World War III?
Again, Ukrainian people from around the world are going to Ukraine to fight for freedom. The problem? The Ukrainian defense forces don't have enough weapons for all of them. Things are going to be changing in this war soon. Offensive weapons are arriving and manpower is also arriving.
"Even while 1.5 million Ukrainians have fled the country amid the Russian invasion in the past two weeks, more than 100,000 Ukrainians and others have flocked to Ukraine in order to fight Russian President Vladimir Putin's forces, according to Ukraine Defense Minister Oleksiy Reznikov. Ukrainians on the ground tell Fox News Digital that volunteers have been turned away from the army because it lacks weapons.
"More than 140,000 Ukrainians, mostly men, have returned from Europe," Reznikov wrote in a Facebook post Monday. "Tens of thousands joined the Territorial Defense Forces. Of course, there are those who run away. But the whole world sees the Ukrainian people fighting for their country."
https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukraine-m … ght-russiaUkraine situation sounds like what happened in Iraq. Operations bread and bombs, it was like baiting them with bread and then bombing them.
At least this war is being veiwed more and heart felt around the world. War must be abolished, the people have spoken, they don't want it , as it solves nothing.Thank you, fox news. Ukraines are not cowards but very bold and fearless.
Maybe the Ukrainians got too carried away and should have been more respectful to Russia. More understanding, more compliant. I mean, is being a neutral country so bad?
Or is the world absolutely ready for democracy?
Meanwhile, back on the farm, we are not protecting our southern border or keeping our own light of democracy lit.You need to study the history between Ukraine and Russia. I suggest you start with an event known as HOLODOMOR. If you want to know what life was like for Ukraine under Russia I can share the stories of my relatives as well as what I experienced going there in the 1970 & 80s. Then you would understand why Ukrainians will fight to the last person to avoid Russian domination.
My thoughts are with you and the Ukrainian people.
Thank you.
I'm sure you know that hundreds of British have come to Ukraine to join the fight. Many of them interviewed said they have no previous battlefield experience. This, to me, makes them very courageous.Thanks. Yes I know, very courageous, as are the Ukrainian people fighting for their home, and lives.
Yes, Russians were horrible to Ukraine in the pass history and understand why they are fighting with all the might to keep their independence. One time I thought Putin was good for Russian, sometime absolute power corrupts. One silver lining is that it draws awareness worldwide to the destructive powers of NATO also. It works better power for We the people.
People have the freedom to leave the country or stay. Personally I love my family more than my country. Canada I would leave if this war was happening in my country. yet support the people to come back and do what ever I can from afar to make it happen. War is the deepest insanity and hell on earth.
Canada strength is in the diversity of the mosaic of cultures, independence and a very peaceful history. From a choice of 6 continent to live on, I pick Canada, yet war would be too much in the dirty hands of evil owners."Canada strength is in the diversity of the mosaic of cultures, independence and a very peaceful history."
No, Canada's strength is that its neighbor to the south happens to be a world military superpower. The world knows that any attack on Canada would be viewed in the United States as an attack on them. Americans would instantly come to the defense of Canada.
This means Canada can put more of its money back into its economy and not spend it on defense. It also means they can sell their products to the largest market in the world to the south of their border. Canada has the pure benefit of having the United State as their southern neighbor.
Without it, could Canada be as prosperous as it is right now? No way. Would they be able to spend such little money on defense? No.
The biggest benefit Canada has is being the northern neighbor of the United States. Without it, Canada would be a very different place.Castle/Mike, I came across this video of Ronald Reagan recently and it just seems to belong!
https://youtu.be/DWYrcnehito"We know only too well that war comes NOT when the forces of FREEDOM are strong; it is when they are weak that Tyrants are TEMPTED."
- Ronald Wilson Reagan
WOW!Totally agree. Politicians that have chosen division rather than an actual platform have done damage to our country in terms of looking weak. I'm sure Putin was counting on some American support/sympathizers
I do agree with his statement about never letting those who seek to destroy freedom dictate The future course of life on this planet.Once had Ronald Reagan praise on national news of our world record sandcastle in Florida. 100s of Politician do this with us around the world, to prop themselves up, related to beautiful looking things.
Nothing negative in action there.
Then I had GW Bush take away my green card because I refuse to build him a war sculpture. I'm not unkind and violent enough to be an American according to the big Boss. So they can keep it.
Reagan wrote a book on how to win a nuclear war, and created the trickle down theory for the super rich. And, I won't say no to the most important plant on earth. A plant that's is the best medicine know to human kind. A plant that creates 50,000 different products, like no other plant, it's called cannabis.
Also a colorful leaf is a beautiful symbol for Canada , I'll keep her for now, unless someone invades us for our water. Canada coastline can be wrap around the planet 5 times. Funny we only have 5 submarine and three of them are operational in a amusement park in Edmonton mall. I work on that too, making much better uses for those killing machines..
My strength are fearlessness, sticktotiveness and love and equipped to protect myself and family without harming anyone else against all odds Don't care for Tyrants or bullies of any kind. Another unnecessary evil in my life and family.
Show me how having sex with a whore turns her into a virgin. Then I will believe how US wars turns the world into peace.It is a "peace through strength" philosophy.
What do you think would happen to us {me, here in the States, you to my north} if the U.S. were to give up all arms and all armies?We cannot stop violence with violence. Nor killing with killing. With more guns than American citizens, American are better at killings themselves than killing themselves in oversea wars.
Don't be 10 times per capita greater in a war budget, than the average country, And 5 times greater in crime and prisoners. The main reason citizens have way too many guns is because their military and police have way too many military equipment and guns. Police kill 40 times more than terrorism kill. Have a plan to reduce US military fire arm power and the citizens will reduce their fire arm power. Otherwise Stop murdering people!!! With that money saved then America could feed and houses the entire planet. And explore space 10 times greater. Then Karma will take care of itself.We are civilized society, after all!
- aren't we?Can't wait for the Aquarius age to kick in.
Still the other half will stay uglyAs a boy, I was told by a lawyer, violence is not part of civil society. Yet my read on pax britannica say otherwise. And America is after that. You've got to put down the terror power of the bad boys anywhere. Police in most cases are inadequant for the job. So some citizens with a liscence defend themselves. But in the process, some innocent persons were killed. Worst when the terrorists struck the Trade Tower.
Castle, I disagree with the last five sentenses of your last paragraphe.
Most people don't want war,.when if people want a true democracy.
I will not ever look for a fight. Even though I have world class fighting skills. If my girlfriend and I come across muggers, we will both run away first. Chuck Norris would do the same.Ever seen a monkey ran away from an elephant? Ever seen a lion ran away from a monkey? Ever seen a man ran away froma monkey?
No. I have never seen a monkey run away from an elephant. (Have you?)
No. I have never seen a lion run away from a monkey. (But, the monkey should certainly flee from the presence of a lion.)
No. I have never seen a man run away from a monkey. (But I would.)
I have fled the ocean, however, when I saw a couple of seals swimming too close to me!
I quickly ended a moonlit hike after catching sight of the glowing eyes of two bobcats.
I have fled a human stocker who kept following me.
(Once, I led him as he chased me in my car to the police station, where he finally made a U turn.)My Kathryn, thank you for your three negative-positive answers. How then can Chuk Norris flee? He's acting right? You ran from the marine animal...he mould do the same if he's not armed. My point is that CN is bold, dareing, and brave that he can even face a viper! @Castlepaloma, never make a joke with any of my favorite actors/(actress), who once braved a flaming plane to rescur his man trapped therein.
It is good to flee, when possible, to escape a dire threat. However, when cornered or blocked in, its a completely different story. Russia is like an elephant cornered by many rats. It could not jump over them or negotiate with them. Therefore, the elephant has stampeded.
Putin has taken advantage of the current political climate, (no resistance,) for the sake of protecting and maintaining his command and strength as leader of of his country.
I mean, it is understandable why the leader of a country would not want to loose his position of command and strength.
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-russi … d0%26pl%3d
My family and I would find easier to be among those 3 million Ukrainian who did excaped from Ukraine, if that was our home.
I don't care if world so called leaders take temper tantrums. I won't be a part or death stats of immature efficiency hateful and murderous
angry Mental illness madmen. I will be faster, better and smarter than the the biggest baddest bully from hell.
The the longest boarder in the world and Canada trades more with US than all of European combined. Makes us most likely good friends and neighbors than anything. Not the most wasteful thing in the world of military war and destruction. Regardless of what GW Bush says that UK is their best friend. Just in most offensive terrifying missions of no solution. Certainly a whole different preseptive from love and kindness to Fear and total destruction.
When US has 10 times greater war.budget per capita than the average country in the world. It becomes an Offensive country not a defensive country. Wail countries are better off operations in being smaller countries as much more likely those countries gross national product will be Happiness. I bet US states would be happier split into smaller countries. Which the rest of the world is more likely to Change into.Splitting into smaller countries is, I hope, not the desire of most of the American people. However, now Political and ideological differences threaten to divide us in a way not considered before,
Not seen the US is more divided since the civil war. Smaller countries sounds like healthier solutions.
Castle, if they can run you out from your home, how could think that you would be safe anywhere?
The Government have tried to lock us into our homes for Two years now, over seemly endless fear of covid. Everything so far by the Government has gone against the grain of everything holistic lifestyle we live by.
I already live a self governing and totally self efficiency home community. And teach others how to.
Every country tiny or small, or big loves its independence. And by the way, what is Russia to invade Ukraine? Is that self-respect? Is that not a show of power? Would the world invade and threat Russia like-wise?
After all, without willful obedience to morals and fair and enforceable laws, a democratic government/country is very hard to keep. Especially in this age of technology.
Don't try this at home.PS We have a lot of work ahead of us, but try keeping O U R democracy, we must.
How about Freedom Republic of Independence? We got far too many owners owning us
and This!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE
New question based on the information presented in this video:
If Russia accomplished its ultimate goals, what would it mean to US and the world?
Would it be necessarily detrimental?Good to see you back.
I only know enough about politics and the matrix system to avoid them as much as humanly possible. Yes, use some of them as tools, yet I stay centre with love vs fear or independent individual vs toxicity centralism, and courage vs over obedience. Generally democracy well , yet not for every situation for minorities.
I hope everyone takes a good look at this picture. This is reality of life in the Ukraine. This is one of the reasons they will never give in to Russia.
My heart breaks for these people. It is evident the media is not reporting atrocities. But youtube is, at least until they find the footage and remove it. The media does not want to show what is occurring.
So much easier to close their eyes to the truth than report it.There are untouchable sites, that cell phones and podcaster can go on to.
The more they squeeze us, the more we will slip through their fingersCheck out MSNBC. Their coverage is pretty thorough. Journalists In many different locations in Ukraine. They have shown some unbelievable footage plus speaking to those who have made it over the borders to Poland, Hungary and Romania.
While Rightwingers may well object, I think that this is an important article, taking a position and tack that we all need to think about.
In my world, there are no prima donnas. I abhor double standards
https://www.salon.com/2022/03/08/in-war … stify-our/
Thoughts?My first thought....Salon? Sources such as Salon and Vanity Fair tell me all that I need to know about the direction the article will take. It will make the U.S. out to be the villain, no matter the circumstance or situation. That is what leftist propaganda does, that's what the haters of America do.They must convince enough people to hate the idea of America as much as they do, for any real harm to be done.
But too many people {not just Americans} understand the alternative and would rather live free, even if for a day, than to live as a slave to a tyrant, for life.
Putin is understanding this right about now!
As for the article shared, I didn't read it.AB, it is only closed minded people who do not look into all sides of a controversy before passing judgement. And who would like to be considered among such people?
------
Mention the provocations carried out by the Western alliance with the expansion of NATO beyond the borders of a unified Germany, a violation of promises made to Moscow in 1990; the stationing of NATO troops and missile batteries in Eastern Europe; the U.S. involvement in the ouster in 2014 of Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych.
--------
Is this true? Seems like there are plenty on Non-Salon sources that points that direction.
The article speaks of American intervention and nation building efforts at restructuring other societies that came with substantial body counts.
What I don't like about you "conservatives" is that you think that America and her policies of intervention around the world when its convenient, politically or militarily expedient is acceptable, while those of either China or Russia are not?
I do not herald Putin and his actions, it is just that thinking people would analyze beyond blind acceptance of grade school good guy/bad guy scenarios by taking the time to investigate and consider all the variables involved.
There can be no world peace when there are any bullies, whether it emanates from Russia or the United States.
What is good for the goose has to be good for the gander, and I will stand by that every time, regardless of whether you take the time to read the article or not. Hopefully, others may be a little more open minded.....and what I don't like about you leftists, is that you blame America first!
Well said.
The article was full of many of the things I brought up in the "What to do About Russia and Ukraine?" thread.
What Russia has done in Ukraine is evil.
What we did in our interference in Syria, our overthrow of Libya, and our occupation of Iraq was no better.
Those military actions have turned those three nations into bombed out hell holes, with far worse living conditions today than when we began our interference.
Those military actions caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of injuries, and displaced millions of people.
Those military actions turned large swaths of the Middle East and Northern Africa into brutal territories where armed gangs took control, raping, murdering and enslaving others as they wanted.
And during all that time, we were interfering in Georgia, Ukraine, and even Russian politics as well.
No one can open their eyes to what we have done the past 20+ years and consider the end result "good".
IF we had rebuilt Iraq into a better nation, with far better living conditions than they had prior to our occupation, then an argument could be made.
IF we had helped rebuild Libya and made it a more civil society with better quality of life, then an argument could be made.
But America did not do those things.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
They just make the world a very dangerous, violent, sad place.
Hillary as Gaddafi is being shown bludgeoned to death by a mob:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuWNzBO-UP4
Hillary seconds later when an aid confirms it was Gaddafi:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DXDU48RHLU
America's Secretary of State... interfering in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, all at the same time, Clinton was very busy back then spreading "American good will".Good point , no build back better plan for countries destroyed in the middle East. Now the fight has comes home.
You guys are bringing a lot of the after effect of war history to me. My question is did America, Britain, Russia. China, and France rebuild Germany after WW2?
No, Germany received less then 15% of Marschall plan funds. The largest chunk (60%) was received by France und the UK. So who rebuilt Britain and France?
But what does this have to do with the war in Ukraine?Good question. Britain was on the verge of bankruptcy at the end of the 2nd World War, and it took 10 years of continued rationing before we recovered; very much a period of the continuation of “Make Do and Mend” which had become part of daily life during the war, and which has since become part of the British psyche e.g. vegetable gardening and DIY being as popular as ever.
Most of the funding to rebuild Britain came from borrowing heavily on the International Money Market e.g. the USA; and that national debt was finally paid off just a few years ago.
As Churchill (Conservative) was a war hero, everyone was expecting him to win the General Election immediately after the war in 1945, and to form a Conservative Government; which would have meant a long period of austerity.
However, to everyone’s surprise Labour (Socialists) won with a landslide victory and formed a Socialist Government. And in spite of the fact that Britain was on the verge of bankruptcy the Labour (a Socialist Government) adopted Keynesian economics to rebuild Britain e.g. stimulating economic growth by Government Spending on infrastructure during times of economic downturn.
Such an approach enabled the Labour Socialist Government to introduce the Welfare State and to build a National Health Service from scratch in just 6 months in 1948; a National Health Service that’s owned and run by the Government, and which provides FREE healthcare for all at the point of use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
Where did the NHS come from? https://youtu.be/y4apLmg5XiA
Just curious, if the U.S A. is equally as invasive as Russia and no different than any other conquering Country, why haven't we? Why haven't we taken out everyone with our capabilities and taken all of the world's natural resources for ourselves? Nothing REALLY sets us apart, we just haven't found 'our Putin' yet, so to speak?
I am in love with the idea of America, I am not in love nor do I defend "a selfish, profiteering establishment" in D.C. run by...God only knows! Screwing up everything that I fell in love with, when it comes to this country.
I am not in love with weak and pathetic administrations put in place to benefit a few, while putting and keeping America last! I am not sure how Joe Biden made his way back into D.C., I suspect "the establishment" had a lot to do with it, they just didn't think it through very well.
I believe that my sharing Reagan's philosophy triggered this particular discussion and I do agree, the idea of America, seemed to leave with him, until Trump!!
But, Trump wasn't a part of the big, devious plan to put this country in its place...wherever that is!
So what now?!?
Are you really satisfied with Biden in office? You're satisfied with a much weaker America? What, in your mind replaces us, what does it look like?
Just curious."I am not sure how Joe Biden made his way back into D.C., I suspect "the establishment" had a lot to do with it"
He won a free and fair election. He won over a majority of voters. Who is the "Establishment"? And what were there specific actions?Yes, 81 million voted for him, is the number that I've heard.
Who is the establishment?
Look no further than who is profiting:
1) All who are greatly invested in going green {Note: they've no desire for us to have choices, they don't want to share with the oil, gas, coal industry} They are ONLY keen for green. Why is that?
2) All who PUSH for war, not accepting that sometimes things come to war, these, the worst of the bunch, work to make it happen.
3) All who have been in office for decades and have profited greatly. They don't make salaries that make them wealthy, but somehow many have become millionaires or billionaires, while in office.
This is the core IMHO.Why are some "keen for green?"
Well, for nearly a century, humans have been killing other humans around the world for oil. Dictators like Putin or Saudi Arabia’s murderous monarchs have used their control of the oil spigot to extort other nations and bend them to their will. In the present Ukrainian crisis, Putin’s leverage on the West would amount to a hill of beans if Europe had started earlier and more aggressively to move away from fossil fuels. In my opinion, building infrastructure that would lock us into oil and gas for another generation seems the height of madness.
The Ukraine crisis is a perfect example of the dangers of our reliance on fossil fuel energy and the urgency of transitioning rapidly toward clean energy.
Thankfully, almost all oil corporations see the writing on the wall And are heavily investing in developing renewals. Obviously, in my opinion not to be left out on the profit and control.I'm all for both, here in the U.S.
Europe will do what Europe will do, same with China.
We can be totally energy independent here AGAIN, once more, doing business only with our allies, if they choose to do business with us.
Our highways and byways can be a giant melting pot, just like our country, a good mix of electric tesla trucks and diesel powered trucks and me, burning my mid-grade gasoline.Now I have a question for you. I can't take credit for it, it was actually tweeted by Jim Jordan, but it's a good question:
Why is Joe Biden more interested in negotiating oil deals with foreign dictators rather than American workers?... And there, you have it.
(I wanted that to be in caps with multiple exclamation points.)I can accommodate that request, need to make sure it is seen, right?
WHY IS JOE BIDEN MORE INTERESTED IN NEGOTIATING OIL DEALS WITH FOREIGN DICTATORS RATHER THAN AMERICAN WORKERS!?!?
How's that?Because it is a short term solution Biden is seeking. A quick fix.
The Biden Administration will bail on Venezuela or who-ever it gets on board with supplying more oil as soon as it is convenient.
What the Biden Administration does not want to do is walk back any of the "progress" they have made in North America, the goal is to move forward with the "Green New Deal" agendas, lowering carbon emissions, banning fracking, etc.Well, it is a stab in the back of We the People...although we are well aware of the left's obsession with the ever changing weather {ever changing since the dawn of time} but nonetheless, "an obsession" for today's left! Because maybe somewhere deep down, they realize how crazy that sounds, they now get to blame it all on Putin! Lucky for them, huh? All while not caring a single damn about the American people, dealing with inflation, astronomical gas prices and more and more empty shelves. On the hills of their obsession with Covid; and all the ridiculous mandates and restrictions and borderline abuse of America's children {NOW, they share the news that it didn't make any difference whatsoever} but OH WELL, it is all part of the other obsession of Leftists and the Democrat Party.....knock us down a few levels, hit us when we get there, make it easier to CONTROL, We the People!!!
How anyone can support anything about the Dem Party; John Kerry with his, forget the war, it's the weather which should concern us, in his best Lurch voice or the most incompetent President and VP of all time, Biden/Harris...is well beyond my comprehension!Big Oil is in transition. The world is moving to reduce its dependence on hydrocarbons. Their is definitely growing concern about environmental damage. Yes, fossil fuels will remain a major driver of cash flows for the global energy industry for many years, even decades. But many companies will and already are supplementing their oil and gas businesses with substantial investments in renewable energy, carbon capture, and other technologies that help to speed the transition away from oil. The road ahead will be bumpy, with plenty of risks. Yet the transformation could also bring enormous opportunities for the companies involved, and their investors.
BPand Royal Dutch Shell have already unveiled ambitious plans to reduce oil output and expand their renewable and low-carbon businesses, while curtailing emissions.
Daniel Yergin, the veteran oil analyst and vice chairman of IHS Markit: “You’re seeing the biggest difference in strategies among major oils that we’ve had in decades.”
Their is a push around the world to slash greenhouse gas emissions. Big oil will respond and adjust I think actually it already is. And it is being driven as more of a response to their shareholders and investors than any "green new deal" could motivate . Pressure from investors has been one of the main forces pushing companies to address climate change and the transition to lower-carbon energy. Their will be a slow move toward renewables but the move has begun.
One last point, Clark Williams-Derry, an energy analyst with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, offered a reality check to those complaining that climate regulations have changed the fate of oil and gas. “The idea that the tiny marginal changes in US policy have anything to do with the big shifts we’ve seen in prices is just preposterous,” The marginal President Biden measures like reversing Trump-era environmental rollbacks haven’t made any kind of dent in the global oil market.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/big-oi … 1621645623Honestly that has much more to do with PR than reality.
The public image that they are all for Green Energy and they are transitioning to it, while doing significant damage with Lobbyists and through other efforts globally to make sure the transition happens as slowly as possible.Are you implying that the money that they've invested into renewables and research is merely a PR stunt?
My business is community living is all about green living and organic energy. No government investment coming my way, always trickling up to synthetic coded super rich.
Salon is now, always has been, and always will be classified in my mind as a liberal rag not worthy of attention.
After reading your link I do have a few thoughts. It had some points and perspectives I might agree with, and some that I don't.
You should make this topic a thread to go deeper, but I will give you a clue with an opinion of the article. It was labeled a commentary but went to a full-throttle rant after the first few paragraphs.
GAGA, what points did you not agree with?
I think we were in the same place when we acknowledge that the West has some complicity in what has happened in the Ukraine. I just thought that leadership among democracies require some sort of moral rectitude. We can't break promises and expect others to be willing to cooperate.
My point is simple: we are dealing with nuclear powers that can destroy us all. We are playing with Fire to promote an interventionist foreign policy but get all indignant when other nuclear powers, China and Russia, do the same thing as they see their status as equal to ours. Why should we be taken seriously, we are legends in our own mind. China and Russia don't relate to our claim of all-American purity and nobility when we intervene in the affairs of other nations.
I think she means the nuclear plant that provides Ukraine 25% of Ukraine power is not damaged. There is a battle from Russia trying to take over or possibly destroyed it That can wipeout a part of Europe
So Castlepaloma, would take over all the wasted lands and plant his first love, canabis. lol!
