends to create a level of brooding vindictiveness that we need to avoid.I think while that is a pragmatic and reasonable view, that does not really do the situation justice.
This is not a new matter, it has been going on now for almost 20 years and is not isolated to the Ukraine (see Georgia).
If you put yourself in Putin's shoes he has already offered much compromise, America/NATO just refuses to give any.
In order to understand what is possible, without war, one has to fully understand the opposing side's viewpoints.
More importantly, this desire to pursue goals set for Ukraine, Georgia, etc. 20 years ago is, to put mildly, insane.
We have just forced Russia into bed with China. that is going to cause grave harm to "the West" interests in the future.Cred, take a look at Ken's latestt link: Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? Featuring John Mearsheimer
But first, take a look at the professor's resume:
John Mearsheimer R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science, to get an idea of his authority to speak on the topic.
He admits his perspective is a very small minority view, but it makes sense to me so I don't mind being in the same small minority.
GA
The very peace loving murdering Putin added 7,000 MORE troops to the Ukraine border. He didn't withdraw squat. Was this a "Strategic Cover-up" lie?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/16/politics … index.html
He is also building bridges in Belarus a few miles from Ukraine's border - WHY, if the "training" is over on Sunday?
I just looked at map of Russian forces and this question came to mind. It is NATO that Putin thinks is on the verge of attacking him and he has no design on Ukraine, why aren't those 150,000 pushed up against Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland?I have the impression the whole show is running out of steam.
This puts Biden into a not so favourable position. In our local newspaper there is this midly ridiculing cartoon of an intelligence guy talking to the president: " You said they were going to attack on Wednesday" - "We didn´t say which year".
And Peskov´s (the Russian version of Jen Psaki) response to Biden´s speech (hope i get it translated correctly): " It is possibly interesting that President Biden cares so much about the Russian people. But it would be more helpful if the US administration doesn´t threaten us with responses to what we may do - but what we do not intend to do. "
President Biden will have to live with it. Ukraine´s president Zelenskyy´s fate is not that secure. As a result he might get kicked down the stairs.And what would give you that impression?
I knew as soon as I heard President Biden give a date, cartoons like you describe would appear. It is natural to listen to one or words rather than the whole sentence.
And would you expect the Putin spokesperson to say anything different? Even though I like her and think she would quit rather than lie for the president, I take anything Psaki says with a raised eyebrow. I have to compare it with common sense and all the other things I know before believing it.
Kicking? Yes, Putin will do the kicking - certainly not the Ukraine people who are gearing up to protect their nation from the murdering hordes that may attack from North, East, and South. Notice, the ONLY place they can feel safe as a nation is from the West.... And would you expect the Putin spokesperson to say anything different?...
No, i wouldn´t expect anything different.
But it is not what he said, but how he said it.
All (Lavrov, Putin, Peskov) have the same smile on their face while responding to questions. They seem to have the supreme easy of people in control of a situation. You can´t say that from US or UK leaders. They appear to be pushed and driven by intelligence and media.Well, I guess I have to agree with the "intelligence" part (service and intellect).
BTW, is the only things you read of American media are the Opinion pieces? I ask, because most of our main stream media are real journalists that REPORT on the news, they don't make it. On the other hand, our Right-wing propaganda outlets (calling the media is insulting to other real media outlets) is primarily propaganda opinions with a tiny bit of real journalism thrown in to have the appearance of being objective.
To say that last part a different way, I don't see much difference between outlets like Fox, Newsmax, Brietbart etc being much different from Russia Today and Pravda (if that is even still around); the content is very similar.Ok, let me correct my wording: Intelligence agencies.
Media: It is not about what particular media outlets report, it is more about how much emphasis is put on certain news. And the difference in emphasis is quite telling. Always look at which interests are behind pushing a story.
I would be careful to compare right wing Breitbart with Russian communist party newspaper Pravda. What was written about the newspaper in 2012 at its 100 year anniversary: "Who wants to read about abuse of power and corruption in Russia will find lots of publications in the newspaper, same as 1912" (before the revolution).
There are many Europe to America as the Great Satan. I am not in favor of using this term but the fact is, it was used by Khomanei the Iranian leader and he pointed to the fact that for close to three decades the Americans supported the Shah, in all his nefarious activities which included taking dissidents in a helicopter to a height of 5000 feet and just dropping them to the earth.
America has a lot to answer why it's bungling in Afghanistan and fighting in Iraq and Vietnam do the same result of their efforts was zero. Can anybody point enlighten me any benefit of American intervention in any part of the world militarily or politically? The military-industrial complex of America can only thrive by instigating wars and then selling weapons; it's another point that every time the Americans intervened themselves, they have had to retreat. In my view, the entire system of governance in America is Moth eaten and it will not be long before the edifice collapses.Sure, I agree there are a few misguided souls in Europe. There is at least one American who writes here who seems to think the same thing. But, it doesn't mean it is true under President Biden. Under Trump, I can understand that feeling.
As to the MIC, that is very old news and not much in play any more. Just ask anyone who is wondering why America doesn't have a hypersonic missile like those great and wonderful, peace loving, democratic nations of Russia, China, and North Korea.
I understand you think the gov'ts of those three nations I just mentioned are much, much better than ours. That doesn't make it true either.
I can't find anything newer than June 2021, but I imagine it has improved even more.
Putin using disinformation (lies) as a pretext to war
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/16/europe/p … index.htmlKen, very true the days when Abraham Lincoln won the election are over. Now it is the big money that controls the elections and in that respect the elections arr definitely not fair. America is a democracy in name only where the colorbar is extreme and the Church is part of the scheme of things. In addition the entire foreign policy is controlled by the military -business complex who want to rake in money and thus leading America to a abyss of no return like Ukraine , which is thousands of miles away I would still accept all this if the Americans had the stomach to fight but defeats in Vietnam and Afghanistan does no credit to America which has been a loser all the way after 1950.
So in the simplest of terms...
In order to make it in American politics you need many millions if not billions of dollars. The amount of money needed increases with the level of office you seek.
In addition if you don't do what the Party tells you, if you don't conform, the Party will destroy you through MSM and ensure you do not have the financial backing needed.
You literally would need to be a billionaire yourself for this not to apply. If not a billionaire, you are nothing more than a puppet, forced to do what the money tells you to do, else, your career in politics soon comes to an end.Billionaire or not, if MSM refuses to accept their money, or actively fights against them, they aren't going anywhere.
Except for the "new" phenomenon of social media, which gives access to everyone. Is that why we see such efforts to censor and quiet social media? To enforce that the "desired" message, and only the desired message, gets through? A disturbing thought, as those efforts are always couched in terms of shutting down lies or other harmful messages.I agree, I think we saw this in the last election.
Where a collective effort by the primary Social Media platforms banned not only most Trump supporters/groups but also censored and finally shut down the President himself before the election.
In addition to that, the MSM campaigned against Trump for four straight years, even formerly Trump supporting Fox News became hostile toward him at the end, making it close to a unified voice.
My point stands however, in American politics today, if you do not have Billions of dollars backing you (or have billions of your own) you have no shot at being a Governor (major State), Senator (major State) or President.
So when the people only have the option of those politicians that the Billionaires and Trillion-dollar corporations choose, how free is that?
How is that representation for the people?I agree absolutely that without a pocket full of money to buy elections (hopefully through advertising not bribes) you cannot win an election - it is not "free" at all, and I don't mean free in the sense of being cheap.
But social media can change that...except that we are censoring those voices that we don't want to be heard. In elections (unimaginable that we shut down the voice of a President) as well as other concerns. I continue to see Facebook shutting down people about COVID that doesn't agree with the "official" information. Global warming. I fear that it will continue until we have nothing but state approved information available.I think social media DID change that.
And Trump was the result.
And during those next four years, the power elite learned how to change that, so that 2016 could never happen again.
1 - Blame the Russians - so that you can remove any "incorrect" info.
2 - Censor the Trump supporters or label them extremists, racists, etc.
3 - Censor the President himself as the election draws near
Which leads us to today, if you align with Trump you risk being labeled an extremist, a terrorist, and a traitor.
Social Media will never be a platform for Free Speach again, that time has passed.
Same with Search engines (IE - Google) back in 2016 if it was on the internet you could find it. Today, go ahead and try it... google information about anything you want... you will notice the absence of a lot of sources.
For example... lets take this topic: Ukraine Russia
Just those two words
Wiki
CNN
MSNBC
CNBC
AlJazeera
Were the Page One hits I got from that search
BBC
NYTimes
Reuters
businessinsider
regional newspapers
Were Page Two hits I got for that
All the same sources I saw on 1&2 for Page Three
Do you know what is Missing... opposing or differing opinions.
WSJ
RT (Russian Times)
C-Span
FP (Foreign Policy)
Interesting...
" America is a democracy in name only" - [i]Set aside the fact that America was never meant to be a pure democracy (I presume you knew that and was just loose with your terms), but a representative republic, you are claiming that NO nation is a democracy as well.
Since nothing is perfect, I suppose your claim is true - meaningless, but true.
I would agree with your last sentence as well (I fought in Vietnam, btw and I supported both actions) - America lost those. I am not sure we (or the United Nations) even won in Korea. Nevertheless, we TRIED to do the RIGHT thing in terms of our national security and the people of those nations.
