Senators mull the unthinkable: Putin detonating a nuclear bomb
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON — Senators reacted with alarm to a new report that suggested Russian President Vladimir Putin could deploy a small, targeted nuclear bomb as his troops get bogged down in a costly, drawn-out battle against defiant Ukrainian fighters.
One key senator, Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said he believed such an attack could force NATO allies, including the United States, to invoke their collective defense under Article 5 of the alliance's charter and retaliate against Russia — especially if nuclear fallout drifts over the Ukrainian border and kills or sickens civilians living in Poland or other NATO countries.
"As you detonate a nuclear weapon inside of Ukraine depending on what it is they detonate, even in a demonstration, that would spread radioactive material that would cross borders potentially," said Rubio, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who frequently tweets his analysis of the Russian invasion.
"If radioactive material blows across the Polish border, they would argue they've been attacked," he added.
If radioactive material blows across the Polish border, they would argue they've been attacked.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.
"Radiation kills people; it certainly creates long-term health problems," he continued. "So we're dealing in uncharted territory at that point. The danger in this process always is that … someone will do something that they don't consider to cross the line. But the people they're aiming at do consider it to be crossing a certain line. And that's how you find yourself in escalations."
Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., a decorated Iraq War veteran who serves on the Armed Services Committee, agreed with Rubio: "If any of the fallout from that drifts over, I mean, that could be considered to be an attack" on NATO allies.
Duckworth said she needed to study the issue more before commenting further on such a sensitive topic. But Article 5 stipulates that an attack on any NATO country is an attack on all of its members.
Any mention of nuclear warfare spurs images of the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II more than 75 years ago. The twin atomic bombs flattened those Japanese cities, killing tens of thousands of civilians and creating massive mushroom clouds that could be seen for miles.
But a New York Times story on Monday detailed how Putin, feeling cornered in the conflict with Ukraine, could detonate a smaller, tactical nuclear weapon to try to gain the upper hand in a nearly monthlong war in which Russia has suffered significant and embarrassing military losses.
Experts told the newspaper that Putin could fire a nuclear weapon at an uninhabited area or over the North Sea in a bid to deter NATO allies and get Ukraine to surrender. In recent weeks, Putin himself has referred to Russia as "one of the most powerful nuclear states" and ordered his generals to put Russia's nuclear forces on "special regime of combat duty alert."
"I think it would take us into a place we have not been since Nagasaki, where an actual nuclear device was intentionally detonated as part of a military campaign, even if it wasn't directed at specific targets," Senate Armed Services Chairman Jack Reed, D-R.I., told NBC News. "So that's crossing a huge red line. And I think the whole world would be not just shocked, but convinced of the irresponsibility of Putin."
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., who traveled to Poland and Germany over the weekend to speak with Ukrainian refugees and U.S. troops, argued that there is no such thing as a "small" nuclear bomb.
Such a weapon would inflict "generational damage" on the region, whether it is deployed over a populated area or not, said Capito, who formerly led a Senate subcommittee on clean air and nuclear safety.
Rubio, who is a member of the "Gang of Eight" lawmakers who receive the most sensitive classified intelligence briefings, said he does not believe a Russian nuclear attack is "imminent." But he said going nuclear is in Russia's playbook and is an option that Rubio has been thinking about since the start of Putin's military campaign.
"Their military doctrine that they've exercised anticipates that if they're losing a conventional war against NATO, that they would detonate a nuclear weapon or even use one against NATO troops to sort of escalate and force everyone to the negotiating table," Rubio told reporters.
"I'm not seeing anything that indicates that would be imminent, but that'd be a pretty dramatic moment in the history of the world," he said.
Amid talk of a potential nuclear attack, President Joe Biden this week is preparing to travel to Europe, where he will join other NATO leaders in Brussels and then go on to Poland, where he will thank leaders for taking in hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees.
Russia's nuclear capabilities almost certainly will be among the issues that Biden discusses with his European allies. Speaking to reporters at the White House on Tuesday, national security adviser Jake Sullivan said the U.S. has not changed its "nuclear posture" following Putin's recent threats but is "constantly monitoring for that contingency."