Probably plants in general can be alot of humans top loves. Because plants account for 80 percent of the total biomass, with bacteria across all ecosystems.
Henry Ford made a car and fuel it on cannabis. it could solve much of the oil and gas problems. Because the super rich can't stand the masses being independent. They code this synthetic world and everything it, for their complete control and greed.
One fact that cannot be obviated is that Ukraine is destroyed and in my view, it was the plan of the Anglo-Saxon powers to destroy Ukraine by creating a battlefield against Russia. What surprises me is that the Ukrainian president has played into the hands of the Americans and in any case, as brought out by Lt General A Hussain Putin has already achieved his aim of destroying Ukraine and not letting it rise for the next 50 years and also it will never get membership of NATO. This cheering looks to me grotesque when you realize Ukraine is becoming a waste land with over 1 million refugees. All this is very sad.
China appears to be shifting its tone on the war in Ukraine, as Beijing counts the costs of defending a Russian ally accused of war crimes and braces for the economic fallout from Western-led sanctions.
On Tuesday, President Xi Jinping told his French and German counterparts that Beijing was ready to work with the international community to "prevent the tense situation from escalating, or even running out of control," in his strongest comments yet on the two-week-old invasion. He even called it a "war" for the first time. Avoiding the "special military operation" label used by Putin.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Ukrain … atrocitiesWill believe that when I see it. China has many connections with Russia.
Not heard of the BRICS?, it's like NATO except it's 25% of its Military budget. They prefer Trading and protecting themselves from NATO Than they feel about war and the American dollars fiat currency.
Castlepaloma, you’re spouting American right-wing propaganda rather than checking the facts yourself.
BRICS is an acronym for (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), five nations.
BRICS, formed in 2010, is an independent international organization encouraging commercial, political, and cultural cooperation among the BRICS nations; five developing countries at a similar stage of newly advanced economic development, on their way to becoming developed countries.
In spite of the propaganda from right-wing American sources, BRICS has nothing to do with military, and has nothing to do with protecting themselves from NATO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICSBRICS is not formally military alliance. Yet secretly they do have too much investment with each other. Like how US protects it's investment in Canada.
China will soon be the next superpower, yet secretly they don't Bragg. Keep in mind US is planning an attack on China. Yet military today is the most wasteful investment, and why China has not had a major war since 1979.
NATO is only one of the components of the superpower status, specifically military one. NATO is neither economic, nor political alliance, at least formally. Superpower means a country that is dominant on the world stage and is able to exert influence on other countries through economic, military, cultural, diplomatic and technological strength. NATO provides USA with the ability to exert military influence. Now US is targeted as ground Zero.I think you might be a little bit paranoid Castlepaloma; the USA is not planning an attack on China, and neither does BRICS ‘secretly’ have too much investment with each other? Whatever that may mean?
Yeah, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa being of similar economic status and development do co-operate with each other in their economic development, but unlike NATA, BRICS has not formed a military alliance; and besides their combined military expenditure, at $339.8 billion a year is still less than half of the USA’s military expenditure, which stands at $738 billion a year.
Yeah, China will soon be the next superpower, and so will the EU; so what?Paranoid would be more related to fear. I love to know things, so knowing the danger is controling the danger , then comes the freedom and adventure advancement. Where most people are controlled by fear as safety slaves. And most people don't like their jobs for most waking hours of their lives. So along with covering my butt with food, freedom and housing business. I've teamed up with another life coach who does relationship and I do holistic business coaching, kind of like JP Wake out of California.
Who ever the king's will be to fight it out to own the synthetic world. As these owners create the greatest path of destruction human have ever known. I choose the World of grass root creators of solutions. Where magic meets natural science aim for a gross national product of happiness and less suffering.
What ever advancement your making for humanity, I like hearing about those things. Like your talks about green space. I have more troubles now about city solutions than country living.Yeah, “knowing the danger is controlling the danger”; but seeing danger when there isn’t any, is in my view paranoia.
Coming from more of the knowing all along, I said the vaccines are the spreader and the greater killers than the natural immune system.
CDC backs me up. Too bad so many signed their lives away and they are not done yet
https://rumble.com/vwvep2-steve-kirsch- … lives.htmlCastlepaloma, CDC does not back you up, you are twisting the facts; and your notation that it’s the vaccines and not the virus that kills is a cynical lie.
I have, and you are misinterpreting what’s said e.g. you don’t understand what the 6% means.
It’s a common mistake you’ve made on many occasions when you’ve provided links to prove a point; but in not reading beyond the articles Title and sub-titles, or just skimming through and picking out key words and phrases that (out of context) appear to support your view, you’ve inadvertently presented articles that actually say the opposite to what you thought they said.
From all indications, its a war and not a military operations.
This makes sense.
I believe that Tiwan would fight the Chinese army as hard as the Ukrainians are fighting the Russians.
A man from China told me the government knows they have to provide employment and a satisfying life for a billion people. If not, they could easily be overwhelmed by their population. No matter how large their army, if the population turns against them, it could destroy China.
This is why they are a totalitarian state. They don't trust their population.
So, if makes sense that China backs off of Tiwan. Worldwide economic sanctions could cripple their economy. A war where they are losing thousands of soldiers would be difficult to explain. If this happens, the population could then turn against them.
The Chinese government is not foolish. They know what they have to do to remain in power.
This is an excellent article about Ukraine and Russia. I found it in all places the publication "Al Jazeera"
"According to another poll, 80 percent of Ukrainian citizens say they are ready to defend their country from a Russian invasion by taking up arms.
This means that by attacking Ukraine in 2014 and by invading it again in 2022, Russia has achieved the opposite of what it wants. It is not only failing to bring Ukraine back into its sphere of influence, but it is also inspiring even more resistance to its aggression and consolidating further the Ukrainian national identity. With its actions, Moscow is creating an infernal image of itself in the eyes of Ukrainians and strengthening their conviction that their future should not be tied to this horrible authoritarian state."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pu … d=msedgntpFrom Biden address the nation speech. We know he can't read the Teleprompter right. It sounded like Iran is now in trouble and surrounded.
https://www.wionews.com/world/watch-did … ess-458018
... what the heck:
"Why is Joe Biden more interested in negotiating oil deals with foreign dictators rather than American workers?" Jim Jordan
AND THERE YOU HAVE IT ! ! ! ! ! !I think we already know, but we are too polite to say.
That is sometimes the problem with Canadians. We are too nice to speak our minds about addressing deeply ugly situations. .
Here's a new tangent. It fits here because its bottom line relates to WW III. And it's here because the BS coming from our posturing politicians and the media's promotion of their, (many equally posturing), military "experts" is becoming dangerous.
A credentialed and credible, (my opinion), `expert' contributor finally spoke plainly; short of American deployment there is nothing the U.S. can do to stop Putin's war on Ukraine. It will only end with a diplomatic agreement.
That thought is not defeatism, appeasement, or capitulation, it is just the harsh reality of the facts.
And then, along come the blurbs of the political "experts" that are nuts. The most political of both sides are saying stuff that is so theatrical that the political motive can't be ignored.
Now, the Senate is holding hearings with the military and intelligence leaders—and trying o get them to discuss classified information in public, and there is even the hint of a move to establish a bi-partisan `Council' to 'advise' the president on his `war' decisions.
Our legislators are going to push us into this "conflict"
Here's the most current example. The Polish Migs. In the Senate hearing, Sen. Cotton asks the 4-star general why the Migs were viewed as too escalatory(?), as compared to the Javelins we are providing. He used the example that both can shoot down aircraft and blow up tanks.
Before trying to defend that logic, consider all the rebuttal examples available. Start with the silliest, a BB gun vs. a bazooka. What's the difference, they can both shoot out a bird's eye?
Also relative to the Migs, if it is true that the idea collapsed when the Poles wanted to transfer the Migs to US custody and have us give them to Ukraine, then the big question is why did they want that? It seems clear to me why we wouldn't want that perception. It escalates our military involvement. Could that also be the Poles' motive?
GAI feel anyone with the ability to be realistic, could see the outcome of the current Russian/Ukraine war. Is it being a defeatist to share a view?
The mig situation in my view just shows the US once again being very weak in, my view. What I can't figure out, is why it is not NATO's decision to let Poland supply those migs? Why the US? Is this a "Mikie" scenario?
Funny, but not really funny.
The hearing the senate is having can be viewed in full on Cspan.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?518379-1/ … ts-ukraine
I would not advise watching unless you are ready to really realize, we have "some" true idiots at the helm. Just my opinion.The MIG29 are property of Poland, not Nato. And no Nato country wants to expose itself by supplying the aircrafts, no country = USA also not.
By the way, isn´t this no-fly issue a little overstretched? Most of the shelling is coming from ground based artillery and rocket launchers. Better enable the Ukrainian army to take out this equipment."Most of the shelling is coming from ground-based artillery and rocket launchers"
Air power can take these out these targets from the air much easier than on the ground.It has been widely reported Poland (a NATO Nation) offered these migs to Ukraine, and the US stopped them cold. So it well appears a NATO Nation, Poland was more than willing to give the migs to Ukraine. I see your point, but it is very factual Poland offered the migs, and it appears the US shot down the deal.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/9 … to-ukraine
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national … umb-bombs/
Russia would not respect a no-fly zone.
I don't think the Mig mess-up makes the US look weak. From the details I have heard it looks like Poland, (or somebody), was trying to `play' us.
I suspect we also might have different views of who the idiots are. I only watched a few minutes of Cotton, so maybe I missed something, but he was the idiot to me.
GAGood point, actually I was just reading a couple of articles on the offer Poland made. It seems they stuck NATO/US with the decision, and ultimately the US made the decision and offered an explanation as to why the migs would not be sent to Ukraine. One could say, Poland certainly did shine a dim light on the US.
In regard to my idiot comment --- NOW NOW -- I made no mention of names or parties... You are reading too much into my comment. I watch Cspan frequently, and I can say it is interesting to watch, and let's say it might surprise you how very unprofessional our congress can get.(both sides).
Here's my comment --- I would not advise watching unless you are ready to really realize, we have "some" true idiots at the helm. Just my opinion.
No names, no hint of bias.
Although, I did watch a good portion, and could elaborate. But, not going out on a limb.Yep, you're right, you didn't mention any names. But I did.
Here's my deal . . .
My morning started well when I caught a bit from an "expert" telling, what I perceive it to be, the truth about this US-involvement crisis.
But I forgot to change channels. So next, I am hearing Sen. Kennedy talk about his idea, (supposedly supported by other senators), to appoint a 4-person bi-partisan "council" to provide the president with war advice. (define "advice/advise" however you think)
Now, I thought, Congress wants to approve the president's war decisions? That dented the bubble of my good feelings from the first guy.
And then, just for that extra touch, I hear Tom Cotton in the Senate hearings. Boom, I was right back to being pissed at all the media for the pablum they are scraping up to fill their 24-hour news cycles.
GAI know where you are coming from. These past few weeks I find I can't decipher up from down. It is very hard to trust any news at this point. And after watching a bit more of the hearing today, I just can't help but think --- Oh My we are in trouble.
But, the world does keep turning, does it not?
SharI always suggest for people to find sources of news OUTSIDE of our MSM.
For the Ukraine conflict I offer this SIX minute insight, its well done, and informative:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1-uRaAbjUM
For another little snippet of the current crisis I offer this 1 minute bit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_Pki_E0xe0
Without finding sources outside of our normal MSM mentally draining tripe it is impossible to get a real idea of what is going on.
I prefer to have a well rounded perspective of the issues... that requires always having sources from outside the US to compare with.Your links:
It is always interesting to watch the Indian channel. They are quite aggressive and fairly unbiased.
On same channel i found how India looks at the performance mess of the Russian forces, especially loss of aircraft, heavy equipment. India has purchased a lot of the Russian stuff and is looking with worries on the durability and combat readiness of the equipment. India has issues with the Russian SU fighters long before (flying coffins...)
This Biolab story has been circulating in pro Russian or Russian speaking social media for quite some time. For the Russian administration picking this up has the smell of the USA allegations of WMD in Iraq from 2003.
The Biolabs were USA funded in the wake of the desintegration of the USSR to monitor the destruction of said weapons in Ukraine. So story debunked long ago.Yes Gravitas has been a good watch in regards to this matter.
Yes the Biolab story has been debunked, but it shows how a part of the world (non-Western) is getting an entirely different story, that was a Chinese news report airing the Russian "allegations".
Which was my point, you need other than MSM news sources to get a well rounded idea of what is going on, there is a lot left out of either side.
So the Pentagon says the transfer of these migs would escalate the situation. Has it not come to the time of a calculated risk? When will the humanitarian situation necessitate some risk? This is the only time I have ever agreed with Senator Cotton. Although I do have my doubts that he is sincere but rather making an argument he knows we'll go nowhere in order to jab President Biden.
"Calculated risk' is the right description. Now the choice is to base that calculation on reason or emotion. I think your support for that risk is calculated on emotion, (as is most of the public due to the saturation of stories about murdered children, babies, and pregnant women).
I will take the reasoned calculation of the Pentagon over the public's emotional cry for action. Any action. Good or bad action.
GAI am with you, Faye. This would have provided Ukraine a fighting chance.
I haven't watched the MSM circus, or the "experts" they present.
Ultimately the concern, which I am sure they talk very little about, is Putin escalating this into something far worse.
Russia is not Iraq... Iraq did not have 4,500 nukes.
Putin is not Hitler... Hitler did not have 4,500 nukes.There is something about this war where the whole world is against Putin that make my intuitive senses tell something bigger than Ukraine is going on, like NATO's push.
Yes. it is psychological warfare. The same techniques are being used to inflame and goad the population toward a war with Russia as the techniques that were used to promote the George Floyd hysteria.
All we ants need to do is observe to find out which GIANTS will benefits!It's always follow the money and fear vs. kindness and love.
It irritates me that ant is in the word giant.
I've heard Africans discribe Americans to ants or insects because of the giant buildings like tall ant hills.
I'm an African. The ant hills of the savannah are prominent in Nigeria. Never has a Nigerian described an American 'ant'. The best description from tradition is that the American(and all Europeans) are wise men next to God.
Thanks. My Katy still online? Sorry I've got some clothings to wash, bath, and then I'll be back. Right?
The best description is that we are all wise men next to God, each in our own way, if we try to be. And when we fall, we have only to get up again.
When we just keep trying, we will have success.
I hope we will avoid WWIII in so trying.No. This is serious. When an African visit America or Euro, they're overhelm with these many skyscrapers. Where does these white peoples get the knowledge? Seriously, he must be next to God! It may looks funny to your part of the world.
Sorry my phone crash and the post I couldn't see. Now, you can read the full comment above. Thanks.
Humanity is at stake.
and even the GIANTS will suffer if humanity suffers?
Is this what you mean?The Giants will not suffer.
They could care a fig about humanity.No. A look at Hitler and his likes tells a story.
Rightly, and nothng would be further from the trvh.
Not America or Russia. Nor China. We say when two elephants are meeting, and not agreeing, the grass suffers. It's humanity that's at stack.
Well, the leaders like Putin and Biden see us as ants because we have much less power than they do ...
since we have much less money.
- but, yes, ants have built pretty tall buildings here.We the people are actually more powerful and the number 99%. Like you said earlier it's psychological warfare. it's easier to fool the people than to explain how they have been fooled. I have faith they will come around after some more abuse, like the vaccines worthlessness.
Where's Castlepaloma coming from? I've had the vaccine jabs...aem he expect me to fall down and die? Eh eh eh! Hey he hey! Is not CDC and P rather backing me and every guy and gal that took the shot? Now, six months later, I'm alife and kicking! Every day, I'm geting stronger and stronger. That's my story and my song. Critically, we're discusing a topic that could wipe out mankind and the earth in less than 30 minutes. But where did the pandemic comes in here?
Comparing European 8 times higher vaccination rate and Europe 15 times greater covid death than Africa.
Miebakagh must of took an entirely different vaccines, or they were switch to probably given him steroids to give him super human strength.
The small eared elephants of Russia and China:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M82E3WYjXgk
compared to the Rat of Ukraine and the Lion of America.
Q. Ever seen a lion or a rat run from two elephants?Lion and elephant are two undisputable kings of the jungle. The rat though tiny will not mind even if these two big beasts fight to the finish. That said, elephants are stronger than lions. But they're no match for the massive liger(breed and kept captive in zoos). Critically, none will flew from the other. But a careless and thoughless elephant can be kill by a lion. Seriously, a single leg kick from the elephant can label the lion RIP. Likewise, the elephant can throw the lion a mile and yonder to his death!
Well, I apprecited you. Besides, if the lion attack one of the elephant, the other will finish of the lion.
We need to be more like an African elephant. ... with big ears and long tusks.
This discussion should not be left behind. I am joining in because I believe that there is still hope in human kind. I still believe that Putin will change his mind to not use violence against Ukrainian people. The one started the violence should answer this. Prayers to all the victims in both sides.
"I still believe that Putin will change his mind to not use violence against Ukrainian people"
I think it is way too late for that. He will take Ukraine. He got away with it before with Crimea and he will do it again with Ukraine.
Maybe all will be calm after he gets his way.
HOWEVER! I do not think he will get away with it EVER AGAIN.
No. The countries around him will raise up fast and furiously.
They would not hesitate to do whatever must be done to stop him.
US included.
In my crystal ball.Thanks my Kathryn. The lion must flee from the elephants!
Until a month ago, i thought the whole conflict would be a chess gambit standoff with rational on both sides. I was wrong.
This guy is determined to reestablish the Russian empire. He is totally unhinged. And i am sure he will walk the plank all the way, no matter if more people in Ukraine or Russia or elsewhere on our planet suffer.No matter how determined he is, he'll fail entirely. How would you take it if the British Queen wants to re-establish all her former colonies, dominons, and overseases? And what about Germany, France, and the likes in the African continent? What will then become of the UN? The AU and the EU? What about those in the America?
Meanwhile, Biden is daring to wheel and deal with Iran, jeopardizing Israel and ourselves in so doing.
Honestly, a puppet only answers to his masters. He only dose their wishes without knowing why. Do a clone puppet really knows what it does? It's absolutely negative! Biden knows that he knows not. Worst is that he seems to be brain wash.
After a lot of bumbling around by the UK Government, it’s finally getting its act together in regards to the Ukrainian refugee crisis.
One of the main reasons why Boris Johnson and the hard-right in the Conservative Party wanted Brexit was to introduce ‘strict borders’? A flawed idea with an ageing population that need immigration to fill the workforce e.g. 30% of last summer’s fruits were left to rot in the fields because the British farmers could not get the seasonal immigrant workers to pick the fruit because of tough immigration laws imposed by Boris Johnson (UK Prime Minister) since Brexit.
Thus comes the Ukrainian refugee crisis; and because of the strict immigration law imposed by the Conservative Government since Brexit it was only possible to get just a few thousand Ukrainians into the UK, while Poland and other European countries are taking hundreds of thousands and more.
It made Britain look bad, and the UK Government came under a lot of pressure from the opposition parties, the Press and the Public to ignore, or at least simplify, its own immigration laws, and open the flood gates to let in Ukrainian Refugees.
Finally, a couple of days ago, Boris Johnson and the UK Government did bow to pressure, and have largely abandoned their own immigration laws for Ukraine Refugees, and in a reversal of policy, yesterday opened a website so that anyone with a spare room can register to take in Ukrainian Refugees; and the UK Government will pay people who volunteer to take Ukrainian Refugees into their own home £350 ($450) per week, and pay each local governments £10,000 ($13,000) per Ukrainian Refugee who are taken in by British families in that local government area.
Within just the first 24 hours of the website being on line, almost 90,000 British people have registered to offer Ukrainians living space in their own homes; and I’m confident that figure will rapidly rise within days – And, surprisingly the UK Government have stated that they are no limits under this scheme e.g. how many Ukrainian Refugees the UK takes is now being left to the generosity and hospitality of the British people, not the Government.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home … e-launchesThis humanitarian act is great. Thank goodness, the government always listens.
This is wonderful news... The general population here in America hoe to see the US take Ukrainian refugees. However, in my view, we have a president (a day late buck short Biden) that drags his feet and will jump in after the fact.
This morning it is being reported ( after the new report that the three leaders from other countries will venture into Kive to meet with Zelinsky) Biden is considering a trip to " Europe".
So so pleased to say a hardy THANK YOU to the people of the UK for all they are doing for the people of Ukraine. Gives me a bit more faith in the human race.Shouldn´t we bow to the Polish people who take the major share of the 3 mill. refugees? And not to forget all other countries directly bordering to Ukraine?
There is a trickle down effect to other EU and Nato countries. Germany, being the next neighbour to Poland only got 1/10th of the Polish load, coming close to 200.000 by now. Even in our little city we have received dozens of Ukrainian families in the past days.
So all over Europe refugees are welcomed, without much adoo about visas or entitlement payments or compensation pay.
How many will eventually make it to the UK? And how many (privileged to fly) make it to the USA? Probably all those who already have connections, relatives in those countries.
It is all those who have no link to western countries who we must take care of. To understand the impact and magnitude. These people are refugees, they don´t want to immigrate. The USA took some 30.000 refugees in the year 2019, mostly from Africa and not counting the Mexican border.
These 30.000 refugees enter Poland every 2 hours. All these people have to be checked, equipped with life necessities and eventually be distributed to other places, countries.
This drama is not about some people getting cozy at the fireplace of guest families. This drama is filling sports arenas, convention centers, fairgrounds. https://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/vi … 02555.html"Shouldn´t we bow to the Polish people who take the major share of the 3 mill. refugees? And not to forget all other countries directly bordering to Ukraine?"
Goes without saying... So proud of Poland, and proud to say I am polishing It is wonderful to see so many nations doing what they can to help the refugees. I have hopes the US will take whoever wants to make their way here. I would surmise many will stay in Europe in hopes of returning to their own country.
I am very much proud and impressed by all the European countries that have welcomes people that have such needs.Most definitely, hats off to the Polish People for their large hearts and generosity, and of course the other countries boarding Ukraine.
Yeah, up until a couple of days ago the attitude of Boris Johnson and his UK Government was that only Ukrainians with relatives already in the UK would be allowed in; and even then that was proving difficult because of the current Post Brexit Constitutive Government’s strict immigration laws.
However, following condemnation from the opposition parties, and by the Press, and the swell of public opinion in support of the Ukrainians, the UK Government has done a U-tune; hence the new scheme, which starts Friday, whereby Britain will accept an unlimited number of Ukrainian refugees, regardless to whether they have connections with Britain or not, the only limiting factor being how many British people offer to take refugees into their homes.
As of 15 minutes ago, more than 120,000 British people have offered homes for Ukrainian Refugees, and that figure is growing by the hour. So all European countries, including Britain are opening their doors to the refugees, including, as you say “all those who have no link to western countries who we must take care of.”
