What to do About Russia and Ukraine?

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 146 discussions (690 posts)
  1. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    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.

  2. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    I forgot to include the article that led to this forum.

    https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/29/europe/ru … index.html

    1. CHRIS57 profile image61
      CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      There 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?

      1. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Interesting take.  It sounds like this is a product straight from Russia Today or GRU unit 54777.

        1. CHRIS57 profile image61
          CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image79
            Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Exactly, well said.  For reasons I just mentioned in my last post.

      2. Ken Burgess profile image79
        Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          So, are you suggesting it is the American news media that put the 120,000 Russian troops on Ukraine's border?  Ludicrous!

          1. Ken Burgess profile image79
            Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. My Esoteric profile image86
              My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I say again - you are unbelievable

  3. Stephen Tomkinson profile image92
    Stephen Tomkinsonposted 2 years ago

    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.

    1. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. gmwilliams profile image84
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

      2. Stephen Tomkinson profile image92
        Stephen Tomkinsonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          He has stated many times he wants to reconstitute the old Soviet Union.

  4. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    US is deploying troops to Eastern Europe in show of support.  Good.

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/02/politics … index.html

    1. CHRIS57 profile image61
      CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I 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?

      1. GA Anderson profile image88
        GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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?

        GA

        1. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I would suspect both.

          1. GA Anderson profile image88
            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Me 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.

            GA

            1. My Esoteric profile image86
              My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Could 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?

      2. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Hmmm, probably need to read real news better.  Poland and Romania are Eastern Europe.

        1. CHRIS57 profile image61
          CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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.

  5. Ken Burgess profile image79
    Ken Burgessposted 2 years ago

    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.

    1. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      1. Ken Burgess profile image79
        Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Unbelievable.

      2. CHRIS57 profile image61
        CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Very imaginative.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image78
      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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

      1. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        "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.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image78
          Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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?

            1. Sharlee01 profile image78
              Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. My Esoteric profile image86
                My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                "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.

            2. CHRIS57 profile image61
              CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              ...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)

              1. My Esoteric profile image86
                My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                "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.

      2. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        "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.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image78
          Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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)?

  6. MG Singh profile image74
    MG Singhposted 2 years ago

    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.

    1. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      What is your alternative then?

  7. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    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.html

  8. MG Singh profile image74
    MG Singhposted 2 years ago

    The 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?

    1. GA Anderson profile image88
      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      GA

      1. Ken Burgess profile image79
        Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I 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.

        1. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          More GRU propaganda, I see.  You probably even deny that Putin is a murderer, don't you.  Amazing.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image79
            Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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]

            1. CHRIS57 profile image61
              CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. My Esoteric profile image86
                My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. CHRIS57 profile image61
                  CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  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?

                  1. My Esoteric profile image86
                    My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    " 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.

                  2. Ken Burgess profile image79
                    Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    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.

            2. My Esoteric profile image86
              My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              "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.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image79
                Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                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.

    2. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

  9. emge profile image80
    emgeposted 2 years ago

    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.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image79
      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

  10. MG Singh profile image74
    MG Singhposted 2 years ago

    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.

    1. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Why are you supporting Russian aggression?  Do you want them to take over your country to?

  11. Stephen Tomkinson profile image92
    Stephen Tomkinsonposted 2 years ago

    Can someone please tell me exactly why the Russian bear is getting up on its hind legs and posturing?

    1. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      According to Ken, Chris, and MG, they are not, but then that is to be expected of pro-Russian operatives.

    2. CHRIS57 profile image61
      CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Russian painter Ivan Shishkin is famous for this painting:

      https://hubstatic.com/15886372_f1024.jpg

      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:

      https://hubstatic.com/15886374_f1024.jpg

      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.

  12. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    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.html

    1. CHRIS57 profile image61
      CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      And 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.

  13. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    Kiev is fortifying its evacuation plans -why?

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/11/politics … index.html

    1. CHRIS57 profile image61
      CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Isn´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.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image79
        Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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?