"We take it as seriously as one could possibly take it," Sullivan said.
While the U.S. is in the process of sending Ukraine hundreds of millions of dollars in lethal weapons and other military aid, Biden has been cautious not to escalate tensions with a nuclear-armed Russia. The commander-in-chief has rejected desperate pleas from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for NATO allies to impose a no-fly zone or send fighter jets, predicting such actions would spark "World War III."
On Monday, Biden gave a speech warning that Putin could use chemical weapons against Ukraine now that his "back is against the wall." Biden also warned U.S. companies and other entities to harden their defenses against potential cyberattacks by Russia.
"The magnitude of Russia's cyber capacity is fairly consequential and it's coming," Biden said.
Reed, the head of the Armed Services panel, predicted that a wave of new cyberattacks would likely hit the U.S. and other Ukrainian allies before Putin turned to a nuclear weapon. He said it's unclear if cyberattacks would trigger a NATO Article 5 response given that they have been ongoing for years.
"I would assume that cyberattacks would precede any type of nuclear attack given that there's a certain deniability, and it can be managed much more adroitly, the targets, the impacts, etc.," Reed said in the interview.
"Cyber is just a gray area. … There's a line between state-directed, state-organized and just criminal elements everywhere, but still, this cyber battle has been going on constantly at every moment."
Tags
Who is online
54 visitors
Could Putin be that big a fool or that insane to deploy a nuclear weapon? If the article posted by an NT member previously is correct it would require China to defend Ukraine and therefor attack Russia, which could lead to a disaster for the whole world. Surely Putin must be aware of the consequences of such an act of insanity. If Xi Jinping is aware of what is reported in the article above he would surely warn Putin what his using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine would cause.
Normally the answer would be "non". But reports lately have indicated that Putin is increasingly isolated and uninformed of the true status of the war, and Russian citizens' feelings toward it.
Trump once proposed nuking a hurricane, but cooler and more intelligent people were able to block that idea. One would hope there are similar people in Putin's circles to prevent something like that from happening.
Is he channeling Hitler in his last days in the bunker? How could he be uninformed unless he's deliberately keeping himself that way
Wow. I was thinking that exact same comparison when I read the article about Putin isolating himself.
Question: Where do these "reports" originate? Is there someone in Putin's inner circle that is reporting this to the press?
I may be one of the very few people in the US that is completely out of patience with "reports" that the origins cannot and never have been verified but are taken as 100% accurate.
I don't always agree with Nerm_L, but I do appreciate his ability to ask the questions that give me even more reason to research for answers rather than accept political propaganda at face value.
One of the most important things a person has to do in life is to decide what matter to them the most.
For me, it is understanding what motivates people.
For politicians, it is understanding how to manipulate people.
I will repeat that I don't always agree with Nerm_L, but he (and people like him) should be applauded for trying to help people understand what motivates and what manipulates.
This is why I consider Nerm_L a friend.
Hello, CowGirl
I agree - nobody ever tells us where these "reports" come from - I guess they are "protecting sources and methods", like usual...
What I can tell you from my own "sources and methods" (LOL) - from reading Russian news in Russian from the Russian media (independent media, that is, until they all shut down a couple of weeks ago), also reading Russian-related news in Hebrew and English from Israeli news is this:
1. Putin does come off looking bonkers with his long tables - but the people in his inner circle think it's because he's afraid of catching Covid
2. Putin has been isolated in his off-site (Novo-Ogaryovo) for over 2 years because of Covid. The man is losing his marbles by now.
3. Putin, as any Russian ruler (he's like a Tzar now) - of course he doesn't care about the day-to-day progress of the war. He's "above the war minutia", you see.
So I'll read Nerm's post
In other words, I think the "reports" are right:
Putin is isolated and scared, he has only a vague idea of how the war is going, or how Russians feel about it.