And as you said, they are refugees and don’t want to immigrate; and that’s the stance the UK Government is taking e.g. all Ukrainian refugees will initially be offered up to 3 years sanctuary in the UK, and in that time will be entitled to the same full social and welfare benefits that Brits get, and free healthcare on the NHS, and will be allowed to work. But the hope is that they will be able to return to their homeland sooner rather than later.
An opinion poll published within the last 2 days showed that 57% of Brits think that the current sanctions imposed on Russia by Britain don’t go far enough; and that 80% of Brits support a complete ban on Russian oil and gas imports.
The British people do have a kindred spirit with what the Ukrainians are going though now as it’s what we (Britain) suffered during the 2nd world war when Hitler flattened our cities with his air raids; a memory which is still strong in the British people:-
Bristol Blitz during the War (Bristol being where I live): https://youtu.be/vIVaXQu5LUI
So yes the British People do want to help.Arthur, i agree that British people try to be very helpful. But at the end of the day this will be only a drop in the ocean.
It is not a coincidence that Poland takes the major share of refugees. There have very close family ties, especially to Western Ukraine (Galicia).
Even Germany has assimilated some 3% of its population directly from former USSR, not counting those with Russian or Ukrainian passports now living here (1%). Refugees from Ukraine can even get along without speaking German. They can go shopping in Ukrainian supermarkets over here.
It is only natural that this leads to faster and more direct aid. And help is necessary. The tragedy is epic. Nothing for private church congregations, as i said, the drama fills sports arenas, convention centers, fairgrounds.
And then...
I am sad that in each and every discussion on Ukraine our friends on the other side of the Atlantic shift their focus already to partisan fights over moral highgrounds in this conflict. - So far away, it seems.Absolutely, Britain is on the fringes of Europe, so obviously we’re not going to get the millions of Ukrainian refugees that Poland are getting; just a trickle in comparison. But at lease, following strong public opinion and political pressure from the opposition parties, the UK Government has now made it possible for any Ukrainian refugees that decide to come to Britain to do so.
And yeah, Brits are very frustrated by the attitude, and inaction, by our friends on the other side of the Atlantic e.g. preventing Poland from passing on their fighter planes to the Ukrainian military. It’s very reminiscence of the 1st & 2nd World War, where the USA was 3 years late in joining WWI and 2 years later in joining WWII. By the time the USA eventually joined WWII Britain, who had been at war with Germany for two years was close defeat – If the USA had left it much longer Germany stood a good chance of defeating Britain. The only three things that saved Britain, prior to the USA joining the war in December 1941 were:-
1. Churchill’s ability to bluff e.g. giving the impression that Britain was well defended, to deter a German invasion; which it wasn’t.
2. Churchill’s decision to bomb civilians in Germany, in the hope that Germany would retaliate and bomb British civilians, so as to detract the bombing away from British airfields and military factories, and
3. Germany’s decision in June 1941 to invade Russia instead of Britain.
So I think the current crises is demonstrating that perhaps a version of NATO without the USA e.g. an EU Army might have its benefits?Arthur, last words from my previous comment were about the discussions on hubpages, not about ingredients of NATO.
You are probably aware that since reunification there is a special relationship between Russia and Germany. This probably dumbfolded me and many Germans about the intentions of Putin. I even met the guy once. He was only of small staturel, but not really sinister. But that was years ago.
Concerning the war: I think the Russian Forces are wearing down much faster than the Ukrainian army. Why? An anecdote from my professional life:
Some 5 years ago i visited a helicopter production facility in Russia. There are not so many of these kind of plants in Russia. They had invited me into a facility with slightly lower security level as they were building a mix of military and commerical helicopters. In their final assembly they had 9 assembly pits and it took 6 weeks to complete one heli in the pit. This means the factory has an output of 9/6 = 1,5 helicopters per week or 1 heli every 4 days.
Now - Russia has 3 of this kind of production facilities, the most secret one in the far East. So they can produce at best 1 helicopter every 1 to 2 days in all of Russia.
How many helicopters were shot down by Ukrainians in 20 days? Some 80? They can not be replaced by new ones. Simple as it is.
And that applies for all the other military equipment as well. Russia has no strategic production reserve capacity. Never had. Actually that is to some part what makes Western military expensive. To keep a war time production capacity in reserve in peace times.
Russia will not only run out of soldiers (a tragedy in itself), but more so run out of equipment and ammunition. First signs can be seen.
And what my insight into Russian industry tells me, appears to be what military professionals also see. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKYg0WULPms
What a stupid idea this war is.Yep, that’s the impression I get, that the Russian military is quickly running out of equipment and ammunition. And that is exactly the same situation Britain was in between 1939 and 1941 (before the USA came to our rescue); if Germany had been able to achieve air superiority over Britain, as they so hard tried to do but failed, in spite of the fact that at the height of ‘The Battle of Britain’ Britain only had 749 fighter aircraft against the German’s 2,550 Luftwaffe aircraft (the odds were against us), then that would have led it open for an invasion, and at that time the ‘Home Guard’ (known as Dad’s Army in the BBC Comedy series) didn’t have any weapons because of a chronic shortage of British military equipment, instead all the ‘Home Guard’ had were wooden sticks!
Below - Image of the fake wooden guns that the British Home defences had in 1940 in the event of an invasion from Germany:
Yeah, I am aware from your previous comments in these forums of the special relationship between Germany and Russia. Since before the Cold War Britain has had no such relationship, on the contrary Russia has continued to threaten Britain; so Russia’s threats is something I’ve grown up with. So Putin’s invasion of Ukraine came as no surprise to me.
Russia hasn’t just tried to destabilise Britain through its subtitle propaganda programme e.g. trying to influence the thinking of people to put a wedge not just between Britain and Europe, but also to put a wedge Between Britain and the USA, and in recent decades Russian cyber-attacks in Britain has become the norm; but also armed Russian warships for decades, and increasingly in recent years, have been snooping around British waters, as has their submarines and fighter planes e.g. a few years ago a Russian submarine was caught in Scottish waters trying to follow one of our nuclear deterrent submarines out to sea; and the occasion when armed Russian fighter planes flew right across Britain from southern Britain to Scotland.
So Russia has always been aggressive towards Britain.
Royal Navy responds to Russian threat in British Waters (2018): https://youtu.be/Q-67OEp0KPQ
Moment when a Russian Submarine bumps into a British battle ship in British waters (Jan 2022): https://youtu.be/zGyPV-xTbZ4Chris57, I will grab your comment to present a not-so-optimistic contrarian view.
Beyond valid anecdotal information like yours, and the opinions of military experts that should know something about what they are talking about, this current trend of `Russia, is failing', (for all the reasons being offered), seems too convenient. I am very skeptical of our media and government presentations.
We all hope it is true, and a lot of it may be true, but what if the possible premise for Putin's motive being to control the Black Sea resources through a landbridge annexation and creation of another breakaway region on Ukraine's southern Black Sea coast is right?
Is Putin's military still failing? I heard a news blurb about Russia recognizing the first two regions, and isn't that the step that leads to annexation? And wouldn't that complete the landbridge? Also, it would further support Russia's claim on Crimea because it would then be directly connected to mother Russia, not a satellite landmass?
That would give Russia almost half of the gas and petroleum, (simply speaking), Black Sea reserves, and if the southern coast breakaway effort is successful that would deny Ukraine access to what is left of its national reserves.
I am unsure what the current, (3/16), status of those mentioned areas is, but the media presentations make them seem to be firmly under Russian control.
So what if all the pundits and experts are wrong about Russia's goal? What if this current image of Russian military and economic damage is the strategic price Putin is willing to pay?
Your link predicts a 10-day timeline. That's probably a fair estimate. In 10 more days of destruction to Ukraine and damage to Russia Putin probably will make serious bargaining concessions to get everyone to the table. And from there . . .
The West will give him the essential goal he wants as long as they can make it look like they have punished and humiliated him in the eyes of the world. Claiming to have defeated his mighty military strength and stop his takeover of a sovereign state should be enough to do it.
They will see the eastern region losses as collateral damage — just a Putin may see his military and image losses.
I hope the experts are right and that I don't know beans. And I hope that the West will not give away Ukraine's regions, but I am still holding on to my media and governmental skepticism when it comes to war information.
GAGA,
in all the tragedy of war, it doesn´t matter 10 days or 30 days. I do think that the show is running out of steam from the Russian side.
You are right not to trust the western media coverage. But then - if you follow the Russian coverage the view is very much distorted (not only the pictures but especially the comments in Russian). The Russian versions don´t match with the length of the war and sidenotes like that 4 generals getting killed in 3 weeks. (WWII Germany lost 2 generals in the first 2 years, and how many high ranking officers died in all US wars?). Put matters into perspective and you see the flaws / or the truth behind.
I stick to "my" hard facts that Russian industry is not capable to resupply military losses. I forgot from my helicopter anecdote that part manufacturing was already compromised 5 years ago due to sanctions on foreign made machining systems (no spare parts). Don´t want to go into details, but the group i worked for had supplied production systems for roughly 400 mill. USD over a decade to Russia. So i saw quite a bit of Russian industry.
US intelligence will leak info soon enough to confirm if Russia is pulling troops from the Caucasus and the Far East. A final effort already?
The strategic objective of Russia to cut off Ukraine from the Black Sea is to be observed. As far as i understand, this time Russian Navy is on the battlefield. Do Javelins also work on Navy ships?This would be a good time for me to be wrong.
Also, I didn't mean to imply the talk about Rusia's military deficiency, and your production capabilities anecdote is wrong. But it too conveniently fits the landbridge `strategic goals' scenario to not raise my skepticism level.
GA
I don't mean to be insulting to anyone. But don't expect too many to grasp what you are presenting in its entirety.
We (you and I) seemed to cobble together our theories to come to this conclusion, as to the "end game" goals of Russia.
This was based in large part on that video we watched which discussed the petroleum (Natural Gas) reserves discovered in those regions.
Without watching that video, and doing a moderate amount of research in general as to the history of Ukraine and the reliance of the EU on Natural Gas, and the reliance of Russia on that revenue source, such a theory will not be easy to convey to others.
I think in couple more weeks we may find out how legitimate those ideas were... if and when an armistice cedes those territories in the East/North-East to Russia.A good point, Ken.
What will be after a peace agreement was reached? Russia will keep the Crimea and associated Black Sea areas?
Is all the fighting around Kijv and the Donbas only a distraction from the natural resource bait in the Black Sea?
We have to be careful that we don´t end up in a conspiracy corner.Russia/Putin may have wanted to take Kyiv and establish a puppet regime.
I don't think he ever wanted to take all of Ukraine and even if he had, the military is obviously not going to make much more progress than it already has, they are running out of resources, and time is not on their side.
So what are the hardline, minimum goals for Putin?
Well Russia already recognized those two break-away Provinces in addition to Crimea. So it is hard to imagine a scenario where anything less than those three Provinces remaining under Russian rule will be accepted by Russia/Putin.Agreed,
that can possibly be the deal: The Crimea and Donbas - and keep the freshwater supply to Crimea open. Was silly from the Ukrainian side from the beginning in 2014.Indeed few people know how responsible Zelenskyy is for helping escalate the situation into becoming the current Russian invasion.
Ukraine’s leader vows to do all he can to bring back Crimea
https://apnews.com/article/europe-ukrai … 10882bf952
August 2021 -" Ukraine’s president on Monday vowed to do all he can to bring back the peninsula of Crimea, annexed by Russia seven years ago, and urged international allies to support the effort."
‘Crimea is Ukraine': Zelenskyy opens inaugural Crimea summit
https://vnexplorer.net/crimea-is-ukrain … 19162.html
August 2021 - Ukraine convened the international summit to build up pressure on Russia over the annexation of Crimea.
Russia: Concerned about NATO military aid to Ukraine
https://www.tellerreport.com/news/2021- … 3kWqF.html
And yes, Ukraine cut off Crimea's water source.
For those of us who have done their research on the history of Crimea, it was never a part of Ukraine in the past, it was always based heavily with Russian troops and Navy vessels and the absurdity of demanding it back almost begs for the response they have gotten in return from Putin.
Some interesting views; yeah, everyone is right in that you can’t take western news as gospel (especially during times of war), but at least these days the news we see live on our TV from the front lines isn’t the ‘war propaganda’ that it used to be during WWII. It’s a complete contrast to the Russia Media, which we all know in the West are pure lies.
That being said, living in Britain, under the threat of Russia all my life, it’s blatantly obvious to me that there is no devious Russian plan to pretend to try to invade the whole of Ukraine as a distraction from their intended end-game of just annexing part of it (for gas/oil). No, Russia’s intention was, and is, to repatriate the whole of Ukraine back into the Russian Empire; and to stop the advancement of NATO.
Putin is likely to fail in the first (repatriation of Ukraine) and almost certainly will fail in the latter, because even if Ukraine is prevented from joining NATO, because of Putin's aggression, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Finland and Sweden have now all expressed an interest in joining NATO.
As regards oil and gas; although oil and gas prices have skyrocketed around the world because of the war, Russian oil and gas has fallen in price, with the biggest winner being China. And that is likely to be the way of the future as America and Europe slowly weans itself off of its dependence on Russian oil and gas.
One reason I stick by what I say in the first two paragraphs above is because of my experience as a child; as explained below:-
Back in the late 1960s my brother had an old radio with short wave on it e.g. the ability to tune into radio stations from around the world. And in the evenings, when there was nothing on the TV, he would spend hours scanning the short wave looking for interesting stations; and on one such occasions, on the evening of 20th August 1968 he happened to tune into a Czechoslovakian radio station that was broadcasting in English, warning the world of the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Russia; and the DJ carried on broadcasting, giving an update from his studio window of what was happing on the street below, until the door burst open in his studio – then …….. silence…….Just as a side note the U.S.only gets 8% of its oil from Russia, so not really dependent on them at all.
Yep, Biden says blame Russian for that.
There is alot more going on in the propagation wars.Yep, likewise the UK only gets 8% of its oil from Russia, and 3% of its gas from the Russia; so like the USA the UK isn't very dependent on Russia - unlike other parts of Europe, especially Germany who currently gets 50% of their gas from Russia.
Until we've made the full transition to Renewable Energies (which is at quite advanced stage in the UK) the UK could make up the difference by fracking; except that the Scottish (Socialist) has banned fracking in Scotland, and the UK (Conservative) Government (who are keen in pursuing a Green Policy) has regulated against fracking to such a level that it's not commercially viable in England.
Niigeria, at present is facing some energy criss(high cost) affecing transport and foodstuff. The world should gang up and put down Puin that fast.
Yep, I think its the same the world over. The sooner we put Putin down, the better.
Here's a corker for you, an American jumping in to argue European war with a Brit. This oughta be a hoot, but I'll give it a go.
I was cruising along disagreeing with your Mig point, (the "frustrated by the attitude, and inaction" part), and then, followed that into the brick wall of "late."
My `gut instinct' was to jump to `defend our honor', but I simmered it down a bit and it agreed to just offer an American perspective of your choice of words.
I don't think it is wrong that, without foreknowledge of the outcomes, a nation that is: geographically uninvolved, economically unthreatened, at peace, and with a populace that does not want their nation to go to war on a faraway continent, lets European nations settle their own affairs first.
In both European wars, the U.S. was a non-combatant partner in most areas. They didn't become "World" wars until we entered them in combat. We weren't late, and that's not semantics. We made them World wars.
Here's my perspective of the "Migs" deal that made your comparison of "frustrated and inaction" with a claim that America was "late" to the wars, so reactionary.
What do either of us know about the simplicity of just saying "yes," or the complexities of international consequences, (intentional, unintentional or suspected), political and geopolitical entanglements, involved in that decision . . . that we haven't gotten from "media," (which includes government and Google University audits)?
*also, I heard that it was the Poles that did not want to directly give the planes to Ukraine, not the US. I heard that our `quashing' of the deal was our refusal to act as a middleman. Considering my WW historical perspective, I worry that we might extend that trend with another "entry" into a European war. *shrug.
So, we take what we accept and form our opinions.
GA"My `gut instinct' was to jump to `defend our honor', but I simmered it down a bit and it agreed to just offer an American perspective of your choice of words.
I don't think it is wrong that, without foreknowledge of the outcomes, a nation that is: geographically uninvolved, economically unthreatened, at peace, and with a populace that does not want their nation to go to war on a faraway continent, lets European nations settle their own affairs first.
In both European wars, the U.S. was a non-combatant partner in most areas. They didn't become "World" wars until we entered them in combat. We weren't late, and that's not semantics. We made them World wars."
Thank you GA for this reminder! {exploding head emoji}
I can settle back down now.Indeed.
Aren't we doing "enough"?
Staying away from the political machinations that had been going on between Ukraine and the West/America prior to this war. Since the Russian invasion America has 'stuck its neck out' for Ukraine, a country far away from our National borders and IMO National interests.
Why is it so easily forgotten than Russia has 4,500 nukes?
If Putin is the most dangerous person on earth due to his secluded, unstable, murderous personality... isn't that something to worry about?
We have already cut off Russia's banks, trade, and supplied Ukraine with billions in weapons and supplies. If another country tried to do that to us, and they weren't sitting on a stockpile of nukes, we would have already invaded and toppled that nation.
So based on your perspective, and in this case considering how Putin may view it... America has already gone a long way to escalating this conflict and endangered its populace to possible nuclear attack.I have a different thought on Ukraine's importance in the broad scheme of our own national interests. I think Ukraine's sovereignty is very much in our national security interests.
If Russia wins, (even by my proposed scenario), they will greatly enhance their economic and military power, (at least for the decades it will take to wean off fossil fuels),. over Europe and the West.
Stopping that seems very much in our national interests.
GAI don't think this is a fully encompassing view of the risks of what may occur if Russia becomes a more destabilized and desperate nation.
We have to be concerned about the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons any nation has collected being under the control of an unpredictable government.
I don't think Russia will be enhanced at all, even it maintains control over the "break away" provinces. At best, it will remain like all other OPEC nations, relevant, but not dominant in world affairs.The media has not reported the threat Putin made in regard to using his hypersonic missiles. However, he did make the threat on Feb 23, 2022.
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/hyperson … ed-1478478
It would seem, he has a weapon that can't be detected until it's too late. Could this be why all are so frightened to push his hand?I am concerned about the nukes part of this problem. As mentioned before, I no longer have the foundational confidence I once had in the MAD theory. North Korea didn't even shake my confidence, but Putin has. I don't mean to casually dismiss that point.
But, and it's a big one, and it is only my armchair speculation, if Putin is really willing to go tactical this time, and gets away with it, he most certainly, and more freely, go there in his next war. We might argue about your other point, but I think we agree on this one: If Putin wins this time, (after a nuke threat), there most certainly will be a `next time.'
So, problem now or problem later?
I think I am gradually coming around to an unwanted conclusion. Putin must not get his landbridge. Any compromise to `save' Ukraine, (via territorial loss), will be a Putin victory. A "saved" Ukraine will become a dependent nation. I think I am becoming more hawkish.
GAI understand, but North Korea never really had the wherewithal to be a global threat like Putin and Russia.
How far are we to push this? How many minutes before midnight are we going to allow to pass?
Putin has a big ego and may well not be restrained by reason and acknowledgement of the big picture.
The use of any nuclear weapon is provocation that could lead to a general nuclear war. Ken has mentioned that Russia has a 4,500 warheads, more than enough to take the crust off from this planet.
Before we all go quietly into the night , let's leave something so that the Morlocks of the future can understand that everything that could have been done was done in an attempt to keep the peace.How far to push? At least far enough to stop Putin's landbridge goal.
How should we respond if Putin does threaten tactical nukes? Do we back down at the threat? Or the actual use?
This Ukraine issue has been a winding walk for me. I've taken a couple of paths, each one—including most of the other proposed paths—look to lead to the same bottom line: Putin must not win now because that win will bring the confidence for another war.
GAI totaly agree with you. The world must see to it that Putin loss the Ukraine war and shame him.
Putin is 70 years old... we must survive this crisis and not allow it to escalate, not be dragged into it.
Putin's days of being a functional and capable leader are nearing the end. Old age or misfortune or a political rival will take care of Putin soon enough.
Those people on "our side", in the West, that are advocating for our direct involvement are bigger enemies to THE WORLD than Putin is.
Russia has already lost this war. So long as it does not escalate into something more than a conventional and regional conflict. I cannot stress this enough.
I came to this conclusion at least a week ago and posted it (probably in this thread). If I know this to be an almost certainty, then those with better sources of intel know it too... yet some advocate for us to get involved in a war that Russia has already lost?
There are a lot of factors that are important when viewing the military operations and remaining capabilities of Russia's armies, so no absolute conclusion can be drawn... but they cannot replace lost tanks and helicopters they cannot replace trained soldiers with equally or better trained soldiers, they cannot continue the offensive, they cannot gain ground as the population has risen up against them.
Russia needs to be given an out, Russia needs to be defeated by Ukraine, THIS will teach Putin a lesson, THIS alone will ensure he does not escalate the war by using weapons we cannot survive.
The world has taken notice... especially China.
Without using our fighters, our missiles, and our armies we have crippled Russia... Ukraine has shown China that if a country is willing to stand against it, they cannot be defeated unless you are willing to kill all the citizens and level all the cities and villages... Ukraine may have very well deterred China from ever trying to take Taiwan.
Involving ourselves now, when the war has been lost by Russia may very well play into Putin's hands... if he is that evil murderous vengeful tyrant so many fear that he is.At least we agree not to provoke a nuclear reaction. Otherwise, even though I think the landbridge concession is almost a done deal, I think it is a wrong and lethal compromise.
GAGA you are brilliant when focusing on the minutia, on ignoring all the noise and focusing on a singular issue.
In the arena of war, geo-politics, military operations and economic consequences I am not sure such a gift is ideally suited to project out into the future while also focusing on the bigger picture.
First goal - avoid nuclear war, avoid the use of nuclear weapons on Ukraine or anyone else.
If this were Pakistan or North Korea... maybe there is a level of risk worth considering, supposedly North Korea has 45, Pakistan has 165... chances of taking out all their silos and shooting down any missiles is a realistic possibility... not an ideal risk, but perhaps within our ability to contain.
Russia has 4,500 nukes. Subs, Bombers, Jets, Missiles... No chance of containing that, no chance of stopping or limiting it...too many variables, too many period.
Second goal - keep Russia a viable capable nation. It doesn't really matter if Ukraine falls into political disarray, they don't have 4,500 nukes.
Destabilize Russia and who knows what happens to those nukes.
Russia having economic stability is a GOOD thing. Russia coming out of this relatively intact is a GOOD thing... for the world."First goal - avoid nuclear war, avoid the use of nuclear weapons on Ukraine or anyone else."
That has to be the number #1. If we don't get our priorities right, and we ignore the prime directive, then what is left for anyone to squabble about?
Would any of it really matter after the nuclear exchange?
Short of actual attack on those in the NATO alliance with nuclear weapons we should avoid going down this road at all costs.
History repeats itself, just as in WWI, war is caused by entangling alliances.
And our species show that it does have the wisdom to avoid destroying itself.Absolutely, and they key to ensuring #1 is maintained is to ensure #2 occurs as well.