The stuff in the middle is not supportable by facts.
While I agree that Money places an outsized role in winning elections, I will use AOC as just one example of where that didn't work.
Where toeing the Party line plays an outsized role in winning elections, I will use AOC again as an example of where that is not true. (BTW, I am not a fan of AOC.)
I will point out that if the Democrats had their way, money would NOT be so prevalent in politics, but Conservatives battle them every step of the way as they try to create laws to limit the power of money. And given the Conservative make-up of the Supreme Court, they will make sure money (and maybe the Church) plays a HUGE role.
Putin (well his separatists henchmen anyway) violated the ceasefire a record number of times yesterday. The Ukrainians showed evidence of that. Putin claimed the Ukrainians did the same thing but provided no proof.
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/uk … bf2d10b1deOne of the best indicators of impending Russian invasion is the separatists, without reason from the West, sending its civilians into Russia.
And because Putin put an additional 60,000 troops in attack position.
And because of this:
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/uk … affe4a57ceFrankly, if you ask me Putin must call the American blast and invade Ukraine full blast. I want to see how much of guts Mr. Biden has got to go to war with Russia over an inconsequential country like Ukraine. Does he think France and Germany will support him? Probably he's only support will be England and I have already quoted Nikita Khruschev on this.
Russia/Putin has been given no choice by the West.
The West (America/UK) will not be happy until they have incorporated the Ukraine and Georgia into their influence and neutered Russia, turning it into a "banana republic" that is used for its vast wealth of resources (much the way China uses Iran today).
Russia will not concede Crimea back to Ukraine and will not allow Ukraine or Georgia to enter into NATO.
There was only one way to avoid war... acknowledge Crimea's right to secede from the Ukraine (tell Ukraine to put a sock in it and deal with it) and give Russia a full blown promise in writing and on camera that the Ukraine and Georgia will never be accepted into NATO.
Now if you WANT war, you use billions of dollars to put an arrogant pro-west prick in control of Ukraine and spend billions more building up Ukraine's Army and convincing Ukrainians that they can defend themselves and that what they want is to be part of NATO.
The State (Ukraine government) has been particularly tough on shutting down opposition and especially any pro-Russian sentiment, however that does not stick with the people in the East the population of which almost 100% speaks Russian and have ties to Russia.
Ukraine is a country divided by language and divided ties to Russia or Poland/West depending on East or West.
The Common Sense thing, the practical thing, the COMPROMISE that would avoid war would be to accept the seceded Crimea and the provinces that are under separatist control becoming in some form or another part of Russia... we will not see anything resembling compromise from the West because they do not want peace.
There is no profit in peace, there is no power in peace, and too much power rests with Russia regarding its natural resources that the West wants to ensure does not fall under the influence of China (China currently has two of the world's largest Oil & Gas companies in the world).The only way to respond to that nonsense is to ask if you read or listen to REAL news or just American and Russian propaganda outlets.
Zelensky might have a good idea - tell murdering Putin exactly what will happen (assuming we secretly haven't) if he starts a war. Personally, I am undecided, but it sounds appealing.
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/uk … 4bba86d9feIf you look at the history of the USA from 1950, I would like to be advised where the Americans were successful in both their military and political aims. You see nothing but failure right from Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and now Ukraine. I have included Ukraine because it falls into the domino theory and I don't see how the Americans are going to win there when they lost everywhere. As a military historian, I am very clear that this is the best time for Putin to attack Ukraine and finish it and I would like to state a point again which nobody seems to answer; whether Biden is going to fight for Ukraine and get the United States into an abyss of no return.
... Biden is going to fight for Ukraine ...
A valid question, but this implies that Russia is going to take on Ukraine.
And i don´t think they will.
3 potentially viable reasons for the Russian side to move into Ukraine:
- prevent Ukraine membership in NATO
- protect Russian population on Ukraine soil
- get hold of economic resources
In Russian and Soviet history, moving people, ethnics around was nothing unusual. Protect the border to Ukraine and keep it open for Russians is all that is necessary for the objective to protect its people.
Economic resources: What does Ukraine hold that Russia doesn´t have? Nothing. There is no rational like for Hitlers operation "Barbarossa" or "Fall blau"
Leaves it to keeping NATO out of Ukraine. Until today it very much looks like Russia has achieved its goals. Ukraine is backing out of their rethorics already and the US administration is on its own. There will no more than symbolic acts like withdrawing diplomats.
So much for the Russian moves in this strategic showdown. For the USA i am not sure what role the industrial military complex will play. As much as i think the Biden administration will eventually calm down, the military had the last hot conflict in Syria. Again it is time their ammunition stock needs replacement.Fairly logical, both he and Xi have things to worry about at home, if Russia and China join together in a limited war against the US, that makes them very powerful at home.
If Putin wants to re-unite a greater Russia, bringing Georgia and Ukraine back into the fold, and any other nation on his agenda, the time to do so is when the US/West has to oppose two opponents on different fronts.
Russia may be focusing all eyes on Ukraine, so that when China takes Taiwan in a lightning-fast invasion the west is taken by surprise, then as the world tries to pivot to that threat, Russia takes Ukraine.
America doesn't have the military capabilities to engage both nations at the same time, and the rest of our "allies" don't have the military or the stomach for the fight (save the UK they love to fight).
In fact, some of our 'allies' are in the midst of putting the screws to their own population, Australia, Canada, and France have gotten increasingly oppressive, more like police states than at any time in living memory.
When the people don't trust their own government, when they've been made to be anti-nationalistic, they aren't exactly likely to be motivated to go to war elsewhere... they are more interested in taking down their own corrupt government than protect it.
Putin and Xi are probably seeing all this, including the divide here within America, realizing now may be the perfect time to overthrow America's dominance and the use of the Dollar as the World's Reserve currency.
It seems OPEC has aligned with Russia, that was an interesting move, certainly Iran, Syria, North Korea, Georgia, Belarus probably half the nations in Africa will side with Russia & China.
If Russia and China are truly aligned, I agree with emge, now is the time to strike, both at the same time, splitting any military response and throwing off the American Dollar.You left out two big ones.
- Putin wants to return to the old Soviet Union borders
- Putin is not a rational man (no man who murders to keep power is rational, he is a psychopath)
"If you look at the history of the USA from 1950, ... " - [i]And I have to ask WHY you even bring this up - again. Nobody is saying America WAS successful. What's your point? You are you trying to convince?
Of course, I only look at the larger conflicts were America actually sent many combat forces, which makes your list wrong. The only country we "invaded" was Iraq (not justified) and initially Afghanistan (justified, then we were asked to stay). We have not put significant troops in Iran, Pakistan, or Ukraine (which you added presumably to make your list appear longer). We have had many more, mostly successful, interventions for various reasons. Since you are making lists, here is mine.
1950 - Taiwan
1954 - Guatemala (another stain on America)
1954 - Evacuation of civilians from the Tachen Islands near Taiwan
1956 - Evacuation of Americans from Egypt
1958 - Lebanon
1959 - Caribbean: Protection of Americans during the Cuban Revolution
1961 - Cuba Bay of Pigs (failure)
1962 - Thailand
1964 - Congo (Zaïre)
1965 - Dominican Republic
1967 - Congo (Zaïre)
1973 - Israel
1974 - Cypress, evacuation of Americans
1975 - Cambodia: Mayaguez incident,
1976 - Lebanon evacuation
1978 - Congo (Zaïre)
1980 - Iran, unsuccessful attempt to rescue American hostages
1980 - In support of Egypt
1981 - El Salvadore
1981 - Libya: First Gulf of Sidra incident,
1982 - Sinai
1982 - Lebanon (even though we got a bloody nose from a terrorist attack)
1983 - Egypt and Sudan (after being attacked by Libya)
1983 - Granada
1983 - Honduras
1983 - Chad (to protect against Libya)
1984 - Persian Gulf
1985 - Italy (forced a hijacked air plane down)
1986 - Libya: Action in the Gulf of Sidra
1986 - Libya: Operation El Dorado Canyon
1987 - Persian Gulf: Navy attacked by Iraq
1987 - Persian Gulf: Operation Nimble Archer
1987 - Persian Gulf: Operation Earnest Will and Operation Prime Chance
1988 - Persian Gulf: Operation Praying Mantis
1988 - Honduras
1988 - 1990 - Panama
1989 - Libya: Second Gulf of Sidra incident
1989 - Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru: Andean Initiative in War on Drugs
1989 - Philippines
1990 - Liberia
1990 - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait
1991 - Iraq
1991–1996: Iraq: Operation Provide Comfort,
1991: Zaire
1992: Sierra Leone, evacuation
1992–1996: Bosnia and Herzegovina: Operation Provide Promise
1992: Kuwait
1992–2003: Iraq: Iraqi no-fly zones,
1993–1995: Bosnia: Operation Deny Flight,
1993: Somalia: Battle of Mogadishu (unsuccessful)
1993-1994: Macedonia
1994: Bosnia: Banja Luka incident
1994–1995: Haiti
1994: Kuwait
1995: Bosnia: Operation Deliberate Force
1996: Central African Republic, Operation Quick Response evacuation:
1996: Kuwait: Operation Desert Strike,
1996: Bosnia: Operation Joint Guard,
1997: Albania: Operation Silver Wake evacuation
1997: Congo and Gabon:
1997: Sierra Leone evacuation
1997: Cambodia, possible evacuation
1998: Iraq: Operation Desert Fox
1998–1999: Kenya and Tanzania, in response to the Embassy bombings
1998: Afghanistan and Sudan: Operation Infinite Reach.