      2. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I suppose that could be true - if you reported the truth. But, you didn't.

        1. CHRIS57 profile image61
          CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. Ken Burgess profile image79
            Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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=505uQahvKvg

            1. CHRIS57 profile image61
              CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Ken, 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.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image79
                Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. CHRIS57 profile image61
                  CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  ...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?

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image79
                    Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    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?

            2. My Esoteric profile image86
              My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Everybody knows you are by your pro-Russian comments: 1) part of the SGU, 2) an American communist, or 3) a Russian sympathizer.

          2. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "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.

            1. CHRIS57 profile image61
              CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              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?

              1. My Esoteric profile image86
                My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. CHRIS57 profile image61
                  CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  ...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?

                  1. My Esoteric profile image86
                    My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    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.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image86
                    My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    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?..."

                  3. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    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?

              2. My Esoteric profile image86
                My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                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."

                1. CHRIS57 profile image61
                  CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image79
                    Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I like your ability to see through the BS.  Not too many can.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image86
                    My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    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)

  14. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    More nations leave Ukraine ahead of the Russian invasion.

    https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/uk … index.html

  15. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    The 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.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image79
      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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 HOAX

      1. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        That 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.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image79
          Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. CHRIS57 profile image61
            CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            ... 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.

  16. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    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).

  17. Stephen Tomkinson profile image92
    Stephen Tomkinsonposted 2 years ago

    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.

    1. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

    2. Ken Burgess profile image79
      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

  18. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    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 … a802fc6b4e

  19. emge profile image80
    emgeposted 2 years ago

    The 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.

    1. CHRIS57 profile image61
      CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image79
        Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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=JrMiSQAGOS4

        1. CHRIS57 profile image61
          CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          You 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.

      2. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        "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)

        1. Ken Burgess profile image79
          Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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.

        2. CHRIS57 profile image61
          CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          ... 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).

          1. GA Anderson profile image88
            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            GA

            1. My Esoteric profile image86
              My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Let'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?

              1. GA Anderson profile image88
                GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                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.

                GA

                1. My Esoteric profile image86
                  My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  In 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 difference

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image79
                    Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Brussels 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.

                  2. GA Anderson profile image88
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    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

                    GA

          2. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "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.

    2. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

  20. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    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 … 35bbc51892

    1. Sharlee01 profile image78
      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps Putin is open to a last-ditch effort to diplomacy, and opening talks with NATO.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image79
        Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

  21. Credence2 profile image79
    Credence2posted 2 years ago

    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.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image79
      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

    2. GA Anderson profile image88
      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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

      1. tsmog profile image84
        tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Is that the same one you shared to me that Chris posted? Or, is it a different lecture? The former one changed my view with a better understanding!

        1. GA Anderson profile image88
          GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I don't remember. Sorry.

          GA

  22. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    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?

    1. CHRIS57 profile image61
      CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. CHRIS57 profile image61
          CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          ... 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.

          1. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. CHRIS57 profile image61
              CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              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).

  23. emge profile image80
    emgeposted 2 years ago

    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.

    1. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

  24. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    Putin using disinformation (lies) as a pretext to war

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/16/europe/p … index.html

  25. emge profile image80
    emgeposted 2 years ago

    Ken, 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.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image79
      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image79
          Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Ken Burgess profile image79
              Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              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...

    2. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      " 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.

  26. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    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 … bf2d10b1de

  27. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    One 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 … affe4a57ce

  28. emge profile image80
    emgeposted 2 years ago

    Frankly, 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.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image79
      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to 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).

    2. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

  29. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    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 … 4bba86d9fe

  30. emge profile image80
    emgeposted 2 years ago

    If 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.

    1. CHRIS57 profile image61
      CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      ... 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.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image79
        Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

      2. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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)

    2. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "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

  31. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    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 … e546766e28

    1. CHRIS57 profile image61
      CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      from 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.

      1. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        The thing is, the OSCE (and common sense and video evidence) backs him up.

    2. Ken Burgess profile image79
      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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/

  32. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    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."