There are people who will want Putin to be punished, will want Russia to be punished... screw them. The continued existence of civilization, if not humanity itself, is far more important than "teaching Russia a lesson".
You know who is already the biggest winner in all of this?
America.
America will never look more powerful, other than at the end of WWII, than it will if the status quo is maintained, if this just remains a regional squabble, if it doesn't escalate.
Russia has never looked more inept, more incapable, more of a 2nd rate nation and not close to being a true threat to America than now. If it remains just a war between Ukraine and Russia.
All we have to do is let Russia expend itself, let its army fail, and do not give Russia/Putin any excuse to exercise the nuclear option.
And then give Russia/Putin an out, the rest of the world will see that Russia had failed, even if concessions are made and Russia keeps Crimea and the Donbas region.
Let Russia be hated, let them be the enemy the EU has to worry about, so long as we do not cause the Russian economy to collapse, allowing for the Russian government to be taken over by a hard-nosed vengeful military coup we get past this period in history and the world moves on.
Ken, I can agree to your first and second paragraphe. But unless Russsia's Putin withdraw her aggressive bent against Ukraine, a small independent country, I couldn't consider your opinion as 'Good'. What good is there to fighting and killing an innocent people? What good has it for the countries of the world? Due to this dirty war, oil and gas price is most countries of the world, rises and affecting the price of public transport and foodstuff.
"Brilliant at . . . " and then ". . . not ideally suited. . . " Move over Marie Barone you have some new competition.
You are probably right Ken, I may not understand the "bigger picture" of the geopolitical, military, and economic power of the future after Ukraine. I am not even sure which bigger picture to focus on. The one that avoids the threat of nuclear war at any cost or the one that considers today's costs of avoidance versus tomorrow's cost of avoidance.
The goal of both big pictures must be your first goal: to avoid nuclear war at all costs. Extrapolation of that includes the extremes of appeasement and capitulation, and, surrender, (the `live to fight another day' option).
Relative to my comments, I think your extrapolation went too far. We agree on the basics but are looking at different `costs', (and the available options to direct those costs).
On a lighter note, I don't think the "4,500 nukes" point matters. It will only take two to start—the first one—a tactical battlefield nuke, and the first `compensatory' response. After that, probably less than 100 more to complete the job. There is also a bonus. If `we' get into it then you know others will join; N. Korea, Iran . . . ?
GAThe appeasement of Russia (Putin) or the perceived appeasement of such doesn't matter.
With time we can overcome that, with time Putin will pass, with time we may become a two planet species and perhaps that will help us "evolve" past the point of squabbling over territory on Earth.
We can survive appeasement, we can grow beyond appeasement.
We cannot survive a nuclear war. Even a limited one changes our world, our economies, trade, and we never recover in our lifetimes.
... America has already gone a long way to escalating this conflict and endangered its populace to possible nuclear attack...
Good observation. Besides that us Nonamericans are used to the USA sticking its fingers into every mess, what does this tell us about Russia?
Besides raising the alert level for the nukes by Russia, nothing happened. Countries imposing sanctions are called "unfriendly". Accusing Putin of war crimes causes a mere diplomatic rebute. This is all only hot words.
Russia has no means to take any military action against Nato. They are barely able to keep their (already limited number) of combat aircraft over Ukrainian ground. And they know it.
Even the natural resources threat is not put into action. We can discuss if we should further buy oil and gas from Russia. But imho it doesn´t matter any more. They can´t even spend that money because their industry is far from being productive and flexible.
Leaves only the ultimate option of going nuclear. And no - i hope this not an option even for someone as unhinged as Putin is.Correct, and anyone advocating for our direct involvement is advocating for Nuclear War. Period.
Russia has already lost, if the goal was to topple the Ukrainian government, if it was to secure Kyiv, anything other than securing the Donbas region and Crimea has no chance.
----------
"I don't think it is wrong that, without foreknowledge of the outcomes, a nation that is: geographically uninvolved, economically unthreatened, at peace, and with a populace that does not want their nation to go to war on a faraway continent, lets European nations settle their own affairs first"
-----
GA, that may have been true in the past, but with the nuclear genie out of the bottle, isolationalism is a luxury none of us have any more.
---------
In both European wars, the U.S. was a non-combatant partner in most areas. They didn't become "World" wars until we entered them in combat. We weren't late, and that's not semantics. We made them World wars
-----
I don't know about this either, by 1941, in both the Pacific and in Europe WWII was well underway, all the way to Japanese aggression in the Pacific to the blitz of London and Hitler's attack on Russia. I would say the same thing about WWI, without American involvement World War was already well defined by 1917, it was only the appearance of fresh American troops that tipped the balance to the allies, by 1918.Basically, the United States of America is where we always are, damned if we do and damned if we don't.
What else is new?I was not speaking to Isolationism, but to the reality of the situation. Of course, things have changed, (the nukes), but I don't think that changes the logic of not getting combat-involved in foreign wars until it is a certain necessity. I think that is the valid history of our actions in both world wars. And I think it was a correctly chosen history.
And then, 1941 . . . you are right, our American involvement in the actual combat did tip the scales to victory, but I don't think that affects the premise laid out; don't make it our war until it must become our war.
I am not so sure about WW I but at the start of WW II the combined physical military strength of the Allies was more than that of Germany. I think it was reasonable for the U.S. to think material support would be enough to help the allies win. That was 1939.
It wasn't until France's unexpected defeat in 1940 that that calculus changed. The U.S. then entered the war, materially, in late 1940 and in declaration in 1941. I don't see that as "late."
It seems the contrary thought would infer that the U.S. put boots-on-the-ground as soon as any free nation is warred upon. I don't like that idea.
GA"but I don't think that changes the logic of not getting combat-involved in foreign wars until it is a certain necessity."
A logic that we have not been very good at subscribing to, if the post war period could be considered a guide.
But, Pearl Harbor and the Axis declaration of war on the United States in December, 1941, made war a necessary response.
Our reason for entry into WWI was more ambiguous and philosophical. If we could have avoided becoming targets as non combatants, as we were victims of unrestricted submarine warfare. The Kaiser was not open to reason regarding Americ's complaint. Wilson, being the patrician that he was, tied America's course to an ideal.
The US and its overwhelming industrial and productive might was more than responsible for the turn of the tide during WWII. Churchill prayed for a provocative circumstance that would actually bring America into the war, Lend Lease and similar programs transferring military ordinance were not enough in itself to stop the Nazis and he knew it. Yamamoto, architect of the Pearl Harbor attack, having lived in America for a time, was well aware of America's latent industrial capacity and feared that if the Japanese were not quick and decisive after Pearl, the advantage they had would erode. "I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve"
---
"It seems the contrary thought would infer that the U.S. put boots-on-the-ground as soon as any free nation is warred upon. I don't like that idea."
---
I don't either, as it is simply un realistic and unsustainable over the long term.
So - should the Poles have flown the MIG29 to neutral Switzerland. Then the Swiss may invite Ukrainian pilots for a good fondue and let them steal the jets?
Why couldn't the Poles fly the Migs to Ukraine? Easy-peasy. No fondues and no stealing. ;-)
GA
GA, I didn’t mean to be disrespectful of America, I was just having a little rant out of frustration; partly because during WWII Britain went through what Ukraine is going through now, so I do have a lot of empathy (rather than just sympathy) for the Ukrainians.
Yeah, you do have a valid point when you say:-
“I don't think it is wrong that, without foreknowledge of the outcomes, a nation that is: geographically uninvolved, economically unthreatened, at peace, and with a populace that does not want their nation to go to war on a faraway continent, lets European nations settle their own affairs first.”
And also, in another reply you made (further down) in this forum you said;”
“It seems the contrary thought would infer that the U.S. put boots-on-the-ground as soon as any free nation is warred upon. I don't like that idea.”
That’s why in my previous comments (that you responded to) my concluding sentence was:-
“So I think the current crises is demonstrating that perhaps a version of NATO without the USA e.g. an EU Army might have its benefits?”
As things stand at the moment, the primary principle of NATO is “an attack on one NATO Member is an attack on all NATO members” therefore if Russia fired missiles to Poland (a NATO Member) for Poland giving MIG planes to Ukraine then the USA would automatically be dragged into the war because it’s an attack on NATO of which the USA is a member!
As pointed out by Credence below, even before the USA finally joined the 1939 to 1945 war it was already a world war involving much of the world, including China, Japan and Russia, as well as the whole of Europe. And don’t forget that China was at war with Japan from 1937, and China suffered 14 million casualties during World War II.
Yep, the MIG planes a sticky one. Accepting that Russia is a bully throwing a tantrum (making it unpredictable); Poland wants Ukraine to have their MIG planes, but they don’t want to hand them over directly because of the real threat that Russia will retaliate, and bomb Poland with missiles; in spite of the fact that Poland is a NATO Member, and an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all, thus dragging the USA into the war. For some reason Poland seems to think that if the USA (seen as another big bully by the Russians) hand the planes over then perhaps Russia will be more hesitant in retaliating?
It’s anyone’s guess as to whether it would make any difference who hands the planes over, and whether if we call Russia’s bluff whether Russia would carry out their threats on NATO or not; and if it did escalate to World War III, whether Putin would be mad enough to result to nuclear?
And it’s because we don’t know how far he would go if he was provoked that everyone is running scared of Putin.
But the reason I said “So I think the current crises is demonstrating that perhaps a version of NATO without the USA e.g. an EU Army might have its benefits?” is that as things stand at the moment it’s America who is stopping the transfer of Polish MIG planes to Ukraine because they’ve refused Poland’s request to make the transfer from an American Military Base in Germany. Whereas, if the USA was only an Associate Member of NATO, European Defence Army, or whatever, and the USA didn’t have military bases across Europe; then the decision on how, if or whether the MIGs get to Ukraine would be purely a European matter, and it would be Europe to say yes or no to Poland’s idea/request. Likewise, if the USA was not a direct member of NATO, it would be Europe, and not the USA, who would decide whether there should be a ‘no fly zone’ over Ukraine!
Seems to be plenty of food for thought in these discussions?I have a friend who is much more into the military issues than myself.
He raised an interesting point.
These MIG fighters Poland would give are decades old. To keep them airborne you have to be able to service them. Parts for these planes are difficult to obtain because they are so old. Also, they require extensive maintenance because of their age.
He believes the Ukraine would experience more problems than benefits from getting these decades old fighter planes.
I think that is a valid point we don't think about often.I can certainly understand your empathy. I will leave the rest, (ie. a European NATO), to future considerations. The Ukraine outcome could be an important factor.
GAYeah, too many uncertainties at this time to know what the future may bring.
During a war, peaceful people usual flee their country, to seeking refuge elsewhere. It's great that the Ukraine that flee had found sanctuary in Poland and other European countries. The Europeans are brother keepers indeed. God bless you all.
Thanks guys for enlightening me with some of these out of text book details of WW 1 & 2.
Thank you guys, thank you. However, I don't have a background history of these countries in the Russian block. So your posts seems to educated me. You're all welcome.
I think this validity is one factor that's keeping things in balance, that the war does nott escalate yet to other parts of the world. Nonetheless, the world still need to be on guide against any Putin tactic, though he's defeated.
These kings who want to own many peaces of the world. Don't own my world prospective nor me. If these kings are fighting too hard in my area, I'll give them all the more room for their own self destruction. Later they give me new room to build new peace, love and self government communities, no matter what.
Castlepaloma, you're fantastic! I bet I should own a part of the land also?
In spirit I don't even pocess myself. Health or biological well being is first and family. It is more important than the land or nationalism. Canada is generally very good although there are healthier lands eslewhere rather than dealing with the horror hell of war. Ukrainian people can move back when everything is settled. I'm just not wired to kill People, it would loose a big part of my soul. Someone has to be an example of war solves nothing there are always other solutions. Even your Jesus says not to kill,unless your going to eat it, and more people die of starvation during war than in battle.
Yes, war solves nothing. So, the UN was form after WW2. Is the UN currently addressing the problems of war? As a human institution, it fail at times as relating to Ukraine.
What's the use of appeasing Putin? That don't make sense to me. He's an agressor. The threat of a nuclear warfare in this present day to me is not real. If Putin should start it, he's just comming sucide. Let him go ahead.
"Let him go ahead."
Wow... just ... wow.
And people wonder if its possible that Putin might actually go ahead and do it... well there seem to be plenty of people daring him into it.
Kind of like they didn't think he would dare invade Ukraine.
Same overwhelmingly brilliant minds making those decisions...are the ones that are going to land us in an even worse position.'Kind of like they don't think he would dare invade Ukraine'. Yes, but the invasion is speculated many years ago after the Crinean was taken. And that's not the same as a nuke war. I think a nation threatening a nuclear war mistakely thinks only her possess the hydrogen bomb? Let Putin dare it. Is his army ready or earger to compile? When the USA brings in th A-bomb in WW2, she's the only one in possession of the weapon. Japan, Germany, and the other powers on point of defeat surrender unconditionally. So, if Putin threaten a nuclear war, America, Britain, China, and the others will keep seal lips and submitted? I think not.
I think the concept of civilization ending as we know it, and possibly exterminating ourselves as well, seems to be out of reach for a variety of people.
Should Nuclear War, in any form, no matter how limited, take place... all the things people take for granted, from getting food at the grocery to putting gas in their car goes away.
How badly civilization declines is unknown, but I would bet far more millions would die in the years following a nuclear war than who die in it. In many parts of the world starvation and mass murders of minorities would take place.That is when to buy a bubble suite, not during Covid.
Castle, I don't think you'll be available to sell one to yours?
A nuclear war these days will wipe out mankind off the earth. I don't any person can survive, except a miracle of God took place. Hydrogen bombs are more powerful than atomic bombs, so no person will be alife.
it makes no sense the Powers to Be destroy themselves and their own family. It's a tool, to bluff with, for more power and control.
I can not afford to live in fear for what ever happens. Being an extremeo optimist since human and livestock have already have 96% mass weight of mammals on earth. It can be a great thing that humans eliminated themselves so other species can continue growing healthy and richer.
I can go either way, always with another plan.Castle, that agreed. However, Putin and his likes or opposites are human beings not GOD. Seriously, I can continuo to live for the next 70 years. Cheers!
I can imagine living for another 40 years or so.
Putin and Russia say they are Christian, no matter , it also is not logical to use nukes.
Ken, you're right. Man, like Putin, is no God that he should stamp out the Creators flowers. Seriously, let Putin drop an atomic bomb on Ukraine or Poland, and he'll be prosecute for war crimes...whether in person or absentia. Critically, if you kill a person in self defense, you'll likely spent some 5 to 10 years behind bar. Life is not to be tempered with. Remember the case of the cop that strangulated late Flyod George? So I join every wise or unwise persons daring Putin to be the first to dare drop a nuke bomb!
I stumbled across this Quora comment in a thread asking if Russia has won the war.
It deals with the landbridge scenario of Putin's goals, but it goes a lot farther in detail and analysis than I ever considered. It even expands to include the goal of taking over other NATO nations. (don't `pooh-pooh' that thought until you at least hear it out).
It's long but well worth the time if you consider that scenario right, (you won't be able to stop reading). And if you don't, then the first screen or two might at least draw some questions.
*Note that the publish date was Mar 10. The news of Mar 19 certainly seems to support the author's points.
Is Russia actually losing the war in Ukraine?
"I fear that Russia has already won the war in Ukraine.
Decisively in terms of the political goals she set out to accomplish.
There is so much denial in the West, so much desperate hope at even a smallest new shred of Ukrainian resistance, I indulge in it myself and cannot resist the temptation to watch the slew of snippets talking about the failure of the Russian Army. It is poignant to watch since I want Russia to fail and fail very badly, but I think we have to differentiate between what we wish for versus what the ground reality is.
And that all of these estimates of Russia losing already are very premature, to put it mildly. The war is just two weeks old, let’s please have some sense of proportion here.
Here now I will expound in some depth and in systematic fashion, on such matters as Ukraine’s plight, on Russia’s military position and immediate prospects, on the perilous scenario that I fear still awaits us, and finally on how in my estimation NATO will respond to a Russian invasion of its East European partners, how security treaties are to be evaluated in terms of actual adherence in event of war and not mere legal terms (because there is no supra-national enforcement agency).
It’s not a comforting piece, it certainly gives me no pleasure to say it but this isn’t a Disney movie or a bedtime story."
GAUnfortunately, it requires a payment/subscription to read.
However, in trying to find that title in hopes of an alternate read being available I found this:
https://www.vox.com/2022/3/18/22977801/ … week-three
Russia’s offensive is stalled. It has taken massive casualties. We are, according to one expert, “seeing a country militarily implode.”
March 18
The initial Russian invasion plan, a lightning march aimed at conquering Kyiv, collapsed within days. Since then, the Russians have adjusted to a more gradual advance backed by heavy artillery fire, an approach that has allowed them to make some noticeable territorial gains.
But these advances appear to have been halted, at least temporarily. On Thursday, the UK Defense Intelligence Agency assessed that Russia’s offensive “has largely stalled on all fronts,” a judgment echoed by open source analysts tracking developments on the ground. The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that Ukrainian forces have even managed to mount a counteroffensive around Kyiv.
Russian casualties have been horrifically high. It’s hard to get accurate information in a war zone, but one of the more authoritative estimates of Russian war dead — from the US Defense Department — finds that over 7,000 Russian soldiers have been killed in the first three weeks of fighting, a figure about three times as large as the total US service members dead in all 20 years of fighting in Afghanistan.
Russia’s military has proven more incompetent, and Ukraine’s more capable, than nearly anyone anticipated.
I probably have not presented sufficient evidence to you as to convince you of how badly the Russian Army has failed, but I ask that you take with a grain of salt that when it comes to assessing military ops I am fairly competent.
If what I have learned about the Russian forces is fairly accurate, as to their numbers, training, condition of their equipment, etc. then I am confident in my evaluation.
Russia has woefully lost.
They will not be able to maintain their hold on anything beyond 50 miles of the Russian border or Crimea.
They will not be able to maintain their supply lines in hostile territory, they will not be able to repair equipment and vehicles readily in hostile territory, they do not have the needed reserves along the border to call on.
That is not to say that Ukraine will be able to force them out of territories they have secured easily or quickly. But the offensive has failed, Russia does not have additional forces of substantial enough amount to push any further.
There are many reasons things have turned out this way. Generally speaking, it appears that pre-war analyses overrated Russia’s hardware advantage and underrated less tangible factors — including logistical capacity and the morale of the front-line combat troops on both sides.
Morale in particular “is a very significant factor in Russian combat effectiveness, and one that’s being ignored by many military observers,” argues Michael Kofman, director of Russia studies at the CNA think tank.
All that said, it is still far too early to conclude that Ukraine is going to win the war. Ukrainians have suffered significant losses, too; Russia’s numerical and technological advantages remain and could yet prove decisive, allowing the Russians to besiege Ukraine’s major cities and starve them into submission.
But these advances were not necessarily the sole result of Russian battlefield supremacy. Ukraine, Kofman explains, made the tactical decision to trade “space for time”: to withdraw strategically rather than fight for every inch of Ukrainian land, fighting the Russians on the territory and at the time of their choosing.
As the fighting continued, the nature of the Ukrainian choice became clearer. Instead of getting into pitched large-scale battles with Russians on open terrain, where Russia’s numerical advantages would prove decisive, the Ukrainians instead decided to engage in a series of smaller-scale clashes.
Ukrainian forces have bogged down Russian units in towns and smaller cities; street-to-street combat favors defenders who can use their superior knowledge of the city’s geography to hide and conduct ambushes. They have attacked isolated and exposed Russian units traveling on open roads, which make for easy targets. They have repeatedly raided poorly protected supply lines with an eye toward denying Russians necessary materials like fuel.
[The Offensive has stalled out,] the Russian advancement mostly came in the south, where they continue to besiege the port city of Mariupol. Their current aim appears to be to do the same to Kyiv in the north, cutting it off from food and water and bombarding it with artillery.
In theory, this is something their vastly superior military forces should be able to accomplish. In practice, the Ukrainians have successfully stopped Russia from encircling their capital and may even be able to push Russian forces back.
And Russian casualties are taking their toll on the invasion. A recent US intelligence assessment found that Russia had lost over 10 percent of its initial invasion force due to a combination of factors like battlefield deaths, injuries, capture, illness, and desertion. According to Phillips O’Brien, a professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews, this is a very ominous sign for the future of its campaign.
“Once they get below 75% their overall effectiveness should plummet,” he writes. “If the Russians don’t send fresh well-trained troops (and this will not be mercenaries or people impressed off the streets in Crimea) very soon, their whole strategy seems pointless.”
I stated more than a week ago, Russia's advance had been stalled/stopped everywhere but in the South/South-East and Russia will soon be pushed out of every area they currently "hold" other than in the South/South-East within the next few weeks.
To understand why the war has gone in such a surprising direction, we can first look at some of the Russian side’s problems. They started with Putin himself.
The initial invasion plan was reportedly put together in secret by a handful of his top military and intelligence advisers; it reflected the Russian strongman’s seemingly sincere belief that Ukraine was a fake country and they could achieve regime change with limited resistance.
“He actually really thought this would be a ‘special military operation’: They would be done in a few days, and it wouldn’t be a real war,” Kofman says.
You can see this assumption at work in the structure of the early offensive. Instead of a methodical advance characterized by “combined arms” — the use of multiple forms of military power, like infantry and artillery, in mutually supportive fashion — Russian tanks and elite paratroopers were sent pell-mell toward Kyiv with little support. This kind of rapid advance might have worked if it had faced token resistance, but it opened up Russian forces to devastating Ukrainian counterattacks.
Once Putin’s strategy failed in the first few days of fighting, Russian generals had to develop a new one on the fly. What they came up with — massive artillery bombardments and attempts to encircle and besiege Ukraine’s major cities — was more effective (and more brutal). But the initial Russian failures gave Ukraine crucial time to entrench and receive external supplies from NATO forces, stiffening their defenses.
Even after this strategic shift, Russian forces have continued to suffer from a series of problems that have kneecapped their ability to execute the plan.
“If the point is just to wreak havoc, then they’re doing fine. But if the point is to wreak havoc and thus advance further — be able to hold more territory — they’re not doing fine,” Oliker tells me.
One of the biggest and most noticeable issues has been rickety logistics. The most famous images of this have been Russian armored vehicles parked on Ukrainian roads, seemingly out of gas and unable to advance any further. But on a whole range of issues, from secure communications to adequate tires, the Russian forces have proven to be underequipped and poorly supplied.
Part of the reason is a lack of adequate preparation. Per Kofman, the Russian military simply “wasn’t organized for this kind of war” — meaning, the conquest of Europe’s second-largest country by area.
Logistical problems also seem to be a factor in one of the war’s biggest and most important surprises: the shocking absence of Russia’s air force.