1998: Liberia, possible evacuation and increased security
1999–2001: East Timor
1999: Serbia: Operation Allied Force
2000: Sierra Leone, evacuation
2000: Nigeria
2000: Yemen
2002: Yemen, took out terrorist leader
2002: Philippines
2002: Côte d'Ivoire, evacuation
2003: Liberia, evacuation
2003: Georgia and Djibouti
2004: Haiti
2004: War on Terror: U.S. anti-terror related activities were underway in Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Eritrea.[15]
2004–present: The U.S. deploys drone strikes to aid in the War in North-West Pakistan.
2005–2006: Pakistan, humanitarian relief
2005–2008: Operation WILLING SPIRIT, Colombia - rescue of American hostages
2006 - Lebanon, evacuation
2007 - Somalia: Battle of Ras Kamboni
2010–present: al-Qaeda insurgency in Yemen - drone strikes
2011 - Libya: Operation Odyssey Dawn,
2011: Osama Bin Laden is killed
2011: Drone strikes on al-Shabaab militants begin in Somalia
2011–present: Uganda
2012: Jordan, protect against Syria
2012: Turkey, protect against Syria
2012: Chad, evacuation
2013: Mali
2013: Raids into Somalia and Libya to take out terrorists
2014–present: Uganda: V-22 Ospreys, search for Joseph Kony.
2014: Syria, failed rescue mission
2014–present: Intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant:
2014: 2014 Yemen hostage rescue operations against al-Qaeda:
2015:U.S. sends ships to the Strait of Hormuz to shield vessels after Iranian seizure of a commercial vessel
2015–present: Cameroon
2017: 2017 Syria, Shayrat missile strike:
2018: 2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs in response to Douma chemical attack
2021: American military intervention in Somalia (2007–present)
2021: Syria, killed senior al-Qaeda leader Abdul Hamid al-Matar
As you can see, the vast majority of American military activity has been successful and generally involved evacuations, rescues, and assistance requested by the host gov't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ … %80%931959
And murdering Putin continues pushing toward war as he violates the Minsk II cease fire in Donbas by using prohibited weapons.
The ministry said that in the first 11 hours of Sunday, "20 incidents of ceasefire violation by the Russian occupation forces were observed, including 18 incidents when the Russian occupation forces utilized weapons prohibited by the Minsk Agreements."
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/uk … e546766e28from cnn: ...The Ukrainian defense ministry has reported further ceasefire violations in the east...
The UKRAINIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY!!
Don´t you see that this is partisan? Always look where the information is coming from. I am sure that the pro Russian side has its own version. Same unreliable is the Ukrainian side.The thing is, the OSCE (and common sense and video evidence) backs him up.
The Minsk Agreement isn't quite a 'Peace treaty' the accords were to stop a conflict that never quite ended. Russia and Ukraine interpret it far differently.
Russia’s view, a full implementation of the accords would effectively rule out NATO membership for Ukraine, fulfilling one of the Kremlin’s key demands, among other things.
When Volodymyr Zelenskyy started running around to the EU demanding Ukraine be allowed into NATO, etc. well, I think that helped instigate Putin's demands to the 20, and the military movement up to Ukraine's borders.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/17/mi … sia-peace/
Fiona Hill doesn't know whether President Joe Biden can lead Western allies to ward off Russia's threat to Ukraine. But unlike his predecessor, he's trying.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/20/politics … index.html
Some notable and telling observations:
"After Trump derided and weakened the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Biden has rallied NATO on Ukraine's behalf."
And
"After Trump pressured Russia's beleaguered neighbor for his personal benefit, Biden has steeled Americans for shared sacrifice in defense of Ukraine's right of self-determination."
And
"After Trump deferred to Russian President Vladimir Putin over the US government's own intelligence agencies, Biden has deployed those agencies' tradecraft in a multi-pronged transatlantic effort to deter Russian aggression."HAHahahahhaHAHAHA!
No... Americans aren't interested one frikin bit in sacrificing anything over this.
Americans haven't forgotten how Biden ran tail tucked out of Afghanistan just a few months back. Majority of Americans are already sick of him and don't trust him.
Once again, CNN is fabricating its own reality, which has nothing to do with the real world.Putin does not have to go to war to get what he wants. He is allowing the West to ratchet up the scare of war. The White House is also encouraging the idea of a full-scale war. But, is all the hysteria warranted?
If Putin decides not to go to war, Biden can take credit for having been a strong leader even though Putin will continue to extort more favors from Biden and still manage to control Ukraine through other means. So, ratcheting up fear and panic may be a typical KGB tactic to deceive the West.
Putin's speech today made it clear he believes Ukraine belongs to Russia. We shall see how he intends to execute his goals.I had to chew a little on the speech of Putin.
At first i was irritated by his ranting on Ukrainian history. Then i thought this part was directed to the west to increase fears of potential Russian invasian. I asked myself: Why is this guy talking all the time about Ukraine, them being brothers, sisters, family? Everybody will think: He, Putin, Russia wants to go there and protect the family.
But then the speech progressed, and while it still left the impression of a rant (no teleprompter) my hunch of the intent changed: Imho Putin made an invitation to all predominantly Russian regions in Ukraine to join in on the path of independence that the Donbas region (Luhansk and Donetsk) had chosen.
I am not sure if that is very smart, but it will certainly cause a lot of trouble in Ukraine. And Russia will not have to put any foot on Ukraine soil. All Russia has to do is to encourage and support separatist movements. And proof for this alleged support came at the end of the speech with officially recognising the Donbas.
How will USA and Nato react?This afternoon, Biden placed mild, useless sanctions on Russia.
Indeed, it will be interesting to see how NATO reacts. The press claims NATO is united, but I wonder. Where will they get their oil if not from Russia, especially since Biden has stupidly stopped the production of oil in the U.S?Yes, mild indeed. But that was before Putin decided to move the front lines directly in to Ukraine - oh pardon me, the independent state of Donbas, lol.
This is that "little" incursion Biden got into so much trouble over a week or so ago.
I think murdering Putin's game plan is becoming very clear. After he moves parts of his Army into direct contact with the Ukrainian forces, he will fake a reason and begin his attack.
In response to moving Russian forces into Ukraine, I think Biden should immediately and the EU, and any other allies we can get to go along, freeze the assets Putin has in each country. If he doesn't relent, then freeze the assets of all of the oligarchs (his power base). Each day, bring in more and more of those who provide Putin his power. Then start taking out his petroleum industry and show Ukraine how to bring down the Russian electrical grid. After all of that, if Putin hasn't backed off, they can get really mean.
NATO has lots of sources for oil and if America would get off its behind and start directing our excess natural gas to Europe and Germany get off of their high horse and drop Nordstrean and accept our LNG, that will take that threat off the table. Other European countries are already getting supplied by America.
I am sorry you are so deceived Savvy as to actually believe and promote the false narrative that "Biden has stupidly stopped the production of oil in the U.S?" He did no such thing and you know it!
The real culprits are the oil companies themselves. They are volunarily keeping production low. Why? For a couple of reasons. One is to keep prices high - more profits. The second is they got burned very badly the last TWO times they went all in when prices rose. They leveraged themselves out the ying-yang and when prices fell again, many went bankrupt. They don't want to do it a third time and are taking a much more measured approach at increasing production.
Oil companies are under a lot of pressure to keep their production down. And the call is coming from inside the house: it's oil investors who are pushing for companies to pump less oil.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/06/97364904 … l-not-more
Note, this is a 2021 report.https://alaska-native-news.com/biden-ad … ion/59587/
The above article is one of several reports which should concern Americans. Biden is quietly shutting down oil production everywhere in the name of climate change. Get ready for even higher prices at the gas pump. This is no small thing.
According to Harris, Americans must be willing to sacrifice for the good of the current situation in Ukraine.
This development has been forced upon us through the bad decisions of this administration.100% agree. The Biden Bunch have gone off the rails if they think American's can't see what has caused our current inflation, and a myriad of other problems. He started destroying America on his first day in office.
Of course, there has been article after article, report after report about Biden's Admin trying to shut down pipelines, some of which have been in effect for half a century.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/08/biden-mig … se-admits/
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-shut … ng-1646999
https://news.yahoo.com/biden-administra … 23682.html
https://www.westernjournal.com/biden-ca … ry-danger/I know nothing about the source of your article and was surprised I couldn't any mention of in the larger media outlets, including Fox. But I did find this in a Wikipedia post:
The environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration represented a shift from the policy priorities and goals of the preceding Barack Obama administration. Where President Obama's environmental agenda prioritized the reduction of carbon emissions through the use of renewable energy with the goal of conserving the environment for future generations,[1] the Trump administration policy was for the US to attain energy independence based on fossil fuel use and to rescind many environmental regulations
Part of Trump's agenda was to continue polluting the world by opening up pristine wildernesses his predecessor (not Biden) closed to protect the planet. So Trump exposed protected land to the ravages of oil development. The problem with his argument about ATTAINING energy independent is it is one of his BIG LIES. OBAMA had already attained energy independence before Trump even knew what that was. Therefore we don't NEED to rape the land to get more oil we don't have to have.