I'll read Nerm's post below, you seem to like it - and I like you
Don't know, don't care, the reports exist. If you want to cite reports stating the opposite, please do so. I do not, in any way, claim that they are correct, just that they exist.
That attitude might explain why some people regard The National Enquirer as their most trusted news source. Facts just don't matter.
If the criteria is that the reports exist, perhaps I shouldn't have so dismissive about all of the articles that Hunter Biden is a pedophile.
A person can research almost anyone and find all kind of reports. It is only a person's bias that determines if they believe them or not. The source doesn't really matter because in most of these type of reports a source is usually just referred to as "trusted", or "trustworthy". It is not even a good argument from authority because the authority figure is never named.
That sentence presumes that Nerm knows what motivates people. As far as I can see, Nerm has a worldview into which he shoehorns inconvenient facts. Plus he favors conspiracy thinking. I dont think either one of those stances particularly facilitates knowing what motivates other people.
I don't know why I'd applaud Nerm for anything but hey whatever floats some people's boats.
Okay, then you show me links the the "FACTS" showing the reports are inaccurate. I'll wait.
If the articles exist, why would you dismiss their existence? You are not making any sense.
You even linked to one of those articles top prove it existed. Why are you dismissing its existence when you also proved its existence? You seem very confused about what you are talking about.
You seem to have problems reading the English language. Let me repeat myself for you...:
I do not, in any way, claim that they are correct, just that they exist.
I also linked to my statement so you can go back and thoroughly read it for yourself.
"Could Putin be that big a fool or that insane to deploy a nuclear weapon?"
Buzz, up until the moment Putin invaded Ukraine - I'd'a said "No, of course not!"
Well, Putin caught me off guard, and my mom, and my remaining fam in Russia, and apparently every Russian who is able to express their views/opinions in a way that could be reported in the West (from what I've seen so far).
I am telling you - people are shocked. Nobody, absolutely NOBODY I know in Russia, Israel or here, in the Russian Jewish diaspora in the US ever believed that Putin would invade Ukraine.
You know me - a first generation émigré from the USSR just after the fall of the USSR (1993). Up until a month ago I would'a bet my house that Putin would NEVER attack ANY country, let alone our blood brothers and sisters in Ukraine.
What can I say now? I have no idea what Putin would do. My mom says it's the Botox that went to Putin's brain and made him batshit crazy like this.
P.S. Frankly, I also think that the incessant drumbeat from our own White House "Putin's gonna invade - Putin's gonna invade" basically goaded the crazy MF into actually invading. Because if he didn't - Americans would say: "See, we STOPPED Putin from invading". And of course Putin can't have that. Then he'd appear "weak" - and then his days as the Russian Tzar would be numbered. Can't have that...
Ughh... Scary times when no one, and I mean NO ONE - can predict what he's gonna do.
Could have been.
Isn't it also more likely that there were more behind the scene actions and/or interactions that we will never be privy to? Doesn't the US government have a well earned reputation for meddling (even overthrowing) governments? Is it that difficult to believe that is at least part of why there is a war in Ukraine?
There could well be another near future war in the making that seems to go largely unnoticed and unreported. Just a few jabs here and there.
I have read that people in the US government were displeased with the advancement of the current Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia (Mohammed bin Salman) and could be covertly trying to replace him with former Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef (who is currently under arrest in Saudi Arabia).
bin Salman is enacting reforms that popular with the younger generation in Saudia Arabia. bin Nayef is popular with the CIA . Even received the CIA George Tenet Medal in 2017 just a few months before he was ousted in favor of bin Salman.
It will be interesting to see how long bin Salman can stay in power if he is not the preferred ruler of the United States. Or will bin Salman be forced to create and alliance with China or Russia in a bid to maintain his throne?
Russia is/was an economic threat to the oil men.
The US has been trying for years to peddle propane to Europe and China with limited results because they were buying from Russia.
The Panama Canal was widened for the express purpose of accommodating larger propane tankers from the US to China/Pacific markets.