So far, Russia has struggled to establish air superiority despite massive numerical superiority. According to pre-invasion data from the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Russia’s aerospace forces include 1,172 fixed-wing aircraft; Ukraine has 124. Yet Ukraine’s planes are still flying and its air defenses mostly remain in place; as a result, the Ukrainian military has been able to use air power against the Russian attackers, including deploying Turkish-made TB2 drones against slow Russian armored columns to devastating effect.
War is unpredictable. Any number of things, ranging from Russian reinforcements to greater deployment of its air force to the fall of besieged Mariupol, could give the Russian offensive new life.
But even if Russia begins to perform better on the battlefield, its initial objective — “a Ukraine that becomes entirely subservient to Russia,” as Oliker puts it — is looking increasingly out of reach. The inability to swiftly topple Kyiv, together with the strong resistance and rising nationalist sentiment among Ukrainians, makes it hard to imagine Russia successfully installing its own government in Kyiv.
“No matter how much military firepower they pour into it, they are not going to be able to achieve regime change or some of their maximalist aims,” Kofman declares.
This does not mean the Russian campaign will prove to be a total failure. Depending on how the rest of the military campaign goes, it is possible to imagine them extracting concessions from Zelenskyy in ongoing peace negotiations.Sorry about the subscription thing, I didn't know.
The map you used was one of those in the linked article. (I don't know who authored the image)
GAI was able to read it, for whatever reason, this time when I clicked on it.
Q- That this moment in history might be more akin to the eve of the Second World War, rather than the start of the First Cold War.
In other words, that what we’re witnessing might be an echo from the past, not of 1949 but of 1939.
We have been desperately clinging to any and every glimpse of evidence no matter how dubious, that things will turn out the way we wish for them to be.
**No we are not anywhere near a 1939, for reasons I will now explain.
Russia has no ability to mass produce more tanks, missiles, helicopters.
In order to extend the war beyond Ukraine and HOLD anything, Russia would have to be able to produce tanks, jets, helicopters, etc. at a rate fast enough to replenish those lost in conflict.
In 1939 Germany presented to the world something it had never seen before, the Blitzkrieg, tanks moving past static defenses and deep into enemy territory where no defenses were.
Germany was technologically far superior to any opposition it came into contact with. Its troops were near fanatical as they were taking a form of Meth to be able to keep pushing on for days with little or no rest.
Poland met Germany's tanks on the battlefield with horse cavalry.
France conceded Paris rather than fight, so as to ensure the city was not devastated. France capitulated almost without a fight because they could not fathom how Germany showed up at Paris' doorstep overnight.
I could go on and on, but Russia would get decimated in a war against NATO, because America is NATO and America has better EVERYTHING than Russia. From Jets to Missiles, Tanks to Subs, America's military with the aid of the UK and France would destroy Russia's Army.
Q- Our hope that the liberal world order would persist, our hope that men like Putin would cease to exist, our hope that imperial nations that had declined would not have dormant revivalist ambitions.
**Wrong again, the West injected itself into Ukraine politics (see visits by Clinton, McCain, etc. after the insurrection that the West helped fund).
Prior to the insurrection, prior to making promises to Ukraine leaders without any intent on keeping them, such as keeping NATO open for them, Ukraine would have maintained good relations with Russia, and there would be no war.
Prior to Biden's visits, his son going to work for the largest Natural Gas company in Ukraine, and others, like a high ranking official from the IMF taking up a role in running Ukraine I doubt Putin had any plans on invading Ukraine, he was happy with a government that was on good terms with Russia, not antagonistic, not looking to join NATO.
Considering Kyiv is half a days drive from Moscow, perhaps trying to inject an openly antagonistic to Russia government was not in the best interests of Ukraine's future?
Just a thought.
Q- As things stand today at the time of writing this, Russia will simply crush NATO if she wants to in the Baltic states. I hope that equation changes and does so quickly but my prognosis won’t change unless there is ground evidence.
** Again wrong. Russia does not have the capability to go beyond Ukraine and into NATO countries with any hope of being successful.
I suppose if he was of the mindset of complete destruction of his armies and country, he could do like Hitler did, and commit military suicide by trying it (Germany lost WWII for one reason above all others, invading Russia).
But assuming he is more intelligent and stable, he is not interested in anything more than we discussed in many different posts.
Q- I don’t want any of the above to happen and nothing would please me more than the utter destruction of not merely the Russian Army but of Russia herself. That nation with her perennial desire to revive a lost empire, is an absolute curse to Europe. No, not just Putin but the entire apparatus of Russia and her economy which enable her to wage war.
Russia must be destroyed as a great power. Period.
** And there we go, not an objective review of the scenario at all, not an effort to look at all sides of the matter, at all.
The author of this review wants Russia destroyed, in total.
And in the process of that lengthy review does he give any serious consideration to the Nuclear weapon capabilities of Russia?
Q- She must have her economic spine broken and utterly wrecked, her people condemned to age and die in despair, her military dilapidated and in ruins like that of North Korea. She must be coldly, systematically and relentlessly strangled until she ceases to exist as even a great power, let alone her aspirations to be a revanchist superpower.
Once and for all. Because she will NEVER be civilized.
** Yeah, this guy has issues, not someone I want to rely on for factual information.
Smart, but not that smart, and emotional.As mentioned, the author did go further than I would. I also stumbled when he went into the part about crushing Russia's peoples and invading NATO nations.
Beyond my agreement with the political goals of the landbridge scenario, much of the credibility of his extrapolations will depend on the truth of his "experienced reserve troops" claim.
Even so, I didn't endorse his post because I considered it factual, but because it matches my thoughts on the plausibility of the landbridge scenario being Putin's real goal.
Maybe I misunderstood his point, but I took the "1939" reference to be about the further expansion of a "hot" war versus a cold war—if the USA gets physically involved.
Relative to further Russian aggression, what if his thought about NATO's calibrated response, depending on which nation he picks next, is realistic?
GAFeb 23, 2022 · Biden added that he has authorized the movement of additional US troops to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
Today - British troops arrived in Estonia on Friday as part of a Nato mission to strengthen the alliance's eastern flank after Russia 's invasion of Ukraine. Military lorries and flatbed trucks carrying tanks crossed over the Latvian-Estonian border a week after the UK announced it would double the size of British forces in Estonia.
- - - -
Understand that whether it is a Battalion sized force on the DMZ across the Imjin River, or it's a Battalion sized force in a NATO base in Lithuania, those forces aren't there because they can stop an attack, they are there as a deterrent, as a promise. Attack those troops and you attack America (or the UK).
I know not everyone understands this, obviously the author of that Quora rant did not as he was advocating for tens of thousands of troops to be deployed.
Yes it is true Russia could invade Lithuania or Estonia or Poland, but it wouldn't be able to hold any portion of those countries for any serious length of time.
The combined military power of the UK and America as well as EU forces and the local populace would decimate everything and anything Russia deployed into those countries. It would be more devastating than what Russia's defenders and the Russian winter did to Germany's forces in WWII.
Russia's forces would be completely annihilated, we would still most likely have to stop short of invading Russia itself, those 4,500 nukes are one heck of a deterrent.What is Putin, against those American and British troops?
Your `tripwire' thought is a fair one.
On another note, I haven't found any support, (yet?), for the claim of large, experienced military reserves as mentioned. The k-grad military district he mentioned is now described as much smaller, in `manforce,' than it was in 2014, and the hardware levels aren't higher than they were. So, *shrug
GA
"**No we are not anywhere near a 1939, for reasons I will now explain.
Russia has no ability to mass produce more tanks, missiles, helicopters.
In order to extend the war beyond Ukraine and HOLD anything, Russia would have to be able to produce tanks, jets, helicopters, etc. at a rate fast enough to replenish those lost in conflict."
Simplistically one could say he needs only one weapon, the very weapon that has the world cowering at this point. A nuclear weapon. Once he takes Ukraine, it is your guess as good as mine that he does not use his threat to just about walk into many other Nations.
The gamble remains will he use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, just to show the world he is unafraid of using them? Put the world on notice --- there's a new sheriff in town.
We have taken that gamble by not stopping Putin on the border of Ukraine and Russia... So I think your scenario is very logical. However, In my view, we are not dealing with a man that cares much about logic.
Have you thought about what the world would do if Putin uses a nuke or Chemical weapons in Ukraine? In my view, he is set out to kill the population so they can't fight him for years to come. Scorched earth.
So, what do you predict the world will do if Putin uses nukes or chemical weapons? Our weakness just may have condemned us all. Our wonderful logic may just have sunk us. It would seem Putin may have had a very well thought out plan, and we fell face into it.
NATO used their form of logic, well so did Putin. It appears Putin is doing a methodical job at slowly crushing Ukraine, and when necessary will finish the job with more force.
Day by day this is becoming more evident in my view.No, there's a new Saddam Hussein in town!? Not a sheriff. Big Brother is still is and ever the number one corp I bet rightly? Not too slow nor is he too fast. I'll prefer a snait speed guy to crush to powder. Let Putin use his chemical weapon. Let him dare a nuke. So like SH of Iraq, he be arrest and hang.
Have you evaluated Putin's personality and past actions?
If you had, I doubt you would have those concerns. Putin has been in control for over 20 years, for the most part. There is plenty of history there for you to evaluate as to the risks of his using a nuke, just to use a nuke, to show "there is a new sheriff in town".
What I do know, is that Russia changed its rules as to how and when it would use nuclear weapons in 2020.
I also know he has promised to use nuclear weapons if any other nation or group of nations interfere in what he considers an internal conflict with a territory he does not identify as an independent nation in the way the West thinks of an independent nation.
So, knowing that, why are you intent on interfering in this war and testing his resolve to use Nuclear weapons... knowing full well once he does, civilization as we know it is over, at best... at worst, you have just ended the lives of 7 Billion people?
Also... chemical weapons are not nuclear weapons and should never be put in the same category for any reason.
Perhaps, and if so, then that is the fate of Ukraine.
I never saw it as a conflict we should become involved in, and this goes back over a decade when we were financing and supporting opposition groups that wanted to overthrow the government and turn away from Russia.
I never considered it worth putting humanity in the position we are in now, which is on the doorstep of annihilation.
One thing I have learned, is to have confidence in the incompetence of our leaders, along with their arrogance and hubris as "elites" people like Hillary Clinton, the Bush family, Biden these people are privileged and sheltered from the 'real world' and are bound to cause far more harm to the world than do it good.
Had there been wiser leadership along the way over the course of the last 20+ years, we wouldn't have interfered with Georgia, Ukraine, etc. once Putin had control in Russia. We would not have provoked this current crisis.
We would have looked at the situation and realized that first changes have to come to Russia, Putin can no longer be in control, and then work to change things.
And this is true today, as it was 20 years ago, until Putin is no longer in control, until Russia has changed its ways, interfering with Russia's actions along its borders and with matters it considers internal and intimate, no matter how deplorable they may seem, will put all of humanity at risk.I think the only ones that have used nuclear weapons have been the Americans.
Yes, and that during the WW2, and it brought the war to an end. Yet, most nations who had the nuke had be testing it on remote Islands or in the atmosphere, or under the ocean!
"Have you evaluated Putin's personality and past actions?"
I have not studied him in any depth. However, I have heard enough opinions of his character, to honestly say -- I don't think he is a man to be toyed with. Not sure anyone can predict what another unman being might do for that matter.Here are some insights I have read that I think hit the mark:
Putin sees the United States as a malicious, incompetent and disrespectful power, an obstacle in his relentless effort to restore and expand the might of the Russian state.
Putin regards Russia’s post-Soviet stumbles of the 1990s, being beholden to the West, as an unforgivable humiliation he must avenge.
He declared himself a “servant of the state” in a 5,000-word manifesto he issued shortly before first reaching the presidency. “Putin pledged to rebuild the Russian state, protect Russia’s sovereignty, preserve domestic stability and unity, and ensure national security,”
Putin views the United States through the insult of NATO expansion, the shame of the Kosovo intervention and the insidious support for pro-democracy nongovernmental organizations that only undercut Russian unity. He believes all local protesters are driven by “fringe minorities and professional oppositionists, or by foreign funding and intervention.”
Putin is the operative in the Kremlin who was suddenly asked to be its master. His unique experiences, born of a specific place and time in Russian history, had not prepared him to be the national political leader of an advanced, developed country... a politician who is accountable to his electorate. When Putin first became president he had no prior experience with direct responsibility, having always been the No. 2 man in St. Petersburg. In 2000, when Putin was made acting president and anointed as Boris Yeltsin’s successor, the resources of the Kremlin were deployed in full-force to secure his formal election. He did not campaign for the position himself.
Putin is now on the defensive. His primary concern is domestic politics and ensuring regime survival. When he made the announcement in September 2011 that he was returning to the presidency, Putin did not anticipate election protests and the rise of a new opposition movement among Russia’s urban elite.
In many respects, Putin is the victim of his own success. The long period of prosperity and stability he has presided over in Russia helped create the new urban middle class, which consumes at Western levels and now wants Western-style political rights.
The people of Russia will not be willing to suffer for Putin's efforts to re-establish a Russian renaissance of being a regional overlord and super power. As things get tougher in Russia, Putin's demise becomes more and more likely.
Domestic dissent and Putin’s efforts to counter it will be a permanent feature of his presidency from here on out. Paradoxically, the more progress that was made toward modernizing Russia, the more people got used to Apple and Facebook and access to western products, ultimately, the rise of Russia’s middle class, then, will continue to pit Putin against his people as those things disappear from their lives, as well as the economic hardships they face for as long as this war continues.The only time I can remember where the world looked to America to save them, was from the USSR Communism. The world wouldn't wants to return to the same, since millions have had a good taste of freedom and choices.
Generally people don't want war from NATO also. I find people are starting to caught on to world order centralist attempts like WEF also. All are like Monopoly mafia groups that will soon eliminate each other.
They won't give up trying, at least we are mostly aware of them. I stay out of the Mafia way, as their greed will fight it out and the power of the people will returns even better than before.I remember that years ago. Human memory can be short.
I am unsure people recognize just how I overwhelming Russia's nuclear arsenal is.
According to the WSJ they have more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined.
https://youtu.be/K10XKvHpYxYPure count of weapons is not the same thing as count of Type of weapons. In other words there are 10 kiloton and 100 kiloton weapons or tactical battle field weapons like 155 howitzer vs. strategic weapons like ICBMs. Yes, it is obvious the US, China, and Russia have enough of the Strategic Weapons to annihilate the world, yet in my mind that would take a bit of escalation to happen. I think there may be more to worry about with tactical weapons in the battle field first while remembering that has the propensity to strategic weapons being used.
Take a peek at a list of weapon type by country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weaponsMy theory is if things continue to deteriorate in The Ukraine for Russian forces, Putin may well use tactical nukes, limited in their scope enough to keep NATO out and avoid escalation but will change the course of the war where Putin can compel the Ukrainian President to the bargaining table.
If I were sitting where he is that might be what I would do.I think we are both thinking along the same lines. Understanding, yes, there is the propensity of IBM's sent across the oceans, submarine launches, and the use of bombers there could be the annihilation of civilization as we know it, yet in my view mankind would continue and enter into the sci-fi world. For that to happen there has to be escalation to that point and I am not going to speculate on that. However, the link next talks about Russia's escalation policy. Lengthy, but worth the read while contemplating the Ukraine conflict.
https://warontherocks.com/2020/06/escal … -strategy/
With all the talk of the worst is the big fear I decided to look into the strategy of using nuclear weapons discovering there is a range of them as mentioned in my post. They even have nuclear land mines. Artillery usage was mentioned frequently. A typical range is 18 - 30 km (11- 19 miles). Kinda' close in my mind when considering fallout. Seems many nuclear countries have them. See link next
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_artillery
So, for me the bottom line is I claim ignorance and can only speculate with what little I know. It is evident from the point of being conventional war today between two adversaries the first step is to keep it that way. Putin is the key while Zelenskyy to me is a wildcard in a sense seemingly advocating for boots on the ground from NATO or someone. Like I said . . . I dun'no . . .Ultimately Putin is the one with power in Russia and there is nothing to keep him in check.
This is very much his war, and I doubt there are many that wanted it other than Putin himself. But I could be wrong about that, as we get so little trustworthy information about Russia here in America.
Cronkite’s dead. And Murrow too. Reporters are a thing of the past. Today they’re repeaters. Repeating the same tripe and propaganda that their overlords order them to read.
Some of the best information on Ukraine and Russia I have heard and seen isn’t from anyone in the United States. Average citizens making videos in Ukraine and foreign news platforms are superb and the only reliable information I would trust.
Our MSM news, like CNN, is meant to tell the heard what to think and believe, perfect for the American citizen who still wears a mask while driving alone in a car... not so good for the rest of us who still use our brains and question what we are told is the 'truth'.
Russia has nukes, how many, how advanced, we don't know... and it really doesn't matter, the world literally tilts on its axis and the global economy tanks if one is used. And if more than one is used, well, there probably won't be much to worry soon after that.I agree with a lot of what you shared. I too go looking elsewhere for news discovering different perspectives from news sources local to the region or country. I must add along with CNN to definitely add Fox at the top of the list. Those two stoke the emotions of the particular base they seek to earn a buck, which is the driving force in my mind!
I agree with that, I dislike CNN because it has been a fount of misinformation for decades now, FOX used to provide decent reporting, they would dig into things other networks would not... now I see them as little more than CNN's reflection, pushing the opposing bias and paying way too much attention to what CNN says and critiquing it rather than reporting real events.
I am now attempting to read your links, I will return with my assessment soon, thanks...
..things deteriote in The Ukraine.. is mostly equipment losses for Russia.
What will be the deterioration at home in Russia?
Russia has a population of roughly 143 mill. If we take the Russian soldier death count as published by the Ukraine command for a minute (15.000) then this is roughly 1 out of 10.000.
But it is only the male portion - so it is 1 out of 5.000.
Then we have to consider that only some 20% of the male population is eligible for military service. Makes it 1 out of 1.000 dead !!!
What a tragedy is carried into Russian families. It will need a Stalin to keep this suppressed.
By the way, this month of war already took 1,5% of the standing army of Russia.
I am not sure of how high casualties are in Ukrainian military. But until now the tragedy in ultimate human losses is on the military, not on the civilians. The US way of waging a war normally does something completely different: Magnitudes more civilian deaths than military deaths. Just saying.Putin may well be that "Stalin" with just a bit more polish. He will do what he needs to keep control, he has shown time and time again that he is a ruthless man.
I understand, the US is not always in a position to speak of "war crimes". But, I hear that Putin is directing more of his attacks toward civilians and population centers to get the Ukrainian president to concede.
If Putin use limit nuke weapons as a tactical measure, so you mean the Ukraines couldn't get any help if they ask for it anywhere in the world? What kind of country then d'you think Ukraine is? I can hardly agree to you opinion. The war Putin has been waging on in Ukraine has been condemned world wide. Nuke fall outs can sijnificantly affect neighbouring countries for years.
Yes, Miebakagh,
It if the attacks are within the Ukraine, why would NATO and the West do anything differently in regards to the Ukraine from war being waged there with conventional weapons.
Some of the "portable" tactical nuclear weapons are capable of creating casualties without all of the nuclear fallout issues.
Well they had the world believing that their armed forces are one of the most powerful. I think we're finding that perception and reality don't match. I'm not sure if anyone really knows the state of their nuclear program. It seems like Putin has let many things fall into disarray under his watch.
No. God is in-change. Those things that you said fall into disarray are his makings to prevent a nuke conflict. Putin is a defeated lion!
GA, thanks for this informative comment. It's a history for my data bank. The question is who wins the war? What was initially intend to be for just only three days has gone into three weeks. So, here Russia is a complete losser. Admittedly, the Ukraine's has done well in saving their country. The false or roaring lion must be chase away. And, whatever peace is negotiated, Russia is a losser. Putin should pack his generals and rank and leave Ukraine in peace acknowledging defeat. This may sound hard. But its the truth. Clearly, there's an international convention not to go to war or annext a independent and peace loving country. Just bring the offence to the UN Security Council. Putin just took matters much alone. Bad!
Brilliant article. Long, however well thought out, so logical it's scary. My kind of stuff.
Slow down a bit, I think "brilliant" might be a little strong. But, I understand what you mean. I finished it worrying that I was high on confirmation bias.
Plus, I didn't check out any of the claims, (primarily of the experienced reserves not yet committed). They are in the `pending file' until I do. Even so, his argument was persuasive. He did go a few steps further than I would have.
And I agree it was well thought out—based on one perspective. We seem to share that perspective, (at least as it parallels my own "landbridge" scenario), and it seems our perspective is a minority one.
Even so, I think there are several points that I think doubters should consider. Too bad I can't provide the link for non-Quora subscribers, and the post is too long to cut & paste.
GAYa know what, I had to even go back for seconds... I will stick with brilliant.
Hopefully, all here will read the article. This man has laid out a very profound, intense scenario, and in my view is very plausible. Yes, pretty grim however very probable.Not probable at all, his rant was about as on target as the loons that said Trump was going to start WWIII and declare martial law, etc. etc.
Hyperbolic nonsense.
Hear is a solid piece that hits far closer to the mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeacXBxPARQI followed this guy for some time and it is interesting to see what he posted 2 months ago before the Russian invasion started.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNIU6TRsRzkYes that was a fairly accurate evaluation, as time has shown.
The other day I posted a comment here about Putin threatening to use his new Hypersonic weapon It appears he kept good on that threat. Putin threatened to use his new Hypersonic Missile in Ukraine. Seems he does what he says he will do. He also put his nuclear forces on high alert, escalating tensions
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukrai … f936725550
Live: U.S. Officials Reportedly Believe Russia Used Hypersonic Missile... - Forbes
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesstaf … 33a33f7ee1
This is very much a man that does not appear to be backing off, it is clear he is accelerating his campaign. Perhaps he is displeasure with the media he is getting. I mean our media as well as social media are touting his army is ragtag, and that he is, and will lose his war.
Wonder if this kind of media coverage is helping or hurting the people of Ukraine?The Russians have achieved their objective and as per my astrological forecast by 22nd April Ukraine will be defeated and god saves Zelenskyy. He would be the successor of Nero, for destroying Ukraine.
Guys thank you, as regards to the news sources @TSMog & @Ken. Seriously, for over 6 years, I've not read FOX or CNN news. But can you link me up with a reliable source? Much thanks.
US response to Russian chemical weapons would be 'in kind': Biden
President Biden on Thursday said the United States response to Russia’s potential use of chemical weapons would "trigger a response in kind," but said the type of response would depend on "the nature of the use." President Biden
ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Cecilia Vega followed up, and asked, "If chemical weapons were used in Ukraine could that trigger a military response from NATO?"
"It would trigger a response in kind," Biden replied. "Whether or not -- you're asking whether NATO would cross -- we'd make that decision at the time."
But Biden did not lay out what that response might look like and whether it would involve sending U.S. troops to Ukraine, which Biden has vowed not to do.
Source of quote https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-nato … d=83648189
This is not a red line it's an invisible line --- It will be up to half brain Joe to determine the "nature of their use? What the hell does that mean? Only this many die or did he hit only soldiers and not civilians? OMG ! He needs to be corralled.