So, all President Biden did was undo the damage Trump caused to the environment.Not even CNBC believes we were energy independent under Obama.
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/10/hillary … s-not.html
The article states, "The United States imported 9.4 million barrels of crude and petroleum products in 2015, and that imports were on the rise."
However, we were exporting oil as well.
In 2022, Russia is importing between 12 and 24 million barrels of crude oil, per month, to the U.S. alone. The U.S. is currently energy-dependent.You've raised a question that reflects a belief I have seen expressed many times. That is that Mr. Trump made us energy independent, and now under President Biden we have lost that energy independence. These statements don't reflect the complexity of the issue, the truth requires a bit more discussion.
How are you defining "energy independence?" In reality, most people are using it incorrectly. A correct accounting would be to add up all of our energy production (oil, natural gas, coal, renewables) and then subtract our net energy consumption.
Why do I say “net”? Because if we import a million barrels per day of oil, and export that as roughly a million barrels per day of finished products, it doesn’t actually impact our energy independence even though it increases our gross overall consumption.
Most people view energy independence through the lens of our oil and gas production and consumption. These two sources represent 68% of U.S. energy consumption. When they see our net exports are positive, it is viewed as “energy independence.” When they turn negative, we are once again partially dependent. (In reality, we are always partially dependent, because even when our exports exceed our imports, we are still importing oil from other countries).
It is true that in 2019 our net imports of crude oil and finished products flipped from positive to negative. By that metric, we became energy independent (at last as far as our oil consumption goes).
But note that this was the culmination of a trend that started in 2006 when U.S. net imports topped 13 million BPD. Most of that march to energy independence happened under President Obama. All President Trump (and President Obama before him) had to do was avoid driving the bus into the ditch, and they would continue to benefit from the hydraulic fracking boom that enabled all of this. One thing President Obama did that helped oil production continue to expand under Mr. Trump was in the energy bill he signed in late 2015.
So, in 2009 we began the march to energy independence. Those wishing to credit President Trump for this need to take another look at the net imports graphic contained in the link to grasp the full picture. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/20 … 8ac4061387
True energy independence will only be achieved when the American people embrace a dedicated shift away from fossil fuels. The Pacific island country of Tokelau became the first country to produce 100% of its energy from domestic solar panels. Now, that is true energy independence.
He might as well do that for Texas and Arizona, or at least get Mexico to declare those states as independent regions since historically, that is who those states belonged to. The current Mexican president, as Putin did, argue that his predecessors made bad decisions in letting them go to the United States, lol.
First lets look at the maps, you can find a few here:
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/354 … bas-region
That link as well explains why Russia made this move, which our government was well informed about, you can be sure.
If you look at the maps, you will see that the most Predominant Russian provinces, Luhansk, Donetsk, and the Crimean Autonomous Republic are now under Russian protection, these places were 97.5% Russian speaking, Russian identifying people.
The further West you go, the less this is the case, the neighboring provinces next to those three run probably around 80% or less Russian.
If he is speaking to any in the Ukraine as you suggest, it would be these provinces, but I think the time for that was several years ago, lines have been hardened and propaganda has had time to do its work.
An interesting take on where this could lead, also with a good map, was written by Emge:
https://discover.hubpages.com/politics/ … On-Ukraine
What I am most interested in seeing, is if China takes this opportunity to move on Taiwan, which is something I suspect could happen at any time.
" Biden has steeled Americans for shared sacrifice in defense of Ukraine's right of self-determination."
Biden can't put a shoe on the right foot... This is one of your classics I will remember for a very long time.
Biden will do what he has done best - totally ignore any and all problems.
The majority of American's want him out! He has played into
Putin's hands. And all Putin needs to know is to walk into Ukraine and say "Lucy I am Home..."
And American's will not support a war of Biden's making"Biden can't put a shoe on the right foot." - That lie just shows how consumed you are with BDS, lol. Unless it is sarcasm, it is an idiotic thing to claim
The Belarus-Russian military exercises are over. Is Putin pulling his troops out? It doesn't look like it.
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/uk … 2e6ad428f3And the murdering Putin provocations to war continue. This time with an apparent FALSE FLAG operation of blowing up one of their own guard posts and trying to blame the Ukrainians for it. Ukrainians who, by the way, are under STRICK orders on to fire unless fired upon.
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/uk … index.htmlInteresting opinion piece about what might deter murdering Putin from his path to war. It made me recall that the Taliban the Russians as well in Afghanistan.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/20/opinions … index.htmlSuch arrogance. All the west had to do is say Ukraine will not become a member of NATO and we will not be parking missiles on your doorstep.
Simple. All the rest is BS, showing lack of respect, lack of concern for the lives to be lost.
Yep, we armed them so that they could fight a war... isn't that great.
Maybe the warmongers running DC will get their wish and have a full scale war on their hands.
Biden gives up pinprick for murdering Putin pronouncing Donetsk and Luhansk independent states and absorbing them into Russian control.
Germany brings a sledgehammer to the game as Russia effectively invades Eastern Ukraine with Russian forces - they just cancelled the Nord Stream 2 contract.
England also joined in and will sanction five Russian banks and three "very high net worth" individuals,
How will Biden respond?
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/uk … index.html
In addition, the Russian stock market and ruble are getting beaten down (yes, the American stock market if falling as well, but, unlike Russia, we have a strong economy.)
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/22/investin … index.html
I think the appropriate action would be to tell Putin to pull his invasion force out see new sanctions applied each day his army is there.Very curious as to what sanctions you feel Biden can put on Russia. We could stop buying oil from them. Our oil purchases increased greatly in 2021. "Russia Captures No. 2 Rank Among Foreign Oil Suppliers to US"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … ers-to-u-s
It would seem this would be a good place to start.... Never knew we purchased so much oil from Russia.Bloomburg as put up a pay wall, so I can't analyze the article. While the headline MAY be true, is it material?
You still must not be reading the real news - what sanctions can be imposed are everywhere.
The biggest, of course, is locking Russian out of the world banking system entirely.
Others are freezing the assets of Putin and his Oligarchs; stopping all business with Russia; freezing the assets of Russian banks as well as critical infrastructure companies (mainly energy). Since they are smarter than I am, they can come up with a lot more.
Murdering Putin will bankrupt Russia and drive its people back into the stone ages.You don't respect Bloomberg as real news? Sorry, I don't read CNN your number one and pretty much the only source you ever offer.
Biden has not locked Russia out of the world banking system, and even if he did China has already stated the Bank Of China would help them out.
He as usual has done very little and will hide until the chips fall where ever...
Like I said Putin will walk in and take over Ukraine. They are already on the move. By tomorrow I expect some celebrating in the streets of the two troops to two breakaway regions Luhansk and Donetsk.
And no Putin will be far richer with the plunder Ukraine will provide. They are rich in agriculture and have an abundant reserves of coal, iron ore, natural gas, manganese, salt, oil, graphite, sulfur, kaolin, titanium, nickel, magnesium, timber, and mercury. So look for Russia to become far richer. They will control the energy in all of Europe, as well as continue to sell the US oil. How much of US oil comes from Russia? In November 2021, the United States imported approximately 17.9 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products from Russia, marking a slight decrease from the previous month. The May 2021 figure was the highest import volume recorded over the observed period. https://www.statista.com/statistics/109 … -products/
Maybe Joe could have told Putin we don't want his oil... But he did not , did he?I have to admit, i was wrong about the intentions of Putin. I thought he was smarter and "only" stirred civil uprisings in predominantly Russian regions. It is unexcusable what is playing out now in Ukraine.
But Putin will get away with it. Even now, with everyone under shock, no word about the SWIFT card. All say it will be saved for worse times. What will be worse times?
And only high tech products on the sanctions list? Won´t do anything.
Only if spare parts for broken down Mercedes S-class of the upper 5% get scarce. Or if harvesting combines from Claas or New Holland can´t get serviced any more. Only then sanctions will have impact. But that will take month after month.
Recent surveys monitor the approval rate of Russians for the Putin administration. Currently more than 60% Russians approve of the invasion. Unclear how much of the 60% is attributed to propaganda and how many follow they patriotic sentiments. We shall see how this changes in a few weeks.
Europe will not impose sanctions that tamper with the energy supplies. As much as i think Putin is wrong about invading Ukraine, at the end of the day the West will return to business as usual and Putin´s gambit will succeed. It is another question of how much success this action will have domestically.
Putin holds the Aces, he has given a body blow to Biden and Boris by recognizing two independent entities in eastern Ukraine. Biden lost focus from the Pacific to Europe and he's going to pay a terrible price for it. He did a blunder by not agreeing to give a security guarantee to Russia when he held only Jacks. Talking of sanctions is pretty silly Russia has been facing them for the last eight years or more and now if you have been reading the news China is bankrolling Russia. Even India will not ostracize Russia. Biden is on a losing wicket and despite many disagreeing with me, if Donald Trump had been president such a thing wouldn't have happened.
As I listen to the media presentation, (and the comments here), of sanctions applied and sanctions on the table, I just don't see the logic of giving any of them weight as levers of advantage to deter Putin.