    1. Ken Burgess profile image79
      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. savvydating profile image89
        savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. CHRIS57 profile image61
          CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. savvydating profile image89
            savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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?

            1. My Esoteric profile image86
              My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. savvydating profile image89
                savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image78
                  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                2. Ken Burgess profile image79
                  Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  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/

                3. My Esoteric profile image86
                  My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. savvydating profile image89
                    savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    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.

          2. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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.

          3. Ken Burgess profile image79
            Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image78
      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      " 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

      1. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        "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

  33. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    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 … 2e6ad428f3

  34. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    And 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.html

  35. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    Interesting 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.html

    1. Ken Burgess profile image79
      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Such 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.

  36. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    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.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image78
      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image78
          Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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?

        2. CHRIS57 profile image61
          CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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.

  37. MG Singh profile image74
    MG Singhposted 2 years ago

    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.

    1. savvydating profile image89
      savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Biden is predictable. Unfortunately, he can always be counted on to make terrible foreign policy decisions. That is not to say his domestic policies are better.

  38. GA Anderson profile image88
    GA Andersonposted 2 years ago

    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.

    GA

    1. Sharlee01 profile image78
      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      In 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.

    2. savvydating profile image89
      savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image79
        Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. savvydating profile image89
          savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I agree with your last four paragraphs. I do not know, however, how much Biden concerns himself with companies like "Lockheed, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman."

          That is not something I had considered.

  39. emge profile image80
    emgeposted 2 years ago

    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.

  40. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
    Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years ago

    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-DZBcQQ

    1. savvydating profile image89
      savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      What 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.

      1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
        Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

  41. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    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.

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Wow.  Didn't know that could happen. Wondered where you were.
        Welcome back! You have a lot to catch up on

      1. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, I have been reading while in my hiatus.

  42. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    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.

    1. GA Anderson profile image88
      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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

      GA

      1. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Unless 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.

        1. GA Anderson profile image88
          GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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

  43. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    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.

  44. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    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.html

  45. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    This 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.html

  46. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
    Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years ago

    I 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.

    1. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. GA Anderson profile image88
        GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        GA

        1. Ken Burgess profile image79
          Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          This 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.

          1. GA Anderson profile image88
            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            GA

            1. Ken Burgess profile image79
              Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, 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.

            2. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Demonization?  I see it as calling a spade a spade. Why ignore reality?

              1. Ken Burgess profile image79
                Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image79
                    Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    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?

                  2. My Esoteric profile image86
                    My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    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.

                  3. Ken Burgess profile image79
                    Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    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.

              2. GA Anderson profile image88
                GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                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

                GA

                1. Ken Burgess profile image79
                  Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Exactly, 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.

                2. Credence2 profile image79
                  Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  "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.....

                  1. My Esoteric profile image86
                    My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    That works with rational people, not crazy people like Putin.  We are doing exactly the right thing.  Hopefully, somebody will take Putin out.

            3. My Esoteric profile image86
              My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. GA Anderson profile image88
                GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                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

        2. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. GA Anderson profile image88
            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            GA

            1. My Esoteric profile image86
              My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I 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.

              1. GA Anderson profile image88
                GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                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.

                GA

                1. tsmog profile image84
                  tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Just 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.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image88
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Thanks, I'll take a look.

                    GA

  47. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

    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.html

  48. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    I 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.

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I think it would but I think they need air power. That stalled 40 mile long Russian convoy just begs to be taken out.

      1. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image79
          Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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.

  49. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    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.

    1. Credence2 profile image79
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

      2. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        You probably have a good point about China

    2. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      The Russian troops don't know what they're doing. NATO needs to put Putin down now.  They are initiating another Chernobyl type event.

  50. MG Singh profile image74
    MG Singhposted 2 years ago

    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.

    1. Credence2 profile image79
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image79
          Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Hitler didn't have nukes... its that simple.

      2. Ken Burgess profile image79
        Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image78
          Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "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.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image78
              Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. My Esoteric profile image86
                My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                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?

    2. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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?

    3. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)