He continues to stick his foot in his mouth, and with this kind of crisis, no one can afford this man being out in the public. He shows weakness at every turn.
https://www.aol.com/news/russia-ukraine … 03240.htmlThank you for the link ABC news. It's an interesting read. I've been saying it that Russians Putin was an Aggressor in invading Ukraine just for economic execuse io order to politically control the whole of Europe. I'm glad that the UN General Assembly has stand on both feet. It's time for the International community to make a resolution and cross into Ukraine to help the Ukrainians. Is it right to just watch the civilians suffer for no fault of they own? Whether Putin's army targets civilians, or otherwise. But as long as his weapons is destroy civilians proper and they properties, its war crime. The international c6munity should do to him as they did to Saddam Hussein. Invade his country, arrest Putin, tried and hang him.
I watched some of the coverage, Biden is in way over his head! His continual mentions of his vast experience in all things, foreign and domestic, may be to convince Joe Biden, but I am not sure anyone else is convinced of any such thing.
Oops this was meant for another discussion, but I'll let it lie...
Are you sure?
President Biden has had more foreign policy experience than any other president in U.S. history. When he entered the Senate and began dealing with global issues, it was 1973 and Leonid Brezhnev was chairman of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The previous most experienced among our presidents when it came to foreign policy was George H.W. Bush. Add up his time in Congress, as ambassador to the United Nations, head of the U.S. Liaison Office in China, head of the CIA and vice president, Bush became president with 17 years of foreign policy experience.
That is a third of the foreign policy experience President Biden has had.
It is probably unfair to compare President Biden's early performance to the first months of Donald Trump, the only president in U.S. history to have had zero public service experience of any kind before he took office. In fact, it’s probably unfair to compare him with any of his predecessors since the senior Bush. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush & Barack Obama all came into office with little or no international affairs experience. And it showed.
George W. Bush oversaw the beginning of the worst foreign policy calamity in U.S. history, the unwarranted and disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq. As hard to imagine as it is, his decisions in the global arena were even worse than Mr. Trump’s.
Mr. Clinton’s first-term foreign policy fumbles ranged from the Black Hawk down incident in Somalia and failing to act swiftly enough to stem the genocide in Rwanda, to unsteadily handling the first challenges posed by the Balkan war and a misguided, overly optimistic view of post-Soviet Russia. The U.S. intervention in Haiti backed the wrong horse (Jean-Bertrand Aristide); his Iraq policy was muddled; and the Oslo Accord between Israel and the Palestinians, in the end, did not work.
Mr. Obama, who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for no apparent reason other than not being George W. Bush, gave some uplifting speeches in the early days of his administration promising a different view toward the Arab world and an end to nuclear weapons. Ultimately, reality did not live up to his vision. He pledged to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and failed at both. For example, in Afghanistan, he ignored the advice of then-Vice President Biden and bought into a surge strategy that did not work. His vaunted “reset” with Russia proposed during an early visit to Moscow flopped.
By virtue of his long experience, President Biden’s first year in office have been far more successful. He rapidly put together a respected team of foreign policy veterans and has mobilized NATO cooperation/unity in an unprecedented manner.
That is why, of all the presidents across the past 32 years, the only one to which Biden can fairly be compared is to George H.W. Bush. Let's just be fair and cognizant of evaluating these historical facts facts.
I don't need to line up behind a party or an a personality or an individual. All I need to do is evaluate the facts fairly and in and unbiased manner. I wish more would do the same.
I may not personally agree with every decision he makes but I certainly can't ignore the depth of his experience just to take a purely partisan stance.'I certainly can't ignore the depth of his experience...' Fact can't be disputed. But Biden is now an old man. Should he's in his middle ages, he would make a profound impact with such learnings? We never can know since he was both a domestic and a foreign puppet. NATO at this time is geting strong and stronger. Thanks to Putin's aggressions on Ukraie, not because of Biden. If any person care to recalled, Putin was like Hitler and wants to control Europe. NATO and all its members says no. Not just America. The thing I like about Biden here since he became President is to advocate for Ukraine to become a member of NATO.
The problem is, you don't even know what you don't know.
Prime example:
Keeping it IN CONTEXT with what you are discussing here, which is the experience level in foreign affairs of presidents, disregarding Bush Family interests, you actually think the decisions being made then were based on what Bush Jr wanted?
Consider the two people who were far more responsible for that war, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
Cheney's Halliburton Made at least $40 Billion on the Iraq War.
Launched by the US in spite of strong opposition at the UN, we overthrew the government of Saddam Hussein and brought the US-UK coalition into Iraq and in direct control of the oil fields.
Iraq's oil was the world's cheapest to produce, at a cost of only about $1 per barrel. The gigantic "rent" on Iraq's oil, during decades of production, could yield company profits in the range of $9-10 trillion dollars. Iraq could yield annual profits of over $200 billion per year today.
Truth is, you have no idea why the decisions being made are being made, who is really pulling the strings, who is really profiting.
The people making up the Bush Jr Administration were worlds more experienced and more capable than the lackluster crew Biden has around him."Truth is, you have no idea why the decisions being made are being made, who is really pulling the strings, who is really profiting.
Yes, none of us, including yourself, know exactly what is happening behind the scenes in any given situation because we aren't privy to all of the surrounding facts and circumstances.
The comments you made in regard to my post were far more presumptive and speculative than mine. At any rate, my post is obviously my opinion, as is yours. No need to debate the Iraq war. We were lied into it while W was at the helm. My opinion.
You have speculated also when "you have no idea why the decisions being made are being made"
Let's be fair.
He is not mentally fit to handle the job of the presidency. I have watched all the footage, he is clearly saying things he should not be saying. His statement about chemical weapons was shocking. It telegraphs to Putin he can use certain chemical weapons and get a pass. He also stayed the sanctions were not applied as a deterrent. His actions are inexcusable. Not to mention dangerous to the people of Ukraine.
He has been telling us for decades...upon decades, of his vast experience, especially with foreign policy, so it must be true! His vast experience has vastly benefited Hunter and "the big guy" (whoever that is) no doubt about that.
He doesn't have to tell you. It's written into history for you to read and evaluate for yourself. You can even compare it to the last many who have held the office of president as I've done.
Truth. It is all written down in history. Some attempt to revise it, but you can eventually get to the truth with some good detective work.
History tells of those whom have actually made a positive difference in this world and of those who have taken advantage of We the People and have greatly benefited and prospered, as career politicians.
I would put the accomplishments of two of my favorite modern day Presidents, Reagan and Trump (even with only one term) up against any Democrat, any time.It's really not about Democrat versus Republican though. I went though the last five presidents with a fair overview of their foreign policy ups and downs versus their actual experience coming in. I couldn't care less if there was a D or R by their name.
I've just mentioned my favorite two modern day Presidents and why. I am sure that you have your reasons for your favorites too.
Once again Biden's failing mental abilities have led him to make a provocative statement, that could be looked at as an exploration of the US into the Russia, Ukraine war.
He is unsound, and not fit to be out o the world stage in my view...
"White House insists US troops not going to Ukraine after Biden comments in Poland"
"Biden told US troops,
Biden, visiting U.S. service members in Poland, talked about how average Ukrainian citizens are "stepping up."
"You’re going to see when you’re there – some of you have been there – you’re going to see women, young people, standing in the middle, in front of a damn tank, saying, ‘I’m not leaving."
WHITE HOUSE quickly walks his comment back --- The White House on Friday insisted the U.S. military will not be deployed to Ukraine amid Russia’s multifront war on the country after comments President Biden made to troops in Poland seemed to suggest otherwise.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white- … -in-poland
Listening to his speech to this 82 airborne division gives the impression he is talking to a group that has orders to head into Ukraine. OR more likely, he is just confused.
Are these kinds of bazaar statements truely acceptable in a serious foreign crisis? Every time he is in public he makes inappropriate remarks, that need to be walked back. How does one know when to believe and not to believe? Can he be trusted with highly secure information? Should he perhaps not be briefed on highly secure information?
From his dribble about a "New World Order:" to in my view his forecasting to Putin he can use certain Chemical weapons,
"President Joe Biden said Thursday that NATO would respond “in kind” if Russia uses weapons of mass destruction in Ukraine."
"We will respond if he uses it,” Biden said, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin. "The nature of the response depends on the nature of the use.
that would most likely NOT reach the level of NATO or us responding with a retaliation."
What does that mean? If the Chemicals kill only 500 people or less or maybe a Chemical that just blinds a person?
To now this " "You’re going to see when you’re there – some of you have been there " What the hell does this all mean?
How long do Americans ignore the danger this man poses to America?That's for America to decide within her constitution and law. Impeach him, Joseph Biden.
One has to look at the primary decision makers for the Administration, not just Biden.
One has to look at Harris who is a nut, and Blinkin who is not exactly the wisest and most successful individual in DC, he has had a hand in every major Foreign Policy F-Up America has had in the last dozen years, our handling of Syria, Crimea, you name it.
When comparing that to Bush Jr, for instance, who had Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell then Rice for SoS, we are talking worlds more experienced and accomplished individuals to guide the ship.Ken --- I certainly understand all you have shared and agree. But this nut job is causing problems that are reverberating around the world. He is more or less calling the shots that could lead us into a nuclear war, and we Americans seem to be very complimentary, and may I say docile to let him do just that. He needs to be removed.
Each day it has become more apparent that he is not in control of his mouth.
"They will not let me, understandably, I guess, cross the border and take a look at what’s going on in Ukraine," Biden said. Today he makes up some crap about They won't let me go into Ukraine" who the hell are "they"?
"Biden, appearing with Polish President Andrzej Duda on Friday, said he was there to see the humanitarian crisis "first hand."
"Part of my disappointment is that I can’t see it first hand like I have in other places," Biden said Friday." "They will not let me, understandably, I guess, cross the border and take a look at what’s going on in Ukraine," Biden said.
Earlier this month, prime ministers Mateusz Moravetsky of Poland, Petr Fiala of the Czech Republic and Janez Jansa of Slovenia traveled to Kyiv to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal..
I in my entire life never thought I would see America being represented by a confused man, and what is worse, I never thought Americans would be so Fu------en dumb that we would stand for it. I ask what can we expect tomorrow from this nut job? Whoever, won't let him visit Ukraine had better get him back in his basement, and keep him there.
We need to clean house and fast.Hey there, the best medicine available for the 'nut' and the 'confused' guys is impeachment. Could I say more? Not in the least.
To find a solution, one must isolate the difficulty.
Q. What is the difficulty?
Ken?The dynamics of the problem preclude any solution.
Understanding that by "solution" we mean a correct or positive fix.
There is a system in place, and at the moment it is proving to be considerably more powerful and adaptable than I believe any had believed it was just half a dozen years ago.
The system adapted and over came Trump two years ago, we saw that system silence a sitting President on social media, as well as those who would support him and generate near 100% negative press for that President across all major MSM news sites.
The system is currently shutting down the economy of another powerful nation, isolating it from global business and supply, and generating a unified negative storyline against Putin/Russia across all MSM news.
We also saw how the system handled other issues, such as the Truckers in Canada, whose assets were frozen, property confiscated, and arrest warrants issued.
I would say the true government controls that we have, Central Banking and International Law (IMF, WB, WTO, WHO, etc.) and the powerful supporting International Corporations (Facebook, Alphabet, Twitter, Shell, Exxon/Mobil, etc.) have shown that their power and control is not waning anytime soon.The system! That's a conspiracy word.
And you bring it like a conspiracy.
That's what all people do on the extreme end of politics
Always pointing a finger towards the system that's against their political point of view.Really?
What extreme political view have I been advocating?
As to that post/answer, to the direct question as to what we are going to do about the issue of having incompetent leadership in Biden, Harris, etc.
I was giving a detailed response... but I'll shorten it, just for you.
There is nothing that can or will be done about it.
If you do not understand the power dynamics of what I am saying, in regards to "the system", I doubt further effort in detailing it will matter.
The richest entities in the world today are not Nations, they are Corporations.
International Corporations do not answer to or have loyalty to any one particular Party or People.
International Banking does not answer to or have loyalty to any one particular Party or People.
Collectively International Corporations and Banking interests have far more power and control in the American government than the people do, or ever will.
That is not a political extreme, that is simply reality.You're right Ken, sorry, I shouldn't comment late at night and on a phone...
but the "system" was always there. May it be the Medici, Rockefeller or Thiel etc.
The more capitalistic a country is, the more it will be controlled by companies.
It's even seen as a good thing to have a business man as a president. (Strongly disagree)
But why I reacted was because people often use the phrase "the system" as to use it as a scapegoat and the reason why their political ideals are not working.
Trump supporters complaining about the left media (does a mainstream left media station even exist in the US? ) The left complainig about Tucker Carlson and the corporate system.
Trump is part of the corporate system, a rich businessman who enriched his family during his presidency.
Biden is a political dinosaur and become much in dept by companies over his career as well I reckon (just a guess, don't know, haven't done research)
So yeah. You are right with your system. Companies controlling governments. But it's a dangerous argument as it pinpoints to something like the all seeing eye, the omnipresent. Stuff for conspiracies.
I don't think there's an Illuminati group ruling the world. But there's,true, a " System" (Growth economy.. And more)
I think "the system" Regulate/deregulate itself like an organism. It's called capitalism.
I think with embracing capitalism we've gotten more than we bargained for...
One of my top favorite movies is called "A shock to the system. " With Michael Cain. Def. a recommendation. But difficult to find. Dark humour where Cain is famous for.I appreciate your response, I myself have made comments that were too emotionally based and try as I may to refrain from such, will likely have one or two slip by in the future.
More importantly, I am glad to see you understand what I am saying.
Get rid of Biden, or Trump, or Obama, it does impact to some degree the direction the country is heading... but ultimately it is the trillion dollar corporations and mega-billionaire individuals that control much of the decision making in DC... and for the most part they reach across both isles making sure their interests are taken care of.
It is the Military Industrial Complex. it is Exxon/Mobile, and quite often it is certain foreign nations as well, like China or Saudi Arabia, that a particular President is beholden to.
The people get lip service... and if they don't accept that, and try to make real change occur, they are labeled enemies of the state, or terrorists, or whatever works to get them locked up or shunned or shut down.
It is the same everywhere... the Truckers in Canada... the Yellow Vests in France... Trumpsters in America... they all lose.
Oh. "THEIR power and control is not waning anytime soon."
That does isolate the difficulty. And it is seemingly insurmountable toward a solution.
Darn.Correct.
I gave those three rather hard to dispute examples for that reason.
Trump.
Truckers.
Russia.
Do you feel that Trump was given a fair shake by Social Media and the MSM? Was it fair that Corporate and Billionaire contributions that flowed into campaign and advertisement efforts were overwhelmingly for Biden?
Did you notice what happened to the Truckers, as well as any who tried to support them? What happened to their bank accounts, their trucks, for some even their freedom?
And we are witnessing what is happening now to Russia, that happens to have the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, one has to wonder how bad things would be for Russia today if it did not have that distinction.
I am curious to what you, or anyone else, thinks can be done?I know.
What we can do is live our lives and enjoy them as much as possible. I do not think anything will change quickly or even soon, such as ww3 or China overthrowing governments.
Just a long miserable drag-down until we are a third-world country.
Maybe sometime or other a revolution or change of some type will come.
How it might happen, I have no idea.
For some reason, I still hold on to the hope that America will survive and thrive and set an example for all other countries to follow as far as our attempt to keep our rights to ...
uh. you know "the thing."
I would say it is the threat of retaliation.\ We have to be sneakier at stopping Putin. We need to obtain more capable military leadership toward the goal of stopping Putin without firing a shot. Starting with the commander in chief.
I also think it would be great if people who do not like our country and want to change The Constitution to suit Progressive ideologies toward socialism/marxism/whatever should leave.
The government could even pay $ their way!
I mean, Obama and his followers and super supporters, such as Biden and K. Brown Jackson, could establish a new country in a new land.
and all those who adore him could follow. I would say many loyal-citizen-taxpayers would be glad to fund such an exodus.Funny, I would have given the same advice to "your side"....
And let the rest of us stay to work toward making America a better place.Kathryn, just eject them. Give them a ONE-WAY ticket to where they are going. Good bye and good riddance to them.
That's very laughable! I hope they found a vrgin land in the Amazon forest. Again, lol!
I did hear a prediction that America would be re-established in South America somewhere. Hope it doesn't come to that. This is a very beautiful country.
Yes. America God's own country is beautiful!
Once again Biden has his confused mouth going. This time he states yelling put the words -
On Saturday, Biden appeared to call for regime change in Russia, declaring that Russian President Vladimir Putin cannot remain in power. "For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power," Biden said during the speech in front of the Royal Castle in Warsaw, Poland."
Can't believe his handlers are not keeping him from speaking. Makes me wonder what Putin will think of Biden's statement. Will Biden's confusion be the reason for World War III?
As I said this man should be removed, where the hell is Congress, they should be at best questioning his cognitive abilities. Will Putin accelerates his killing spree, due to Biden's poorly chosen words? Biden should shut the hell up. His behavior today was disgusting. As I said yesterday, what will he do tomorrow? And he does not disappoint. I repeat what will he do tomorrow?This is something that I probably would not have said, it may be unduly provocative. We can't afford to treat Russia like Iraq.
This statement was volatile and could be taken in several ways. I need not speculate, but at this point, and with this dictator, Biden should not have used those words. Hopefully, Putin ignores the statement. I wish I had not watched Biden's speech today, it made me very sure of my view that Biden should not be allowed to handle such a crisis, and that our country is very vulnerable with this administration.
Nixon & Ford
Carter & Mondale
Reagan & Bush
Bush & Quale
Clinton & Gore
Bush & Cheney
Obama & Biden
Trump & Pence
We have had some relative inexperience, we've had corruption, we even had someone that went against the DC establishment a man of massive ego as uncouth and uncivil to his fellow politicians as one could get.
But we've never had such a frail, fraught with miscues, Freudian slips, and complete lack of comprehension of the situation duo as Biden and Harris.So glad you agree. Feels like I am the only one realizing that Biden has a true problem with mediation. This lack of being able to think properly is in my view dangerous in the crisis we face with Putin.
That's the truth. A president that lacks the ability to think is not fit to be in the Oval Office. God save America!
He should have looked at his watch and said, " I cannot stay in power a minute longer."
Have you a Russian root? I'm just curious.
No, I have no Russian root. I am just concerned that we are not careless and start a war that would that would render this planet uninhabitable and incapable of supporting life.
And you know something, you should be concerned about that too.Yes, Credence. Nevertheless, any dictator that rise to bring suffering to others must be remove by their people. This man Vladimri Putin must be sanction by the UN. I take it the process has began last week. Russians should rise up en masses. Imho God's in charge. No WW111. Should that be, it'll be confine within the aggresor's country. That should now be the norm, as was Iraq during Operation Desert Storm.
Miebakagh, do you know what a nuclear holocaust would entail?
There are no borders and no confinement for the fallout and poisoning of the environment is Earthwide. There will be no escape for anyone....It is truly mind boggling how many people seem to fail to understand that.
Our very civilization is at risk if it is even a minor nuclear war... we would sink to survival of the fittest, and ultimately once that nuclear option has been released it will be used again. Until we have destroyed ourselves completely.
'where the hell is congress,'=where the hell is Pelosi? Actually, I've not heard her(has anyone) said a thing or two along Biden 'double speak' lines! Has anyone? I repeat. We're here in 1984! Let' all recalled his her boy. God save America!
Would to God she call him to order? Or should she engineer impeachment processes against him? Nothing more and nothing less. Thanks.
I am hopeful that once the 2022 elections are over, and done with we will have some relief from all that is Biden. Yes, we as a nation will need lots of what can be called "repairs" we will make those repairs. Americans are already showing buyers remorse and will right the ship.
We are learning very good lessons from having Biden in the White House.
If we do not learn from this period in our lives/history, we will deserve the misery that befalls us.Sad, but true Kathryn!
Guess it will depend on the numbers that simply show up for class, compared to the numbers that show up, with an interest in learning.Pay attention, People! Love your country! However, hate is better than indifference ... its something we can push back against/resist!
Indifference just allows water to swirl down the drain.
(... finding analogies is so fun.)"hate is better than indifference ... its something we can push back against/resist!
Really? You're advocating hate?Over indifference, sure!
Let it all hang out!
FRENCH PRESIDENT EMMANUEL MACRON in regard to Biden's statement --"For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power," Biden told a crowd in Warsaw after condemning the Russian president's month-long war in Ukraine. Biden cast Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a battle in a much broader conflict between democracy and autocracy.
"I wouldn't use this type of wording because I continue to hold discussions with President Putin," Macron told France 3 TV channel in remarks aired on Sunday.
The French president said he was seeking to hold more talks with Putin regarding the situation in Ukraine as well as an initiative to help people leave the besieged city of Mariupol in the coming days.
"We want to stop the war that Russia has launched in Ukraine without escalation — that's the objective," he added, noting the objective is to obtain a ceasefire and the withdrawal of troops through diplomatic means.
"If this is what we want to do, we should not escalate things — neither with words or actions," he said.... meanwhile let's avoid WWIII.
Stop yer greed, leaders of Russia/China!
Stop yer greed countries of NATO!
Acknowledge Ukraine's sovereignty expecting appropriate respect and consideration from all sides. That this acknowledgement and cooperation cannot happen reveals how unenlightened the leaders of the world TRULY are.
They really need to care about human life over the acquisition of minerals, land, resources. etc.
How Putin could have done this to people he is historically connected with is utterly beyond me and EVERYONE ELSE.
What a bunch of GOOFS those leaders are.
"EVERYONE ELSE.
What a bunch of GOOFS those leaders are.
How so? What would you have them do differentlyThank you for asking for clarification, Faye v.
I had written, "Stop yer greed, leaders of Russia/China!
Stop yer greed countries of NATO!
Acknowledge Ukraine's sovereignty while expecting/expressing appropriate respect and consideration from all sides. (Negotiate.)
They really need to care about human life over the acquisition of minerals, land, resources. etc."the WEST wants the SAME THING as the EAST.
The land, the resources, the minerals.
Ukraine is RICH in resources.
Its GREED on all sides, but perhaps Yelionskyy really cares about his people.every body gets away with funny misspellings around here why not me?
Kathryn, you wrote that purposefully just to get away with it? While you Americans can toy with lives. Here's not a movie making theatre. The name can connote a real person. Hence, peterstreps real quetion.
ha! No Im not that cool, it happened by accident but when I saw it, I liked it.
I guess putting a Z would make it more recognizable, although I have seen his name spelled with a Y as in Yelinskyy.
Poor Zelionsky:
https://www.demdigest.org/ukraines-demo … ellinskyy/Real cool again. While I marvel at you ingenuity, someone somewhere will answer to the Z...sky name.
True. I guess you ment Zelenskyy.