I doubt that these actions were not anticipated and planned for in Putin's overall plan. I don't think the sanctions will affect Putin's planned actions, and as the superpower behind the alliance, I think that makes us weak. The last thing we should want is a pissing contest.
GAIn my view, Putin is an intelligent man, and I agree he has anticipated any and all sanctions that can be levied on Russia. Not sure we could look any weaker at this point. And I don't think our allies in Europe are willing to suffer the consequences of too harsh of sanctions when it would seem the writing is on the wall, Putin will take Ukraine. In my view, there is no stopping Russia at this juncture.
No doubt, Putin's actions were anticipated by the Whitehouse.
Ukraine is not a part of NATO. Consequently, this administration could not care less about them. They may as well be Afghanistan.
If Russia were to invade Poland, Biden will likely be more aggressive toward Russia. Not so with Ukraine.
Consequently, Ukraine is resigned to fighting alone. They know that Biden's sanctions are useless.
Ukraine hoped that this administration might have been more decisive in taking stronger action against Russia because they (Ukraine) had agreed to give up their nukes under the Clinton administration.
At this juncture, they can only dream.This is not accurate.
What does the USA get out of this, well, companies like Lockheed, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman are going to get a lot of new orders for weapons, primarily from NATO nations.
America can also say to its EU friends... see, you need us. Russia is a big bad threat to you all.
America will not be able to cripple Russia with its sanctions, Russia has prepared for this, they have strong economic alliances with China and India who are not going to give one whit about what Russia does to Ukraine.
Ultimately the people of America and the EU will pay the price for the idiocy of America interfering with Ukraine and putting into positions of power in the Ukraine Pro-Western puppets.
We will pay for it in higher energy prices, and more if China decides to take this opportunity to take Taiwan. IF that happens, it will be our economy suffering and our supply of vehicles, computers, cell phones, etc. that is crippled.
Trust me the people running our government today, and the likes of the IMF and the EU do not care one whit about the people... in their minds we are deplorables that deserve whatever is served up.
If we look at history one can see that Ukraine was never an independent country. It was the creation of Lenin in 1924 and later Khruschev added Crimea to it. The present events show the lopsided priorities of the Anglo-Saxon powers. I have always maintained that the Americans bite more than they can chew and they already suffered catastrophic defeats in every corner of the world and they have been unable to stop something which was inevitable as far as world history is concerned. The downside of Anglo-Saxon power has begun.
This is sickening. There is an and has been for some time an obvious movement underway to create Putin/Russian sympathy in our country. Lead of course by Fox News personalities , Mr. Trump and his faction of the Republican Party. Not even sure what to call them at this point.
Very disheartening to see so many citizens turn against their own country.
https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1 … cGq-DZBcQQWhat a bizarre assumption. Those men are likely Russian Americans. I never fail to be amazed at the nonsense Democrats dream up in their minds.
Twitter is a garbage dump.Lol no, they are not. There Have been interviews with the maker of the t-shirt and its purpose. Come on, the Putin cheerleading is being led by Tucker Carlson, Josh Hawley and Donald Trump himself.
Some Trump-type coward decided they cannot stand the honest truth and facts and with being corrected for their disinformation, misinformation, and lies and had me banned for a few days.
Wow. Didn't know that could happen. Wondered where you were.
Welcome back! You have a lot to catch up onYes, I have been reading while in my hiatus.
I thought I would bring the Ukraine discussion back to the Ukraine forum.
GA posted a possible scenario murdering Putin may be following. In summary, if I understand it correctly, this is what I think he put forward:
1. Putin planned on the West to punish him with sanctions
2. Putin wants to occupy Ukraine's Black Sea area because of recently discovered fossil fuel deposits
3. Putin does not want to occupy the rest of Ukraine
4. The NATO issue was a false flag operation, a head fake, to keep the West's attention from Putin's real goal of Ukraine's natural resources
5. Putin will continue the fight until he controls Ukraine's natural resources
6. We can tell this because Putin has not conducted a "shock and awe" which he is certainly capable of doing with his missiles, artillery, and air force. He also chose to limit civilian casualties.
7. The poor performance of his ground forces is planned in order to buy time to accomplish his real objectives of controlling Ukraine's natural resources. Therefore, he is not losing as some seem to think.
8. The world's response is planned and acceptable as he waits until he achieves his natural resources goal
9. Once achieved, he will again head fake the West and "appear" to be "forced" to the negotiating table
10. To stop the fight, he will "demand" that Ukraine give up the territory Putin has already captured and declare them as sovereign nations in their own right.
11. I am not sure about this, but when the dust settles, Putin will control Donetsk, Luhansk, and the Black Sea coast. Ukraine will be in shambles and a burden to the West to rebuild. We will also stop most or all sanctions. In return, he will allow the West to declare victory and NATO will agree never to accept Ukraine as part of NATO.
My response is "Possible, but not Plausible".
1. I won't bring up recent activity that might mitigate against this scenario since that wasn't known when GA wrote this.
2. The fatal flaw, in my opinion, with this scenario is the Ukrainian's won't let it happen. In order to accomplish his goals of permanently gaining control of Ukraine's natural resources, Putin will be "forced" to occupy all of Ukraine, not just the areas that are his supposed goals.
3. First consider that with the possible exception of the parts of Donetsk and Luhansk that the separatists currently control, the Ukrainians will continue to resist Russian occupation. They will have access to as much war material as they need from what is left of Ukraine.
4. Second, Ukraine itself will not allow it to happen; they will not voluntarily give up a chunk of their nation. Even if they lose the ground war, which is likely, they have a resistance army of roughly 22 million people willing to continue to defend their country by any means necessary. The West will happily keep supply the resistance forces what they need.
5. Putin does not have the forces available, even if he had a functioning economy, to actually occupy Ukraine, maybe defeat them, but not occupy them. If you think Afghanistan was bad for Russian, you ain't seen nothing yet from a riled up Ukraine.
In my opinion, given the patriotism shown by the Ukraine people, Putin had lost, in the long-run, before he began - his hubris just didn't let him see it.
Before Ukraine, Russia's economy was on the scale of Texas'. After Ukraine, it might be has big as Wyoming's.Since my "scenario" was just speculation on what I think I know, your speculation on why it isn't plausible is as valid as my thought. I hope my speculation is wrong, but I don't think it is.
Even with the new bombing intensity, it still looks like baby steps compared to what could have happened. So the question of whether it is purposeful or just reactionary is something we can only deduce later.
I think you are right that the Ukrainians will continue with resistance battles, but I don't know if that will be enough to stop Russia's plans—as I described them. What you describe as a fatal flaw is only an estimation of Ukraine's resistance strength, (which I again hope is right).
I don't know enough to make this comparison with authority, but it looks like the break-away regions' fighting, (for the past 8 years), might compare to the resistance of the Chechens and Georgians.
The potential strength and long-term will of the Ukrainian resistance
is the reason I don't think Putin intends to conquer and occupy Ukraine. He doesn't need the State and he doesn't want the larger quagmire that total occupation would create for him.
Even if your resistance thought is right I don't think that will be enough for the years-long breakaway battles that Putin is sure to promote and support. That area and unrest are all he needs to meet his goals for the Black sea resources.
The best scenario is if the Ukrainians can endure and survive this invasion of their mainland and continue to be an effective resistance to the proxy war of the breakaway regions. Of course, I am rooting for the Ukrainians.
Skipping back a point, I don't see why Putin needs the whole of Ukraine to reach his Black Sea goals, why do you think he does? Wouldn't just holding those important regions, (even if they are a years-long battle zone), be enough control?
Another variable in the mix might be the Crimean water situation. It appears Crimea relies on Ukraine for its source, and that source has been cut off. Maybe that is another reason the coastal lands, (up to the river source of the water), are also a primary focus of his invasion. *shrug
GAUnless the West withdraws their support from Ukraine, I just don't see a way that murdering Putin can achieve his goals in the long-term. Yes, he might (maybe probably) gain control of the Black Sea, but I don't think it is possible for him to hold it for any length of time.
There are several reasons that lead me to that conclusion:
1. Putin will not be able to maintain a force large enough to keep even the small territory you suggest as a possibility; Russia will soon be bankrupt and China will not be able to save it, even it wants to now (China must be impressed at how the world came after Putin). He only has partial access to his "rainy day fund" because most of it is sanctioned.
2.. Putin has clearly lit a fire on Ukrainian nationalism. No longer will Ukraine be content to maintain a static line of resistance with the separatists. What held them back before was the threat of Putin attacking them. That threat no longer exists since Putin pre-emptively made war on all of Ukraine. So now, once they are able, the Ukrainians won't stop until they have all of their territory back (save Crimea, maybe)
3. Previously, Ukraine had an improving, growing (yet small) military. That is also not the case anymore. They have 22 million willing and able citizens willing to do battle with what appears to be an unmotivated Russian army. Putin will never be able to stand up to that so long as the West continues to supply war material.
I didn't realize that fact about Crimean water. The reason I say 'maybe' about getting Crimea back is I am uncertain about the degree Crimean's support Russia over Ukraine. If the "vote" is truly indicative of their feeling, then I don't think Ukraine can recover it. BUT, if the "vote" is as fraudulent as I think it is, then Russian will have a revolt on their hands within Crimea.Your thought about the increased national will in Ukraine, relative to the "static" battle situation of the last eight, or so, years does make sense as a force-multiplier.