Putin may or may not be crazy. But anyone who refuses to explore the possibility that this current war has more to do with taking Russia out of the world's oil/propane competition is definitely not paying attention to the money trail and the history of the US waging war in and against countries that compete in the world's petroleum market.
From June 2016....
In today's news.
Does this have anything to do with the current war in Ukraine or not?
Is this one of the reasons why the US does not push for peace in Ukraine instead of war?
Good question, Girl. I dunno. I think the most obvious thing was that Biden goaded Putin into this war, by making Putin look like an idiot: Biden published all the intel about Putin's internal deliberations about this war, all the intel we (the US) learned by hacking Putin's Kremlin, Russia's Defense Ministry etc.
I mean, what did Biden expect throwing up Putin's inner thoughts and plans on the Internets like that?
Don't take me wrong - I am a Democrat who voted for Biden and Hilary before him, I ain't a Trump supporter just pissing on Biden because of that. But I think it was a very dumb thing to do - goad a desperate motherfucker like Putin into a war.
P.S. You did see the latest news about the World going aghast at Biden's proclamation that "Putin must go", right?
Biden published the intel so the world would know what Putin was up to. Putin was going to invade either way. He had been laying the groundwork by inventing reasons to invade for months.
He's still doing it by accusing Ukraine of developing biological weapons, with US help. And some so-called Americans are helping him spread propaganda.
Biden also issued advisements telling every US citizen in Ukraine to get out, as we would not be going to war to rescue them if they stayed. Biden's announcement regarding Putin's intentions allowed them to evacuate, and other nations, Ukraine included, to prepare for Putin's invasion.
Girl, you be confused.
DO NOT confuse the current war by Russia against Ukraine in your thinking of an "oil men' war to somehow give advantage to American Oil Men.
I hate them as much as you, but no, it has nothing to do with American Oil Men.
This war is waged by a bored, and demented old Russian man. Who is paranoid and scared of his servants (generals) - it really has nothing to do with American oil men.
Yes, they are trying to wean Europe of Russian gas - but I don't think it's done for the benefit of "American Gas Men" - I think it is done so Europe can completely cut Russia off as to hurt Putin and his oligarchs.
I wish it worked, but I know it won't.
Putin will stay in power forever. Until he dies of natural death. This is how Russian/Soviet rulers go - natural death. (Except for the Romanovs - and only because it was a Revolution).
Yeah, here is the rub. I am not so sure Putin would "invade either way" if he were not humiliated on the World Stage by seeing all his inner thoughts getting spilled out for all to see.
I know Russia and Russians, and I read their news. The best I can gather it was an abrupt decision by Putin after he saw the "dare" on American news.
WTF? If you dare a bully to hit you in the face - what would the Bully do?
I mean, seriously!
It's not like he hasn't invaded before. There's no reason to believe that he wouldn't do something he's already done, got away with, and has been threatening to do again. No reason to blame Biden for telling it like it is.
We don't lay groundwork for weeks and months to prepare for abrupt decisions.
He did it before 3 other times. Maybe that was the problem. He got away with Chechnya, Georiga, and Crimea.
I'm with Sandy.
And neither does anyone else.
But I do know some of the known history of the US government interfering with other countries, overthrowing governments and waging wars almost continually to the detriment of their citizens and at the expense of US citizens.
It is probably best for all of us that we don't know Biden's inner thoughts.
To the best of my knowledge, it is impossible to read minds. The media reporting that they have intel about Putin's internal deliberations sounds a lot like knowing about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and the assorted other drivel that is never backed up with one shred of proof but taken as gospel. It is exactly the same kind of proof that Christians require of their god's existence - none. It is all a matter of feeling and of "faith". Questions are not allowed. Skeptics are not wanted.
The US government does business with brutal dictators on a daily basis. I am sure that there are reasons that Putin will never make the inner circle of US approved dictators, but he is one of the few that can dish out death and destruction on a level that we probably would never recover from.