It's a bit of a misspelling indeed but you got the last five letters right.don't you see Ze LION skyy?
well, Miebakagh understands.Well,... Yes, I understand. When a name ends in 'sky' well it's Russian. That lion symbolic. Vladimir Putin. But he's a defeated foe. Who has ever seen an Elephant flee from a lion?
And don't expect the U.S. of America to put boots on the ground, or any other action that would instigate/ignite retaliation.
... or prolong the war for the sake of marketing munitions/guns/artillery, etc.
what else?No to put boots on the ground or to use NATO airplanes would be stupid and make the war even more aggressive. Rusia would go all in.
En where would it stop, until Ukraine is completely bombed flat.
The war should be fought with sanctions and boycotts against the Russian elite. Hit them at their finance. But that's something the western elite probably doesn't want as it will hurt them too.
Confiscate all houses and possessions of Russian oligarchs abroad. Confiscate the money on the banks, as they did with Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations. But I doubt if the UK, Germany, Switzerland, the US etc have the guts for it.
They already have given the oligarchs plenty of time to organize their money."The war should be fought with sanctions and boycotts against the Russian elite. Hit them at their finance. But that's something the western elite probably doesn't want as it will hurt them too."
Now that makes a lot of sense and I will agree. It is a shame that no one can be moved by bombing nurseries, but if if you threaten the wealth, take the private planes and the Visa card from the oligarchs or situate things where they can enjoy neither, we now have to come to some truce.
Your statement about West's fat cats is quite revealing, how much do they want to hold back to protect their wealth, while corpses pile up in the street across the Ukraine?O, if you are super-rich, nationality is not important. Money is nationality.
Thiel, Zuckerberg, Trump, Besos, Putin are all the same. And will be incredibly hesitant to attack each other. Surely they will say words in public, but the actions are symbolic.
Poor people can be murdered in war, as they belong to a different group than rich people.
Verry cynical but I think it's like that. It's easy to put sanctions on a poor country like Iran, as you won't hurt your own tribe. But a different matter to put sanctions on Saudi Arabia or Russia's elite. You don't do that, it would be treason of the tribe.
As for what happened in the end with the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, We all know it was ordered by crown prince Mohammad bin Salman al-Saoed.
Sanctions on Saudi Arabia. Of course not.This is a very keen observation on your part. "Money is your nationality".
This is exactly how it works. That is why the struggle to restrain these people not having an entire society subject to their mere caprice has been tantamount here. Woe be to us all.
It is a very ugly truth and reality. While we all have the right to vote, the oligarchs provide the choices as to whom we can vote for. It is either the blue coated M&M or the red one, fundamentally they are both the same.
That is why I ended up with Biden during the Democratic primary when there were candidates who were much more relevant, although dangerous to Wall Street 1 percent crowd. Candidates that prepared to campaign and govern without obeisance of the Wall Street crowd? You have just reaffirmed for me why that was an unrealistic expectation.I'm from the Netherlands and used to a government coalition. You have the choice to vote between 15 or more parties.
I think it's a healthy system. As with a two-party system as you see in the US and in the UK (there is a bit more choice in the UK but not much with the first pass the pole system), I don't consider the US and the UK democratic countries. certainly not the US as a choice between two parties is like a choice between black or white, life or death. food or no food etc. It's hardly a choice. And it's often a choice against the other instead of a positive vote.
It would be a democratic improvement if the Republicans and the Democrats would split up with for example the Teaparty, The Trump Party the Republican Party, The Sanders party, the Democrats and the African American party, the Spanish party, The Mormon Party, etc.
Simply as no party will get a majority and parties will have to talk with each other. In the end, extremism will be watered down.
But well, every country has its government rooted in its past.
To me simply put. Trump is a fascist. And Biden is a politician from the past. I hope Kamala Harris can give the US some future. (But I doubt it, as Obama already had huge difficulties getting some fundamental changes done..) But in the end, no matter what will happen China will dominate the world stage in the years to come. Empires rise and fall.
The biggest concern for all countries should be the battle against climate change. Far more dangerous than the Ukraine war and COVID together.
But you hardly read anything about it in the news.
Just some thoughts. Not sure if it's on topic.I hear you, Peter
This is a society where the capitalists have an inordinate amount of power and they may very well be responsible for our fixation on two political parties as that is easier to control rather than risk a coalition of several.
American History revealed that even the best "third party" fell well short of the participation for the two primaries. Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, George Wallace in 1968 and Ross Perot in 1992. It will be very difficult to break up the system that has been rigid for so long, even though the people might actually get the opportunity to be heard, if we did so.
For someone immediately removed from American politics, you seem to have a pretty good grasp of the fundamentals.Yes capitalism has overdone itself.
Somebody (can't remember who anymore) proposed to change this with a heavy tax on resources and no tax on labour. (makes sense, pay more for luxury products and earn more for the work you do.)
There are a lot of things wrong with how capitalism works today. The ever growth economy is a nightmare and the cause of destruction on a planetary scale.
"For someone immediately removed from American politics, you seem to have a pretty good grasp of the fundamentals."
I read the Guardian and Al Jazeera more or less every day. (although if I want a good day, it's probably better not to read the news at all.)
I have been trying to express this for more than a couple years now.
I realize you like to label me with the "Conservative" or "Trumpster" label ...but the shoe just doesn't fit, so I don't wear it.
"it is either the blue coated M&M or the red one, fundamentally they are both the same."
Exactly.
It explains the choices Americans have between Democrats and Republicans today... and for the last 30 years... to perfection.
With one deplorable exception.
Where you saw in Trump the Sum-of-all-your-fears, I saw a monkey-wrench thrown into the DC machine... and if he had been allowed another four years... he might have been able to break that machine... and that in turn might have led to real change, the type of change you earnestly hoped for.
I failed to make you see that... just as I failed to make you see that the rhetoric, the mind manipulating messaging you were getting from the likes of CNN was meant to reinforce the worst, deepest fears and most dire perceptions.
Repeat a lie often enough... and it becomes the truth.
Our MSM media is one big lying machine, propaganda on a scale that would have blown Goebbels away, so enmeshed, convoluted, and part of our lives you literally have to disconnect from all MSM sources (FOX to CNN) to really comprehend it.
Our MSM has literally become opium for the masses, who hook into it constantly, on their phones, computers, tv.
There is more to this than that, which side is promoting the continuation of it? I see the kinds of candidates that meet my standards and address this coming only from the left democrats and NONE from the Right/Republican.
That side is quicker to support that standard quo, and by far, more resistant to reining in the powers of the oligarchs. It shows in all of their initiatives and platforms. In trying to convince me that there is any real equivalence between left and right in this society, you failed.
BTW, you spoke to me about Gabbard as she is a qualified patriot. No, based on her attacks on Judge Jackson recently she confirms that she is Republican in every aspect regardless of her being a Democrat. She is Right winger who can never have my support.
Yes, unfortunately there is much to lament and recognize about your overriding view. Yet, I support progressive candidates who from their record resist the power and arrogance of the "fat cats". The fact that my candidates are not successful cannot change my orientation nor my continued support of them.
Trump is a idiot, a callous tyrant and has never had ANY CHANCE with me. A fellow that is too dumb to at least avoid letting people see just how dumb he is. Such a man cannot be solution to anything but just makes a bad situation worse.
All this, in my humble opinion, of course.But your progressive candidates have no real chance to make the changes you hope will better the country until the controlling elements lose control.
Trump was the closest thing to breaking their hold on Power in DC in 40 years or more.I know it is a climb up a hill, but snippets of progress with allies is better than giving any aid and comfort to the "enemy". As Peter mentioned, Trump IS one of the controlling elements. He is no different from Putin, as he admires the master of tyranny and autocracy.
We will have to agree to disagree on this one.When I read Ken's statement -- "Trump was the closest thing to breaking their hold on Power in DC in 40 years or more." It really rings true to me.
I think if Trump could have taken the full curtain down on the Washington elites, we might have had a good chance at building a better Governing body in the decades to come.
In a way, our current administration is doing some further tearing down, this may also awaken Americans that we need change, we need new... Being torn in two directions is not working anymore for any of us.My fear is that Biden will be re elected because Trump, who was hated so much, still is.
It's a real shame.
Why, oh why, is he so misunderstood by so many?
It's his manner,
and there's no changing it, darn it.Yes.
Exactly.
The worst elements were able to re-establish control and will do everything they can to ensure a "people's choice" candidate never sees power again.
Rich donors, lobbyists for trillion-dollar industries and special interests are controlling and perverting our government.
There is no interest in bridging the partisan divide, because they use it as fuel for their money machines to keep themselves in power, while at the same time, selling out voter's best interests to those heavy donors contributing to their campaigns.
Divide the people... convince them to blame the other party, so that they are constantly at war with the opposition, so that they settle for "little increments" of change, thereby supporting the corruption and the class warfare being conducted against them.
It doesn't matter if there are politicians like Elizabeth Warren, AOC, or Rand Paul because there are always enough sell outs to make sure no significant positive changes are made for the people.
The poor will get poorer, millions more will move from the Middle Class to poor (ruined by skyrocketing inflation) and all people save for the elites will have less freedom.But, the direction so many of you seem to advocate does not work for me.
I still fail to understand how so many of you have so much faith in this worst example of a grifter sort of oligarchy. Trump is his own kind of elite, much worse than anything currently in Washington today."Trump was the closest thing to breaking their hold on Power in DC in 40 years or more."
I think we have made a hair of a break through - I don't think it was that some of us had faith in Trump to fix things in 2016. I wanted him to blow the establishment sky high. I felt he would be a disrupter, which he was. I hoped he would say some of the things I wanted to say out loud, and he did. I thought maybe, just maybe many would wake up to see we have been being had for decades now, and it was time for the people to all be heard and listened to. Let's face it the majority of Americans are not happy with the status quo yet we put up with it.
I do think Trump has served a purpose. I feel at this point most Americans are starting to look for a better Government and will be once again ready to vote for a new guy, a non-politician. Do we try again with an outsider, and hope it works, or do we go with the same old same old? I just look at where we are, and it seems we are stuck in the mud.Directed to you and Wilderness:
1. Ultimately if you are in politics, you are a politician. Where do you get this impression that this narcissistic billionaire is the breath of fresh air, Washington needs? This "Washington outsider" shtick is the oldest con in politics.
When has an "outsider" truly remained such? I can't think of any example, Trump included.
2. You could be stuck in the mud or even worse, sink into quicksand. I will take my chances with the former over the latter.
HOW do you think that Trump was going to make the government accountable to the people? I had no idea that he was either that influential or formidable, I have never seen any indication of any sort of greatness at all.
Because there is such a schism between those under the spell of the Trump cult verses the rest of us, the desires of my adversaries and Trump supporters will run into gale force headwinds with our opposition, and our Republic is going to find itself in great danger as a result.
I am sorry for the coming contention and disunity that will define the USA for the immediate future over which vision of the future shall prevail.I will change the word "visions" as I would like to think that we all want peace and prosperity for the country.
The problem is how will that be attained. I am against swooning over a tyrant in the idea that "one man" will fix it all. Compliance with the principles Democracy and the rule of law must be the manner associated with any change, as opposed to a Hitler like adulation from crowds looking for the "strong man" to lead them, regardless of his manner and methods.
Those are the difference in the means to the same end.Gross exaggerations do not help your case - no one is "swooning over a tyrant". At most they have a hope that Trump can make some needed (in their opinion) changes to our country and to our political system. No one is in love with him, all recognize his many faults, and still find him superior to the trash that occupies the hallowed halls of Congress.
On the other hand, many do nearly swoon over the likes of AOC and Pelosi. They are in favor of anything, anything at all, that will gain political power and produce the results they want. Laws do not matter, ethics do not matter - only the end goal without regard to what else that goal will produce on the road to get there.As for your first paragraph, you speak for yourself. Trumps attempt to derail his loss in 2020 and the elaborate machinery he put in place to overturn the result, in defiance of our democratically established process is cause for concern. I won't work with anyone breaking these rules. If this is a taste of his "change to the political system", I will take my chance with the status quo.
You don't think that McConnell and the Republicans do what they have to to gain political power to produce the results that they want? But, youcan accommodate them because they embrace your rightwing points of view on things, while Pelosi and AOC do not?
Perhaps the difference is that some of us, including you, are satisfied with an elite group of people (politicians) running the show without regard to the needs or wants of the people. Whose only purpose is to fatten their pocketbooks and grow their power over the rest of us. And some of us are completely disgusted with the road our government (and politicians) have taken. We want a change, and a massive one.
We all have differences of opinion of where we should go, but none of them make a difference to the politicians running our life and that is what Trump began to change. That concept that being a politician in DC was nothing more than an opportunity to control others and make a fortune. A great many people are sick and tired of it.How did Trump change it? Just because he claims to be different, does not mean that he actually is. The elite group of politicians always ran the show, when has that not been true?
Your definition for "people" reflect only those taking your ideological world view.
Is not being "any worse" good enough for you?
I don't think most that voted for Trump were or are under a spell. I think we want to break out of a very long-running spell, that goes by the name of Status quo. I look at those that did break away as very much progressives. It remains the liberals that talk a good game, but continually find themself getting shafted. How many times does it take?
"2. You could be stuck in the mud or even worse, sink into quicksand. I will take my chances with the former over the latter."
How is that former working out for you at this point? To be honest,
have you really looked at the state America is in at this moment?
Within weeks of the new administration all around us crumbled, and it gets worse day by day. We could go back and forth all day on the pros and cons. In the end one only has to look at the state the country is in, and just how quickly it occured.I just know that Trump and his style and entourage has not worked for me and I have to stay away from what I know is worse. Having a selfish and autocratic leader of the America democracy is highly dangerous, the sooner I can see him behind bars or reduced to a paupers status, disqualified to run again, the better.
I definitely prefer now, over then. I just don't see "the sky falling" the way you do.You are being a bit defensive --- I did not say the sky is falling what I said was ---Within weeks of the new administration all around us crumbled, and it gets worse day by day. We could go back and forth all day on the pros and cons. In the end, one only has to look at the state the country is in, and just how quickly it occurred.
Do you feel all is going well at this point? What do you find going well?
I would be very repetitive to repeat what I feel has gone wrong, and my feeling in regard to Biden's job performance or the man himself.
But you tell me, what has he done that could be considered positive in your view other than tossing a bit of cash in stimulus checks?Yes, I have problems with Biden only that he is too cozy and conciliatory with our adversaries in Congress. He did get the infrastructure bill passed. His inability to get legislation past obstinate Republicans because of a couple of DINOs is causing his administration to appear gridlocked and ineffective much like the stonewalling Obama received years ago. I am not happy as our agenda is not moving forward fast enough.
Regardless, I see NO advantage in bringing back Republicans, either Trump or his clones. There is no way that I could support any Republican at this point. But, as I always had said, I voted more against Trump than for Biden.Hey, I am not trying to persuade you or anyone to vote Republican. I am only trying to point out perhaps we need to look long and hard at who we do vote for in 2024. We have no idea who the candidates will be. I will as I always do research both, and hopefully not be holding my nose. We may see two brand new candidates. I would hope we do, and I can honestly say, I will research both. How about you?
I don't think things are going well in the country at this point.
'the sooner I can see him behind bars and reduce to a paupers status disqualify to run again the better'. My status: I'm an outsider.That tells all you don't like Trump at all. You only see the minus side in all things Trump...not even a mere 0.001% positive. Good for you. Yet my question is: what type of persmality are you? What president of the USA has gone behind bars? What Richard Nixon did was worst than Trump? Did Nixon get behind bars? Sure ya don't wana see Trump run and come back? Have you motivate and influence your law makers for an enabling law? Or did any exists? 'wrecking ball'-real Donald Trump will come back again as a Senator!
I don't like Biden's coming as President. Yet I gave him some credit, when he spoke up against Vladimir Putin aggressions against Ukraine and Europe. I follow Trump on facebook, twitter, and what you may before his presidency. Yet I see the man with a human touch.
Yes, Miebakagh,
I don't like Trump (at all)
There has been no former President accused of so many crimes, Nixon included.
And no, I don't want to see him run the 5K let alone touch any further aspect of our political lives. While I always encourage participation by others geographically removed from the United States, I think that it is safe to say that it easier to pass judgement if you actually lived here.Okay, Credence. Respecting your views, you're not alone in that school. Yep, Trump whom you and others greatly dislike will come again. What ya gonna do? He's a fit peg in the American political scheme. God have mercy on Trump. God save America!
His policies were sound. Thanks for sticking up for him and for America, Miebakagh.
Which policies are you speaking of specifically?
I am sure that you will hear from Kathryn on this, but, just off the top of my head:
With Trump we finally and at last...had Energy Independence. We were in a healthy cycle of oil production, which not only benefited the U.S.A, but had the industry been left alone to do what Americans do...it would have benefited our allies, those currently at the mercy of Russia. We had a safer southern border, which was getting safer by the day and a sound plan in place for immigration.
Peace talks were taking place, coalitions were being formed in the Middle East.
America was no longer being taken advantage of financially all over the world.
No Countries were conquered or invaded. No new wars broke out.
China was on notice. Russia was on notice. North Korea was on notice.
Europe was warned far in advance about the madness of doing business with Russia. Germany was warned about getting in too deep with climate change policies, rather than militarily building up.
Manufacturing jobs were back on American soil, and more were returning or starting up by the day. We were running like a fine-oiled machine, until the world was attacked by Covid.
Why try an 'outsider'? Shame! America has all the glory within her to take her on course. But corruption, or the 'business bank' system is the bane. Years ago, when Pelosi was governor, I was prompt to look into my crystall ball. Pelosi to be Speaker! Time was right. But look at it now...she's gone head over with the bad guys instead of staying right. Seriously, America has the Condolizer Rice factor.
I think I can understand that point of view. A deep dissatisfaction with how the government is organized and detached from day-to-day life.
Looking for a fundamental change in the power structure.
But I think Trump was part of the establishment. He was/is friends with the superrich and corporations.
So why should I trust him? What has he done in the past before he became president that shows that he would make things better for the working class and the middle class?
Perhaps it's hoping for the best. And I can imagine that many people were thinking like that. As he was opposing Clinton at the time, a symbol of a political family and out-and-out politician of Whashington.
But after the first few months, it must have been clear that Trump was not acting on the behalf of the average citizen. One of the first things he did was to make tax cuts for the rich.
I can understand the idea. But I think it was betting on the wrong horse.The problem with American politics is that the corporations and billionaires buy politicians. They get to use their enormous wealth to pick and choose who they want in office.
Nearly a third of the billionaire campaign funding in 2020 came from the mega-rich couple Sheldon and Miriam Adelsom, former President Donald Trump's top donors. The Supreme Court's decision in the "Citizens United" case has only served to exacerbate the problem.
In America, only those with wealth or access to it can run for office. The cost of elections for virtually every office creates a barrier to entry for many would be passionate public servants. Big corporations and a handful of billionaires essentially drown out the will of the people in this country. We desperately need campaign finance reform.We desperately need campaign finance reform.
Ah..That would be a game-changer, to say it popularly...It is that "access to wealth" that is the problem. One doesn't need to be wealthy - one only needs to convince a political party that they can succeed in increase the power base of that party to get all the money they need to run for office.
Oh I agree. I didn't mean to imply that it's only one political party. It's rampant throughout. We desperately need campaign finance reform. I do believe it is included in the John Lewis voting rights bill that has stalled. But I agree with former president Jimmy Carter when he stated in a 2015 interview after the Citizens United decision that the United States is now "an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery" Large corporations and wealthy individuals pull the strings of our government by pouring billions into candidates.
"So why should I trust him? What has he done in the past before he became president that shows that he would make things better for the working class and the middle class?"
Why trust him? Why not - he cannot be any worse than what is in Congress already. Give something else a chance. What has he done to make things better? Trump understands business, what makes the country run, where our politicians seem to understand nothing but how to take money from the people to buy votes with, with the desired goal to make money and power."Trump understands business"
Trump portrayed himself as a financial genius but his core businesses lost money hand over fist. Between 1985 and 1994, Mr. Trump’s core businesses lost money every single year, and the accumulated losses came to more than a billion dollars. “In fact, year after year, Mr. Trump appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer, the Times found when it compared his results with detailed information the I.R.S. compiles on an annual sampling of high-income earners,”
Of course, anybody who has followed Mr. Trump’s career already knew that much of what he said was erroneous and deceptive. He financed the parts of his business portfolio that he didn’t inherit from his father by taking on huge loans. During the 1990's, four of his highly indebted businesses declared bankruptcy. Three casinos in Atlantic City and the Plaza Hotel on Fifth Avenue. Other Trump businesses only survived because they were sold.
The numbers show that in 1985, Mr. Trump reported losses of $46.1 million from his core businesses largely casinos, hotels and retail space in apartment buildings,” the Times reported.
I'm not so sure that Mr. Trump is/was a savvy and successful businessman who knows what he is doing.
His history paints him as a reckless man who burned money and relied heavily upon his father.What I mean by trust is that the reason to vote for Trump was to ged rid of the influence of big money, corporations and businesses in the American politics.
But Trump is a born billionaire, grown up and completely integrated in the high society.
He is part of the elite and money that is the cause of the corruption and degradation of the US politics.
I think you need a big leap of faith to believe that Trump would turn against his own friends.You would similarly need a big leap of faith to believe that he understands the experience of the average middle class citizen.
So, you would rather have a meek little do nothing of a man who understands nothing of policies toward good economic momentum though equality of opportunity?
Whose YOUR Pick?
SANDERS?I would rather have a "meek little do nothing a man" that adheres to the democratic process, than a strong man who is a tyrant.
what is the democratic process to you
and how did Trump not abide by it?
again?Nobody, nobody has the right to upset the electoral process as Trump and his cronies were trying to do. You know what I mean, my Leaders play by the rules, period. Imagine asking the Vice President to throw out state certified electors and declare Trump the winner by fiat? Even Pence was smart enough not to get involved. What other former President goes around spewing unsubstantiated lies about his election loss based on the election being stolen? He does not stop. And you know this, so why are you asking?
Bernie Sanders has nothing to do with it. My point was that someone of an ultra rich, elite upbringing doesn't necessarily understand much about the struggles and daily experiences of those in the classes below, as they have not lived it. Just as I don't understand or relate to having attended a private boarding school, living on an estate with servants and being able to buy anything more than necessities.
I don't have a "pick" Not everyone wants to be defined by a party ideology, including myself. The continual tribal divisions and "otherism" is senseless in my opinion. I'd rather discern and think for myself rather than follow a groups predetermined doctrine.
I also don't understand what you mean by momentum through equality of opportunity?
No, cause and effect, Trump actually exposed a LOT of the corruption.
If we had an honest News Media many more heads would have rolled than did.
Instead our MSM covered up the corruption while vilifying Trump, every day, for years on end.
The hope was not that Trump would be the savior, the hope was that he would do enough damage to the Swamp that real change could then be made.
Not enough people could see that... We witnessed how culpable many Americans are, we witnessed the power of propaganda.