It seems to surely make the separatists', (and Russia's), border fighting harder. Could that be enough to make Putin's efforts, (from my scenario), fail? I'm skeptical, but I'm not sure. Maybe it could make a difference.
Regarding the Crimean population, I don't know. Haven't looked into it, but, I have the impression, from what little I have stumbled across, that it is both sparsely populated, and a primarily poor region. The water cut-off issue is said to be a major blow to that tip of the peninsula, so maybe it's agrarian. Maybe the Russian base and the close surrounding areas are the only economically-dense areas. *shrug
GA
Since murdering Putin can't win in a fair fight, he has now taken to killing civilians en masse. He has started taking out apartment and civilian gov't buildings. What a sick man.
Apple (AAPL), ExxonMobil (XOM), Ford (F), Boeing (BA) and Airbus (EADSF) joined a list of companies shutting down or suspending their operations in Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine
This is one of the things that need to happen to drive Putin from power - having the businesses of the world refuse to do business with Russia.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/02/business … index.htmlThis is why I say murdering Putin failed before he started his war. The occupation force would need to be roughly 880,000 in size.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/02/europe/r … index.htmlI think the world is learning that the Russian military isn't what we may have believed it to be.
They are relying heavily on unmotivated conscripts who receive little training.
I've read that only about a quarter of Russian ground forces are fully staffed, well-trained professional troops. Yet those professional soldiers who are not quite trained to Western standards are part of a corps of rapid reaction forces.
We are seeing this on the ground in Ukraine. These young soldiers are (thank God) hesitating. Reports of them putting down their weapons. Plus, it's not even a week in and It's reported the Russians are running out of food.
They'll never sustain an occupation of Ukraine.I was just going to bring that up. In addition, they seem to have real issues getting food, fuel, and ammunition to the front lines as well. So much for the vaunted Russian military. All it seems to have going for it is size.
A rule of thumb for ground operations that I was taught long ago is that the attacking force needs to be three times as large as the defending force. More so if the defending force is highly motivated or in particularly good defensive terrain.
Using that, then if Ukraine's defensive force is more than 60,000 (and it is), then Russia has severe problems advancing. It would seem the best the Russian's can do is try to intimidate the Ukrainians by wanton destruction and mass casualties - which will only piss the Ukrainians off even more.I was going to tag this response to FayettevilleFaye, but I will mention this to both of you.
I hope our media and administration presentations, relative to Faye's points are right, but I am short on confidence that those descriptions are the truth. Consider what would seem to be the obvious, (at least to me), presentation Putin is presenting, (allowing?), to his public. I bet it is the opposite of what the West is saying. Who to believe?
That was just a conversation-starting question. Of course, I have more trust in the presentations of The West, but I am a bit skeptical of their degrees of truth. I think we will all extrapolate public claims to fit our hopes and expectations, so how much is true and how much is just a seed of truth that we grow to meet whatever it is that we want it to mean?
For instance, the details of Russian troops putting down their arms, or convoys running out of gas, or the lack of food due to supply line disruptions, or the will of the Russian soldiers, (ie. conscript vs. professional), etc. They seem only supported by anecdotal claims or observations. They may all be true, but our only support for accepting them, because they are not yet known as facts, is our degree of trust in the presenter of those facts.
To me, they seem to be too extremely anti-Putin, (which is to be legitimately expected), too early in the process. In this intense war situation, I don't have enough trust to accept them without question.
GAThis has been many years in the making.
The complete lack of emphasis by many, media and politicians, that this could go nuclear is from what I can tell, mostly absent.
As you spelled out in another post, in another thread, Russia's economic survival, it's place on the global stage, to not be relegated to the next Venezuela depends on them securing control of those resources.
I really don't think we want a desperate or destabilized government in Russia, it would seem however our government has pursued just that over the last couple of decades.
The issue that should have always been at the forefront was keeping Russia stable... I prefer pursuing policy that doesn't encourage the use of nuclear attacks.I certainly agree with your last thought. our post-cold war administrations should have considered another approach. Demonization has proven not to be the right track.
GAYes, the posts in these threads have discouraged me, the limited amount of news I've watched is even more discouraging.
The lack of focus on where this could lead, the seeming lack of America and EU governments lending credibility to Putin's threat of Nuclear retribution for their interference is concerning.
The most dangerous threat there is, right now, is putting Putin in a position where he has nothing to lose. A person who has nothing to lose has no fear and no concern about the repercussions of his actions.Demonization? I see it as calling a spade a spade. Why ignore reality?
Really?
If you take every single war that Putin has overseen, either as President or as Prime Minister, and include his extrajudicial killings and assassinations of political rivals, you still get nowhere near the body count of the Bush and Obama administrations (16 years between the two of them, Republican and Democrat).
Adding the least conservative estimates of the total death tolls of the Second Chechen War, the Russo-Georgian War, the warfare in Donbas Ukraine, the insurgency in the North Caucasus, Russia’s involvement in the Syrian conflict, and a sprinkling of assassinations, you get around three hundred thousand deaths. The least conservative estimates of America’s Iraq invasion alone are over a million deaths.
Feel free to add in the tens of thousands of killings in Afghanistan, the tens of thousands killed in the toppling of Gaddafi in Libya and the hundreds of thousands killed in the Syrian conflict, largely due to America’s support of insurgency and actively arming terrorist groups with the goal of toppling the Syrian government.
This doesn’t excuse the actions of Putin, but the American government has no room to talk.
Considering Russia has promised a nuclear strike against us should we act in what they consider an internal matter, well, I'm beginning to get concerned for our ability to get out of this mess without bringing the collapse of civilization down upon us.
If someone points a gun to your head and says "I'm going to pull the trigger if you don't back away"... that's not really the time to pretend to be Chuck Norris, you might just want to back away and live to see another day. Just a thought.
I know Putin's a bad man and what he is doing is terrible... but he's a bad man with a few thousand nukes... and has boldly stated he will use them.History shows that appeasement in the face of aggression never succeeds.
The world is unstable for many reasons and this instability fosters situations where aggression becomes a powerful tool to be used by tyrants and strongmen. Democracies around the world tend to shrink from the thought of conflict and generally resort to force only when shocked into action. Remember Pearl Harbor. The default is appeasement through diplomacy.
even with the crime of aggression under the rule of law in place, tyrants, as they always have, will turn to force and threaten their neighbors. Peace in our time is an aspiration worthy of our attention, but there will come a time, perhaps in weeks, that democracies will have to stand together to face down aggression by Russia, led by an autocrat, and restore peace and security under the United Nations paradigm. Heed the words of Winston S. Churchill, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
In the past few years, Russian military manuals have outlined a strategy of “escalate to de-escalate.” I don't know I have a tough time I'm believing he would go to a nuclear option knowing it would ultimately affect him in the end.The dilemma then is this:
If Putin is this evil tyrannical despot, an unhinged uncaring murderer.
Why won't he use Nukes if the world turns against him to destroy him?
Why wouldn't he want revenge on the Western World for destroying him, his country?He doesn't fear the counter strike at all? Even if he survives, is it the world he wants to live in? Is there enough to fulfill his ego?
If he is a madman as some in this thread claim... then no, of course he doesn't care what he does to the world, he might even want to destroy it, because he feels the world rejected him, turned against him, and forced him to do it.
That is the insanity of what is going on right now... the West isn't trying to talk him off the cliff, the west is trying to push him off it... leaving him no choice but to retaliate.
In 2020, Russia lowered its official standard for deploying nuclear weapons. Previously, Moscow had vowed it would only resort to the nuclear option if “the very existence of the state is threatened.”
Two years ago, Russia revised that position, announcing that it “reserves the right to use nuclear weapons … for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation and/or its allies.”
I don't think that change was made in isolation, it was made ahead of this moment with intent.
The world changes drastically and forever if even one nuclear weapon is used. Covid lockdowns will look like recess compared to what would follow such a horrific event, at best, at worst...What does Ken mean "IF"?
Yes, I think the consensus is he will want to use nukes. But, as I said before, he can't do it by himself, it takes a village of willing people to commit suicide with him. The question is, can he talk his generals and oligarchs into dying along with him? I don't think so.
Also, will 'not winning' in Ukraine be sufficient for him to pull the trigger? I doubt it. If someone moved on Russia proper, then I think it becomes a distinct possibility. But not before. Somebody over there will take Putin out first.I believe this to be a very false perception.
I outlined the breakdown of "checks and balances" in another post.
At most, it takes one other willing accomplice to use a nuclear weapon. And most likely Putin has taken care of this issue already.I can agree with that except it is based on Putin is rational All of the time! Poking about the only thing I could come up with regard the nuclear protocol for using nuke in Russia is linked below.
Factbox: The chain of command for potential Russian nuclear strikes (Reuters, 02/2/22)
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/wh … 022-03-02/
and, at Nuke.Fas.org
Strategic Command and Control
https://nuke.fas.org/guide/russia/c3i/
The second one leaves me with impression it is more in the hands of Russian General Staff to launch nukes giving credence to your thought are they willing to commit suicide along with Putin. But, what will happen at that point itself?I know I said much of this in a post a couple pages back, but it needs to be stressed that we don't know what changes have been made to the sequence that Russia requires to launch a nuclear weapon... but we do know they changed their position and procedures DRASTICALLY not two years ago.