Americans were fed up with their corrupt government in 2016... By 2020 half the population was convinced Trump was the worst man alive and people like Biden and Pelosi were the saviors.
Biden and Pelosi are nothing if not the epitome of DC corruption."I think I can understand that point of view. A deep dissatisfaction with how the government is organized and detached from day-to-day life.
Looking for a fundamental change in the power structure."
In my opinion, many had that very view and still do. In fact, at this point, the view is being stoked by the current administration almost daily.
"But I think Trump was part of the establishment. He was/is friends with the superrich and corporations.
So why should I trust him?"
At this point, you lose me a bit. My comment was not really meant to support Trump, but to give a small view into why he was voted in 2016. Many felt he would be a great disrupter, a voice that said "look what you folks have been putting up with". He did do that in many respects. I do feel he benefited America in many ways, and was a man that could solve problems. I would have liked to see him have four more years to see his agenda play out. The country is full of problems, that have been caused by many factors. I would have liked to see how Trump would have, for instance, handled Afganastan, COVID, and more.
And yes you hit the nail on the head with your sentiment in regard to Hillary Clinton. She was so opposite to what "many Americans were looking for in 2016. IMO, If she ran in 2020 she would have won hands down.
Well, not sure what 2024 will bring, it will be very interesting.
Must say you communicate very well. I respect that.It's difficult to see what the future will bring.
Trump did shake up the political arena, that's clear.
Not sure about the costs.
From a European point of view. Europe (not talking about UK) has realized that it can not automatically rely on the US as an ally and partner. And has become more independent from the US and sees the US now more like a competitor than a partner.
Trump was hugely unpopular in Europe. (and this is not because of the US media) So I think in this respect he made a rift between the two continents.
Now Europe is in a complicated political fight with Russia. As Germany, Holland, France and other countries are very dependent on the gas Russia supplies. It now has made a deal with the US. But I think Europe also had a sudden wake-up call that it can not be energy dependent on foreign (not European) countries.
That the UK left Europe is still a miss (And for the UK itself the biggest political blunder of the last 100 years, as it has suddenly become a small player in the economic market. The once big empire is crumbling, and it would not surprise me if Scotland will be independent before the end of the century.)
The 2024 election could indeed be interesting.
I think Trump will not go again, but it would not surprise me as a family member like Jared Kushner would take his place. Perhaps against Kamala Harris. We'll see.Kamala Harris would be a slam dunk win for anyone that runs against her... to say she is unpopular in America would be understating it.
No, I didn't know that. Who would you think could be a powerful candidate on the Democratic side?
That's a good question, other than AOC they do not really have a well recognized politician on the Democrat side I am aware of... other than Warren and Sanders... whom they will never let be the nominee, of course, they would never allow AOC to be the nominee either.
That were a bit my thoughts as well, if you delete Harris from the stage.
We'll see! Maybe a rogue Instagram influencer, who knows.
"From a European point of view. Europe (not talking about UK) has realized that it can not automatically rely on the US as an ally and partner. And has become more independent from the US and sees the US now more like a competitor than a partner."
It was clear Trump ran on an America first agenda, he was vocally insulting many European countries and called them out in regard to paying their fair share into NATO.IT worked more are paying a fairer share now.
"But the US is a global superpower, with military commitments around the world, not just to Nato, and it also accounted for more than half of the combined GDP of all Nato members in 2020."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44717074
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count … by-country
Other than the NATO insult, not sure why Europe would feel the US was a lesser ally. Is there a specific reason for this occurrence, other than Trump speaking about some countries not living up to what they promised to fund NATO? Is it not better for all if nations do stand on their own as much as possible?
In regards to the UK and the EU ... Found this interesting article "The economy is undergoing a historic realignment as the decision to leave the EU required the UK to re-establish itself as an independent economy, while at the same time dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. The UK had led Europe and most other countries in deploying vaccines, and despite some setbacks, the country has fully reopened as of July 2021. Due to this reopening, GDP growth was positive for the fifth consecutive month in June. While posting the fastest growth rate among G7 countries in the second quarter of 2021, the UK’s economy remains 4.4 percent below its pre-COVID-19 level. This reflects a combination of the UK’s early exposure to the Delta variant of COVID-19 and Brexit-related trade frictions. Analysts expect growth to continue, provided the current rise in COVID-19 cases remains under control and restrictions are not renewed. Full year 2021 growth is expected to be about 6.5 percent followed by 5 percent in 2022."
"The United Kingdom (2020 GDP of $2.7 trillion) is a major international trading power, with the fifth-largest economy in the world according to the World Bank. While the United Kingdom is geographically relatively small (about the size of Oregon), it has a population of more than 66 million people. Moreover, despite the challenges and uncertainty posed by the effects of Brexit and COVID-19, the UK remains a critical market for American exports of goods and services and a key destination of U.S. foreign direct investment. Highly developed, sophisticated, and diversified, the UK is the second largest economy in Europe as of 2020. Ranking in seventh place as the top export destination for American goods, the UK is also the number one trading partner of the United States for services. However, following the exit from the EU Single Market and Customs Union, the UK has experienced increased border costs that have weighed on foreign trade.
U.S. exports of goods and services to the UK reached $109.2 billion in 2020.
Major categories of U.S. exports include Aerospace Products, Agricultural Products, Cyber Security, Medical Equipment, New Build Civil Nuclear, certain consumer goods (such as Pet Products), Smart Grids, Sustainable Construction, and Travel & Tourism." To read more --- https://www.trade.gov/knowledge-product … t-overview
"Does the US and UK have a trade agreement?
The US is the UK's largest single trading partner, with trade reaching £201 billion (US$266 billion) in the year that ended in June 2021. The UK has trade deals and agreements in principle with more than 60 countries. “The US-UK trade deal was never going to have that much of an impact on the UK economy"
We might want to wait a bit before calling their split from the EU a mistake.
I am not at all sure either that Trump will run, I feel he is looking to Nov 2022 elections before making his decision. I truely do not think the Democrats would run Harris. She has very low polls, the media is already working on destroying her, and the Democrats are giving no shelter or aid... She is on her own.Just jumping in on the issue of our NATO allies not paying their fair share according to Mr Trump. I don't think the media did a complete job of explaining the NATO funding agreements at all.
NATO members did make a commitment about 8 years ago to spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense by 2024. This goal was set during the Obama administration and is really less than an ironclad commitment.
It's a commitment to work toward that and it appears that most have made progress and at this point I believe Greece has pulled ahead of us in terms of spending.
Daniel Benjamin, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and professor at Dartmouth College with an expertise in foreign policy and security, noted that "the trend lines are going in the right direction" for many countries that are underspending at the moment.
Mr. Trump took credit for the increases but if you look at the charts of NATO spending over time it has gone up and down like a roller coaster. Although it was already on an upward trend before Mr Trump took office.
NATO members had already agreed in 2014 to stop cutting their military budgets and set a goal of moving "toward" spending 2 percent of their gross domestic product on their own defense by 2024.
Mr Trump also made some fairly misleading statements leading to believe that The Allies somehow owe the US money or that money is being paid into sort of a NATO "pot".
He stated "This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States and many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years, and not paying in those past years.”
Ally countries do not pay the U.S. Nor do they pay NATO directly, apart from administrative expenses. The issue is how much each NATO member country spends on its owndefense.
Members of the alliance were not and are not in arrears in their military spending. They are not in debt to the United States, or failing to meet a current standard, and Washington is/was not trying to collect anything, despite Mr. Trump's contention that they “owe massive amounts of money.” They merely committed in 2014 to work toward the goal of 2 percent of GDP by 2024.
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/11/62813718 … o-spendingThe dislike for Trump is far simpler to understand than that.
Trump pulled out of UN led matters regarding immigration and other issues that were "personal" to the EU, he pulled out of the Paris Accord, he fought Germany and others regarding Fair Trade matters threatening tariffs and taxes if a more level playing field wasn't agreed to.
And as noted there was the NATO issue.
Trump was not interested in carrying the EU regarding military commitments or unfavorable trade agreements, it should be no surprise the ruling class of the EU despised him and that "trickled down" into other components of their society."Just jumping in on the issue of our NATO allies not paying their fair share according to Mr Trump. I don't think the media did a complete job of explaining the NATO funding agreements at all."
Faye, you may not have understood the context I had hoped to share. My comment to Peter was to address his feelings that Euroehas soured on the US as allies. I used Trump's incident where he did accuse many in NATO of 'not paying their fair share" on the world stage as one of the possible causes.
I was not n any way agree with Trump's view on this particular grievance
Just hope to add a possible reason why European NATO countries might have lost faith in the US as allies, as Peter seems to feel they have. Not actually sure one way or the other if allies have lost faith in the US.
However, I can agree that the media did not cover the story well. Fox carried water forTrump on this one, and the other networks did not seem to do the excellent homework you have just offered.
Never appreciated Trump's demeanor when he Stood before other NATO leaders in Brussels and offered that statement. He was bombastic at best.
.
It's not just the NATO thing that deteriorated the relationships between Europe and the US.
About Brexit.
My wife is a Londoner, we live in Spain. She works as a musician in The Netherlands. The work in the Netherlands became impossible as a non-European citizen not living in the Netherlands. To complicated. She was lucky as she could get a Dutch passport as she is married to me. (it's the only option to get a double passport in The Netherlands) So she is able to work in Spain and the rest of Europe again.
This is a personal experience, but there are thousands of Brits living in Europe with the same problem.
Another thing is. We stopped buying things from UK online shops, like Amazon.co.uk as most products will have trouble going through customs. As the UK has different rules for food, beauty products, electronics etc.
We don't have a pension yet. But a lot of friends/ex-pats saw their pension going down because the pound dropped.
There are lots of problems as the EU and the UK had so many projects in common. Also on a psychological level, it's a break.
Fishermen aren't subsidized by the EU anymore.
Science programs have stopped because Europe has stopped giving money.
Interpol is not sharing all the information with the UK anymore.
Students can't study in Europe anymore. (only if you have tons of money)
All the European institutions that gave work for thousands of people have moved to the mainland.
If you want to move to a country in Europe, know you have to prove that you have a lot of money on your bank account or a regular income.
The freedom of movement has gone for the people of the UK.
The list goes on of complications for companies and people.
On a higher level the UK is now a much smaller player on the world market.
Bigger markets are the US, China, EU, Brazil, India.. Of course the UK is still a big market and with the Common Wealth it has a lot of options. But it has downgraded itself by leaving the EU.
The UK has to negotiate tons of new trade deals as it is not protected by the EU anymore. All those trade deals with India, the EU, US, China, Japan, Brazil etc. will take years.
Also, it's simple. If a small country negotiates with a big country, The smaller country always has to give in more. It's a simple power struggle. So now the UK has to negotiate with EU, it will a get a lesser economic deal than it had when it had all the privileges of a membership.
Some companies love the freedom the UK has, as the UK has fewer stricter rules than Europe.
I'm not an expert on this, but it already shows that leaving the EU has caused many side effects the UK government never had thought about.
And back to the thread...
The Ukraine crisis for example. Zelensky talked with a lot of European leaders, who are for him more important than Boris Johnson. The UK is on third place in this European problem. (Johnson was surprised that he was not invited with the other European leaders to talk with Zelensky...)Peter, I can see your points, they are well made, and sound very well founded. I am not as well researched on the subject as you. It's a very complicated subject with two sides. As most complicated subjects these days.
It will be interesting to see how in the years to come this all works out for the UK.
I'm an outsider and, I do agree to all that you said. Basically, the odd thing about Donald Trump is that he's not balanced with certain core subjects specific basic science and physical education. Had not what I just said is not the case, Donald Trump would have had continued as President, and destroy the powers. Nevertheless, he's coming back as Senator to get the presidency again. God have mercy upon him! Amen.
The only real hope for Trump was, and I think is, that he will destroy the current power structure in DC and return the government to the people. Sure, he might make some improvements, and already has, but the pale when compared to the destruction of the political elite ruling us rather than we rule them.
But if that is not a direction you would like to see then I'm sorry, for the current political scene is not one that we can continue to support and still have a country of the people, by the people. IMO.Well put.
And it is sad to see others, like Cred, support the criminals, rather than seeing Trump as the wrecking ball we truly needed.
Some people swallow the CNN lies hook line and sinker, because it preys on their worst fears, and worst experiences.Trump IS the criminal in every way, tha t "wrecking ball" analogy is just so much bull$hit, sorry.
Right wingers not only see the world in red tinted glasses but spend an inordinate amount of energy trying to make you wear them as well. I can clearly enough, thank you.Trump was a tool.
Trump was a means to an end.
You were made to believe Trump was the ultimate threat, and in your fear to be rid of him, you reinforced the most corrupt elements in DC by ensuring they were put back in control.
What we have now is an elite ruling class confident in its ability to bring the world to it's knees to ensure its own survival, because it has done so... Thanks to the pandemic they are richer and more powerful than ever and they have violated rights and broken laws that they could have never dreamed possible just a few years ago.But Ken, is Trump not from the same elite class? The Jet Set, the super business class?
If you talk about corruption. Why was Trump the only president in history that didn't want to make his tax returns public?
Why did Trump give high places in the government to his family? Is that not exactly the elitism you are talking about.
You perhaps want a change in the political system. But be careful who you promote for this to do. Hitler was also chosen democratically and surely people were promoting him because they here fed up with the corruption in the elite circles of the German empire. And he did end the German Empire, but at what costs?
Would you have trusted Bernie Sanders to do the same? Cleaning up the so-called swamp?
If it had been Sanders against Trump for the presidential campaign. Who would you have trusted more to fight against corruption?I am waiting for an answer to these questions, as well.
"If you talk about corruption. Why was Trump the only president in history that didn't want to make his tax returns public?"
Trump claimed his personal attorneys advised him not to turn over his tax records while they were being audited. New York did win the right to have all of Trump's taxes. --- June 2021 - Manhattan D.A. Now Has Trump’s Tax Returns After an 18-month court battle, prosecutors in Manhattan investigating possible bank and tax fraud have seized former President Donald Trump's tax records" .https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/25/nyregion/trump-taxes-vance-supreme-court.html
Thus far Trump has not been accused or indicted of any tax violations. Will he? That is left to be seen. So, need we automatically assume he is guilty due to not providing the records on his attorney's advice?
"Why did Trump give high places in the government to his family? Is that not exactly the elitism you are talking about."
Not sure I understand this question. Do you feel he appointed family members to enrich their pocketbooks? Those that he did appoint did not take salaries and bore the cost of moving to Washington. And would appear to be very wealthy in their own right.
I can see your point in feeling that it could appear as he is acting like an elitist by hiring family members.
I can never get you folks to tell me HOW Trump was going to liberate and give the Government back to people?
I won't tolerate race baiting and the like which was characterized as a part of his administration. We have to clear that hurdle before I can consider anything else.
Anyone who is so out of touch with reality or just continues to blatantly lie about the 2020 election being stolen, rigged and a fraud doesn't belong in any public office IMO. Clinging to a belief that contradicts all available evidence is a real problem.
Guys, don't ya worry...'wreckimg ball' real Donald Trump will come back again. He's coming as a Senator. But I can't see him as Speaker. Where's FatFreddyCats to give us a laugh?
Although you are right I think there is a huge difference in Trump and many other candidates.
Trump is using a fascistic toolbox. (blaming the minority, supporting the white agenda, pointing to the past as a golden age, promoting violence, seeing himself as the underdog and at the same time as the all-mighty mister fix it, Piramide-like structure of power.)
So if Trump had broken down the old-fashioned powerlines, I think what you would have gotten instead was a power structure like Putin has. One man on the top for years with a small circle of people who enrich themselves.
Second point. The way Trump communicated through his statements on Twitter and through other social media was poison. A strong word, but I think the more influence you have as a spokesman/woman the more responsibility you have as people will follow your lead and how you act.
I strongly reject Trump for those reasons. I can not respect a man who talks about women like pieces of meat. Nor can I respect a man who does not stand against violence (Charlottesville made it clear that he did not made a stance against fascism.)
Nor a man who chants "Lock her up" during a presidential race! Locking up contesters is what dictators do.
And many more examples can be found."Locking up contesters is what dictators do."
Which is exactly what the entire Democrat party in America has been trying to do to Trump for years. Years of fruitless effort but they are still trying to lock him up. Or, at a minimum, remove him from the political scene as a contester for the Presidency.Wilderness there is a huge difference between chanting "Luck her up." during a presidential campaign and a lawsuit.
The first one is a demagogue talk filling hatred towards a person. Crying out a sentence before a lawsuit has started.
The second one, a lawsuit, is using words very precisely. Not accusing or talking about any verdict after a judge has spoken about a case.
It is a huge difference as the first can lead to people taking the law in their own hands. (Which is what exactly happened during the assault on the capital.)
I see it very differently, Trump COULD have been a catalyst for change, but he was not.
That potential for change was circumvented, and corrupt establishment stooges were reinstituted into key positions of power.I agree Ken. But I think the change would not have been for the better. As it was inflicted by one person trying to take control.
I don't want him to compare to Hitler. Only Hitler was voted in during a democratic process and changed the democratic order changing it into a one-party system.
And by the way, Trump was part of the establishment. Part of the corp. power. Not much would have changed. Except for going from a two-party system to a one-party system.
How do you think it could have ended?
I need to commend this post, again.
Sometimes it takes seeing someone else put to words, what I know, to really sink it home, to help solidify that perception, belief, knowledge... in rare occasions, it even helps shift the foundation on which all my beliefs and perceptions stand on.
So simple... but so true... "Money is Nationality"
Money is my Country... and if I am patriotic and devoted to it, it will give me the freedom and liberty to live in almost any country, as I choose.
Profound.
The Emerald:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qp9wPvcJwM
Such an old and archaic story.Just picked up this statement from Gen. Kellogg --- "KEITH KELLOGG: What he said is foolish. Somebody ought to grab him in the Oval Office and say, you need to understand, Mr. President, there's a war going on. Innocent people are dying, cities are being ravaged and destroyed. And your words do matter. … It's very important when it comes to national security. Always look through your opponent's eyes, look through his lens. When you say things, what is he going to get? What kind of reaction you're going to get? I remember with President Trump when we were in the Oval Office, when we were talking to adversaries, we would talk to Kim Jong-un as an example. He was very cautious in his comments, and I challenge anybody to go back and look at what he said about it. He would be pretty hard on our allies. But when it came to Putin or when it came to Kim Jong-un or came to Xi, he was very circumspect when he talked because words do matter. I remind President Biden, you're not talking to this fictional character when you were a lifeguard, Corn Pop, you're talking to somebody who's got a nuclear arsenal that it's the same as ours. And he is paranoid, and he's losing the fight in Ukraine, and you need to keep the pressure on."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/gen-kello … ia-remarks(also edited out the extra L thank you for the correction.)
You probably aren't aware, due to our hijacked mainstream media, in the tank, for all things LEFT.
You have shared parts and pieces of different leftist news stories, but that's propoaganda at it's best, working as intended.
Trump was the best thing to come along, in a long time. He was good for America and good for the world. This from a WOMAN who was not a fan initially.
But, because you aren't the only one who believes everything you read, by leftists, we now have Joe Biden. God help us, but we do!!P.S. Not sure when this thread turned into a "let's bash Trump a little more" thread. But, no, we aren't doing this. You can start your own Trump bashing discussion, it should have its own category.
US commander admits Biden's deterrence strategy failed in Ukraine
US general admits Biden's deterrence strategy to prevent Russian invasion of Ukraine failed.
"S. Gen. Tod Wolters admitted that President Biden's strategy to deter Russia from invading Ukraine failed during testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday.
Wolters made the admission in response to questions from Republican Wisconsin Rep. Mike Gallagher. While Gallagher did not reference Biden by name, he questioned Wolters about the effectiveness of the U.S. effort to deter Russia's invasion by non-military means in the months leading up to the invasion.
"You as a combatant commander felt that you were part of an inter-agency effort intended to deter Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine?" Gallagher asked.
RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE: LIVE UPDATES
"That's correct," Wolters responded. "Deter and dissuade."
"Would it be fair to say that deterrence failed in Ukraine?" Gallagher pressed.
"Number one I would say that NATO's solidarity remained," Wolters began, before being cut off by Gallagher pressing for a direct answer to the question.
"I can't argue with your conclusion," Wolters finished"
The exchange comes as the Biden administration continues to insist that its sanctions threats against Russia were never intended to deter an invasion.
“Let’s get something straight,” Biden told a reporter who pressed him on the issue on Thursday. “You remember if you covered for me from the start, I didn’t say that actually sanctions would deter him. Sanctions never deter. You keep talking about this. Sanctions never deter never.”
Vice President Kamala Harris indicated otherwise when asked if she thought sanctions would deter Putin in February.
“Absolutely – we strongly believe in this – and let us also remember that sanctions are the product of not just our perspective as the United States, but a shared perspective among our allies. And the Allied relationship is such that we have agreed that the deterrent effect of these sanctions is still significant, especially because – also remember – we still sincerely hope that there is a diplomatic way out of this moment”, she had declared to the time.
Secretary of State Tony Blinken also said in a February interview with CNN that “the purpose of sanctions in the first place is to try to deter Russia from going to war.”
White House press secretary Jen Psaki also claimed the purpose of Biden’s sanctions was to have a deterrent effect.
“Sanctions can be a powerful tool,” Psaki said. “They’ve been through many times in history. And what we view them – or how we view them as we start high, as Daleep just said here, in terms of the significance and severity of the sanctions that have announced today – yes, our intention is to have a deterrent effect.”
https://polishnews.co.uk/us-commander-a … n-ukraine/
Related Discussions
- 17
Will the crisis in Ukraine escalate to World War III?
by Jennifer Arnett 11 years ago
Will the crisis in Ukraine escalate to World War III?
- 7
Is Putin going to start World War III?
by Kathleen Odenthal 3 years ago
Is Putin going to start World War III?As Vladimir Putin invades Ukraine, violates G8 regulations, and continues to push the bounds of his neighbors and wahtever allies he has left, I am left wondering if we are about to begin WWIII?
- 8
Can we be headed for World War III?
by Joana e Bruno 13 years ago
Can we be headed for World War III?
- 35
Are we in or heading towards a third world war?
by days leaper 12 years ago
As some-one said to the question. "Is any-one else in the west fed up of america's war mongering?" that 'we're already in a third world war due to all the skirmishes that the major powers are involved in'. But does this constitute a world war, or a pre cursor to a world...
- 17
BTW the Ukraine war just Escalated, again
by Ken Burgess 11 months ago
Ukraine’s Invasion of Russia Could Bring a Quicker End to the Warhttps://foreignpolicy.com/2024/08/09/ku … otiations/Ukraine Changed the Course of the War with KURSK Offensivehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAPs6V5Nv_AWhat will be the response... what will Russia do now that the war is in...
- 268
Russia - China United
by Ken Burgess 2 years ago
President Xi Jinping and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin were filmed saying warm goodbyes as their two-day meeting ended with China’s leader saying they were driving geopolitical change around the world.https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/2 …...