In the past Putin couldn't do it on his own without the approval of either the Minister of Defense or the Chief of Staff.
In 2020, Russia lowered its official standard for deploying nuclear weapons. Previously, Moscow had vowed it would only resort to the nuclear option if “the very existence of the state is threatened.”
Russia revised that position, announcing that it “reserves the right to use nuclear weapons … for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation and/or its allies.”
Currently, Putin has put Russia's nuclear arsenal on "special combat readiness" which I believe to mean, they are ready to be launched at his command, does this bypass the restrictions of needing approval of anyone else to launch?
How far are we willing to go to test our theories?
How about, instead of an "all or nothing scenario"... instead of Volodymyr Zelenskyy pushing the EU for support and pushing the EU to help Ukraine regain Crimea and pushing for NATO acceptance, we tell him to accept an Armistice... which includes Ukraine giving up even more territory than Crimea to ensure it.
And if he doesn't like that resolution to the problem, we withdraw ALL support from Ukraine and ALL talk of accepting it into the EU, etc.
How about we put pressure on the person who does require the West for its survival now, to sit down and give Russia/Putin something.
This crap from Zelenskyy that there will be no compromise on Crimea or any other "Ukraine" territory... I'm really not a fan of it.
Personally, I think Putin is mad (as in crazy) enough to pull the nuclear trigger. But not all Russian's are as crazy as he is. Just as our military was prepared to stop Trump from starting a nuclear war, I suspect the Russian generals have the same in mind for Putin. Another constraint, I think, on Putin going off the deep end are the oligarchs fear of losing the good life.
Remember, Putin can't start a nuclear war by himself. He needs several people in high places with similar suicidal thoughts to make it happen. My bet is that someone will put a bullet in Putin's head before he can go nuclear.And to clarify a point, so that we all understand what the realities are regarding Nuclear weapons.
In the US, the authority to launch a nuclear strike lies with the president alone.
The only obstacle could be no access to what is known as the nuclear football (the atomic football, the President's emergency satchel, the Presidential Emergency Satchel, the button, the black box, or just the football), while away from fixed command centers, such as the White House Situation Room.
Putin can't do it on his own without the approval of either the Minister of Defence or the Chief of Staff.
However, Putin has put Russia's nuclear arsenal on "special combat readiness" which I believe to mean, they are ready to be launched at his command, in essence, bypassing the restrictions of needing approval of anyone else to launch.
I realize that many are saying Putin is using empty nuclear threats to dissuade western intervention, that it is a longstanding Russian strategy known as “escalate to de-escalate.”
I don't buy it, because unlike with Georgia and any other military action by Putin in the past, this feels like he is putting all his chips into the pot.
I think a lot of that has to do with Russia's economic survival, had Ukraine been allowed to develop its natural gas resources it would have been able to supply the EU cutting off Russia and devastating its economy.
In 2020, Russia lowered its official standard for deploying nuclear weapons. Previously, Moscow had vowed it would only resort to the nuclear option if “the very existence of the state is threatened.”
Two years ago, Russia revised that position, announcing that it “reserves the right to use nuclear weapons … for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation and/or its allies.”
In other words, Russia reserves the right to conduct a nuclear first strike in order to end a war on its preferred terms.
There’s a real possibility Putin could use nuclear weapons if he feels the West has caused (or is about to cause) his political or military defeat. It’s not just a response to how the campaign in Ukraine is going but also with sanctions and whatever else America and the EU do to escalate things.
I think you misunderstood what I intended that to mean. I should have said more. You know these details, I only mention them to explain what I intended "demonization" to mean.
At the fall of the `evil' USSR, Russia, as the Motherland, inherited that evil in the minds of the world of The West. The continuing Chechen war reinforced that image, and then came Putin. And then the Georgian conflict, (war?), sealed the deal. So Russia was officially, (and deservedly?), The West's boogeyman. You know the steps the West took from there.
That is the demonization I meant. Now consider, even if that charge is well-earned, and I think it is, what possible good could come from doing that? It's easy to cage a savage animal but you can't cage an entire nation and expect them to just pace back and forth
. The West's policies forced Putin to be what he is. They didn't make him that, but they didn't give him a choice to not be that.
I'm not defending Putin, he probably deserves most of the condemnation being heaped on him, I am criticizing the U.S administrations—those since 1990, for taking the short view, the easy and salable view, not the smarter long view of looking for opportunities to change that adversarial position, (that would be a hellava sell to the public, wouldn't it?).
Hell, even that old adage about keeping your enemies closer makes more sense than the isolation and intimidation policies that appear to have been our position.*
*all that comes with the caveat that maybe such positive contact efforts were made by The West and just didn't work. *shrug
GAExactly, well laid out.
I believe Putin once looked to join NATO, I don't not know how serious this was, but you can find evidence that there was talk about it, the link below is one such example.
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-putin-sa … 26757.html
I believe Putin once looked to join the EU, when those efforts (however serious) led to rejection, Russia attempted to persuade neighboring countries to join its new Eurasian Economic Union rather than sign Association Agreements with the EU.
Soon thereafter, when Ukraine was similarly put off by the EU, after asking the EU and IMF for economic aid, Ukraine turned to Russia which promised 18 Billion in aid and a reduction in the cost of natural gas if it joined Moscow's EEU.
Almost immediately after turning to Russia and the EEU, the Ukranian government was overthrown in a coup, the new government put in its place was unelected and pro-western, one of its designated new leaders was a former high ranking member of the IMF.
Needless to say, Ukraine never joined the EEU and relations with Russia soured steadily with a lot of external help."Hell, even that old adage about keeping your enemies closer makes more sense than the isolation and intimidation policies that appear to have been our position.*"
That is the ticket, GA.....That works with rational people, not crazy people like Putin. We are doing exactly the right thing. Hopefully, somebody will take Putin out.
We had one chance between Gorbachev and Putin.- and we blew it. I commented on it at the time and was, unfortunately, proven to be right (I was working my way up the civil service ranks in the Air Force at the time).
I had said at the time we need a Marshall Plan for Russia. Bush Sr. and Clinton chose to turn their backs on Russia's needs (they weren't particularly antagonistic, just snobbish). Once Putin took over, it was Katy -bar-the-door; nothing was going to stop Putin from realizing his dream of reestablishing the old Soviet Union.
America and the West made many attempts to appease Putin, but it was never going to work. We needed to do to Putin what Biden and Europe are doing to him now when he invaded Georgia and again when he invaded Ukraine the first time. THAT is the OLNY thing that will get a megalomaniac like Putin's attention.Well, I still don't know about "many attempts," so I suppose I better find out. I have seen multiple mentions of Russia contemplating, (or asking), joining NATO, (I have the impression it was a one-sided contemplation), at one time, If that's true, then what's the deal?
That would have been a good opportunity to take a step forward, so what were the negatives that caused The West to reject the idea? I don't think I'm that motivated to dig it up.
I still don't agree with your closing thought, but until I figure it out, (and I probably won't), it is an arguable point.
Just for giggles, relative to your one chance thought, (between Gorby and Putin), wasn't that Yeltsin's time? I don't think there was much future there for The West to work with.
GA
It seems to me that the assessment of the poor shape the Russian army is in is based on allied intelligence reports, which I have great confidence in - at least regarding this conflict.
I don't mean to contradict you, but the only "intelligence reports" that I have heard, so far, have been those of the media's contributing military experts offering their `opinions' and evaluations—based on their expertise. And that's fine. I'm not discounting them, but I see them more as intelligent opinions than intelligence reports.
The few pressers that I have seen from the Pentagon's spokesman have the same presentation; an evaluation rather than intelligence analysis. It's likely I have missed the supporting reports you mention.
So far, my perception of all the presented "experts" and the Pentagon's statements is that everyone is confused by the current situation. It seems everyone was expecting a better performance and are covering all the bases with anecdotal speculation about why it's not happening. It would be great if you and Faye are right.
GAI did a quick search to find reports that our intel services have said this - I will have to look deeper.
That said, I don't think I would put the experts I have seen, heard, and read in quotes. I think people like James Clapper and the various senior generals do qualify as real experts able to read the tea leaves.When speaking of the military media contributors as a group I think it is fair to put that "experts" label in quotes. Individually some, (your Clapper example?). may not be questionable experts, but as a group being paid for their TV time, I think the quotes are appropriate.
GAJust for some insight take a peek at the link below to The Ministry of Defence of Ukraine with a timeline of events. I poke my nose there now and then having it bookmarked in my browser.
https://www.mil.gov.ua/en/
Each event with a time is a link to more information.
This is from the Kyiv Post as of an hour ago.
"Ukraine official statement: UAF has stopped Russian Federation (RF) attack in the north, Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) advances in the east
UAF forces have brought RF attacks to a full stop in the northern half of the country, while the situation to the south is more fluid, a senior government official said on Wednesday.
Oleksii Arestovych, a Presidential administration spokesman, said Ukrainian deep strikes and counterattacks brought all RF forward movement to a halt in the Chernhiv and Sumy sectors. RF forces have taken substantial losses and are reorganizing, but UAF regular forces and partisans are hunting down survivors, he said.
The city of Kharkiv is under extremely heavy fire, Arestovych said, with RF forces using all manner of weapons from air-dropped bombs to artillery to rockets. Most of the strikes are hitting civilian homes or businesses, per an RF strategy to “break the will” of the city’s population, he said. UAF regular and territorial forces are still fighting for the city house to house, and Kharkiv has effectively become “A 21st Century Stalingrad”, Arestovych said.
UAF forces in the east are holding their ground and at one location, the village Horlivka, they have advanced and digging in. This confirmed earlier reports UAF forces had captured the locality. It was the first instance of UAF forces capturing ground previously controlled by the Russian-controlled enclave “LNDPR”.
In the south, the city Mariupol remains under UAF control, while street battles are in progress in Kherson and Mykolaiv, where the RF landed some troops by air. Arestovych said UAF elements were systematically attacking these RF forces and that most should be eliminated by the end of the day.
Arestovych singled out the situation around the city of Enerhodar as worrying, because of the proximity of RF troops to a nuclear power station there. At present RF columns in the vicinity are stopped, he said.
Citing a flood of images in Ukrainian conventional and social media as evidence, Arestovych claimed RF soldiers are “massively” quitting their vehicles to avoid having to attack into the teeth of Ukrainian defenses. He claimed that RF losses to date have been so high, as to force the Kremlin to mobilize military institute students as reserves and replacements.
Despite wide but unconfirmed media reports that the Belarusian army might move to support its embattled RF allies, at present, Arestovych said, Ukrainian intelligence has seen insufficient evidence Minsk intends to intervene in the war."
https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politi … pdate.htmlI was wondering if Zelenskyy's call for foreign troops would result in some help, Over 16,000 are responding to the call. That could create 1 and a half new divisions or around 16 battalions of combat and support forces. That is significant.
I think it would but I think they need air power. That stalled 40 mile long Russian convoy just begs to be taken out.
While air power is in short supply (I wonder if Turkey and others are feeding Ukraine drones) of air power, apparently Ukrainian ground forces are part of the reason that convey is stalled - along with lack of fuel and terrible maintenance.
Whenever such an overly obvious blunder is being made, one should ask themselves why.
When limited force is being used, one should ask why.
One explanation offered for these events has been that the Russian army does not believe in it's mission and is sabotaging it's own progress.
But right now, a lot is still very unclear.
I am watching the Russians conducting an armed assault on an operating Ukrainian nuclear power plant as well as directly targeting women and children
It is time for the world drop a REAL hammer on Russia.Could such a strike at nuclear power plant damage it to the point that radioactive materials could be inadvertently exposed to the environment?
What kind of coward deliberately targets women and children?
After all this, Putin cannot have any allies with the noted exception of Tucker Carlson and the Trump Republicans.
While China may have issues with the United States, their being seen as allying with Putin is simply bad for business and their model of being the "white knight", offering nations infrastructure repair. It would put their clients off to have an image of associating with a warlord and invader.While the fires are not in the reactor units yet, they can be. If they are set on fire, then you could have a meltdown. There are six reactors there, but only one on-line at the moment.
You probably have a good point about China
The Russian troops don't know what they're doing. NATO needs to put Putin down now. They are initiating another Chernobyl type event.
Those who play with fire get burned themselves. NATO and the USA have played with fire by not giving simple guarantees to Russia and they will pay the price. War is a dangerous subject and people must be very careful when they say they do this to Putin and do that to Putin. They must be aware that the small European countries will simply cease to exist on the world map in a nuclear war though the US and Russia will survive. In 1961 Nikita Khruschev first secretary of the communist party during the crisis of Gary Powers had said it will take just 5 H-bombs to wipe England off the World map. I am very sorry for Europe that all wars originate from there. It is a playground of World Wars. God save Europe.
In the event of thermonuclear warfare, what makes you believe that the US and Russia will survive? From what I hear, the catastrophic event will render the planet lifeless if both sides release their full nuclear salvos. From what I understand, there is more involved than just the blast, itself.
I do agree that we need to give Putin some space, when Putin stands down that would be a good place to begin negotiations.Look where giving Putin space has gotten us. Chamberlain gave Hitler space and look what happened there.
It is time to stop placating him and force those around him to start planning his demise.Hitler didn't have nukes... its that simple.
Even a "limited" Nuclear war changes our world in catastrophic ways.
It will make the Covid lockdowns look like a fun filled trip to Disney.
Who know what would happen to the world economy, to food supplies, energy supplies, governments would collapse, etc. etc.
If Putin is rational, you need to give him an out and not corner him.
If Putin is irrational, a murdering madman as some like to call him, then we really have problems because the use of nukes might be a foregone conclusion.
I think we are closer to the second option then I have cared to think.
He went in with "kid gloves" because he thought Ukrainians would back down or welcome him in the eastern parts of Ukraine. Even I had discussed this possibility based on the common language and ties to Russia most have in those regions.
Instead Russian troops were met with substantial resistance.
On top of that, his forces bogged down, the advance has all but stopped. What should have been accomplished in two days is where his forces sit at the start of week 2.
The shut down of the Russian economy, the sanctions...
It's a scary thought to consider he may feel he has nothing to lose... or that all is lost to him... the immense power, the wealth... if he is truly akin to Hitler he might try to take all of us with him.Ken, It seems to me the book s already written. Putin appears to have a well laid out plan, as you said he is getting resistance from the people of Ukraine, but I think his plan is being carried out. I don't think he will stop or negotiate with anyone, he will push ahead and add to his plan as needed to complete his takeover. I think he will use every weapon that he needs to complete his task. Hopefully, it will not come to him needing to use a nuclear option.
In my view, if Ukraine does not get help with weapons and troops sadly they will fight a great battle but will be outgunned by Putin's sheer number of weapons and troops.
Then soon down the road, we can watch a repeat when China takes Taiwan.
It would seem we should have seen this coming. I mean did the world not create these two superpowers? Are we still not supporting their coffers?"In my view, if Ukraine does not get help with weapons and troops sadly they will fight a great battle but will be outgunned by Putin's sheer number of weapons and troops." - So, are you saying we (or NATO) need to put boots on the ground (or planes in the air) in Ukraine? We are already supplying weapons.
I don't understand the defeatist, curl up in a ball attitude of some simply because Putin has nukes.I am certainly fearful of Putin using Nuclear weapons. I have made mentioned in several posts I hope the world sends weapons and aid, and quickly.
What I said is the only hope these people have are if troops are sent in, and weapons. Realistically, that is all that could help them in my view. Do I want our troops to be sent, no.... because it will cause a world war?
I was giving a mere analogy of what would help the people of Ukraine.
have also said I wished they would decide to live, instead of choosing to fight to the death. I do not think the Ukrainian can beat this tyrant. I opt for life. I have also said I feel these people are the most courageous people I have ever seen.
I don't understand your submissive attitude about Putin and nuclear weapons. I guess it is easy to be all kinds of brave when they are not aimed at you.So, I ask you again, what would YOU do about it that Biden and the West hasn't done? Don't just complain, offer a solution.
And where did that "submissive" BS come from?
The largest nuclear plant in Europe is on fire and no one can get in to address it because Russia continues to shell it. It's a matter of grave concern. What happens if this plant explodes?
You may want to give the world to Putin. Why? I don't know but America and the West who believe in freedom and democracy will not.
Related Discussions
- 256
A Warning From Biden Or Just Another Confused Statement?
by Sharlee 19 months ago
Biden on Thursday when addressing the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee let loose with this --- This statement appears to be when Biden went off script. He was closing and decided to add this ....."So I guess — I said I was not going to talk very long; I’ve already talked too...
- 15
Ukraine – Yet more lies from governments and mainstream media
by sannyasinman 10 years ago
Contrary to what most world governments and mainstream media are telling you, there IS NO build up of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border, as these eye witness accounts from USA journalists will tell you . . http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukrain … dup-n67336Inform yourself. Look for the...
- 299
Is Russia Going to Invade Ukraine? Should America care if they do?
by Readmikenow 8 weeks ago
I guess in this situation I do have a bias. I'm Ukrainian. I have relatives in Ukraine. I've been to Ukraine more than once. I have a bias, but I may also have a bit more insight into the situation.Russa invaded Ukraine in 2014. The propaganda will say it was Ukrainian...
- 17
BTW the Ukraine war just Escalated, again
by Ken Burgess 4 weeks ago
Ukraine’s Invasion of Russia Could Bring a Quicker End to the Warhttps://foreignpolicy.com/2024/08/09/ku … otiations/Ukraine Changed the Course of the War with KURSK Offensivehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAPs6V5Nv_AWhat will be the response... what will Russia do now that the war is in...
- 225
Presidential Debate. What do you think will happen?
by Readmikenow 17 hours ago
I think harris lacks a lot in debate skills. She avoids questions from the press. Interviews she has done are very few. With the one national press interview done by her she was accompanied by her VP. It was taped. harris will have a difficult time answering questions...
- 75
Biden Lobbed Threats At Putin
by Sharlee 17 months ago
Biden warns Putin against using nuclear weapons in Ukraine: 'Don't'Biden said the US response to any further potential attack by Russia would be 'consequential'President Biden warned Russian President Vladimir Putin against using nuclear weapons in Ukraine in a television interview while declining...