In the world of nuclear weapons, relying on MAD is not going to be a deterrent forever, and maybe not even now if the men in charge of these nations choose escalation over peace.
If we are going to survive as a species, we are going to have to learn how to negotiate with the rulers and wanna be rulers of the world on a level that makes any kind of conventional war as unacceptable as a nuclear war.
Didnt all that "goading' take place after Russia had already positioned tens of thousands of troops in positions along the border from which to attack Ukraine? What you call goading seems more like a last ditch effort to make Putin reconsider world opinion of what he was doing.
Sorry, Perrie, he didn't. He didn't invade Chechnya - Chechens were doing suicide bombing of Russian subway stations, theaters and finally, an elementary school Beslan. 300 babies died in that attack. Putin brought the wrath of God on Grozny and stopped that bullshit. And guess what? He gave them autonomy. He allowed the main Chechen warlord, Khadyrov, to take control of his country, was it 20 years ago? Chechens wanted a "caliphate" - Chechens got it. What do you know about it?
Re: Georgia lobbed the first missile into Northern Osetya - which was a part of the Russian Federation since the USSR when Georgia did it. What would the US do if Mexico went on bombing Texas???
Crimea had a referendum, which I believe was just - Crimea is basically Russia, with no Ukrainians that I've ever seen there, travelling to Crimea to visit family in the 80s. Not even in the Crimean countryside there were any Ukrainians that I've ever seen.
I HATE PUTIN with all my being, but not for the reasons you outlined here. Your reasons are just a product of the normal American news. You absolutely have no idea what the World looks like outside the US.
Maybe you should listen to me, and Buzz and whoever else lives outside the US Bubble?
P.S. I Hate it when I feel like I am defending Putin - which I am not. I hate that motherfucker. But you are wrong about Russia.
I hope Putin DIES SOON. I wish he were never been born.
America has an agenda requiring it to tell its stories to its masses. News media is not to be relied upon anywhere any more, and social media cannot ever be believed. We are able to be "fairly" sure only of what we see with our own eyes. We are not back in the days of Walter Cronkite and Paul Harvey, although I wish I were.
Girl, ye speaketh the truth!
You are an American, yes? From Missouri, dare I imagine?
I am truly amazed at your sage response. Trust me, best of my enlightened liberal progressive friends don't get it the way you did.
You said:
1. "US Gov't interfering with other countries?" Hmm, yeah. Iran? Iraq? The Central American Triangle where we are getting all the migrants from now? Yeah, than the CIA
2. "US gov't does business with brutal dictators on a daily basis" - maybe not so much now as before, but MBS/Saudi Arabia/UAE/Qatar? Yeah, you are right.
3. "If we are going to survive as a species, we are going to have to learn how to negotiate with the rulers and wanna be rulers of the world on a level that makes any kind of conventional war as unacceptable as a nuclear war. " - thank you, Missouri Cow Girl, for saying the most obvious, the most trite, the most plain thing: If we want to survive on this Planet in our lifetimes (which is what, 20-30-40 years?) - we HAVE to learn to negotiate with the crazy fucks like Putin.
He made his demands known - Ukraine not be in the NATO. Seems like an easy demand to meet, no?
I know, right? Of course America is telling stories to the masses! Look at Perrie's post above - she is totally line hook and sinker about "Russia/Putin "invading" Georgia, Crimea and Chechnya"""
Ugh. I am literally pulling hair out of my head - this is how upset I am with Perrie's post.
Excuse me, but it appears you dont hold back at all in your criticism of the United States, and what you think are the evils of this countries foreign policy, but you do hold back or make excuses, er explanations, when it comes to Putin and Russia.
Or am I misunderstanding your siding with Putin , in some instances?
I'm sorry, I havent been reading this whole thread and I am not an expert on Russia , or Ukraine, but I am looking at your posts and you are sending out drastic mixed messages.
You say you hate Putin but you have made many rationalizations about his behavior and actions.
Yet you criticize the US with no such qualms.
Whats up with that?
They're doing their damndest to interfere with the domestic affairs of China. The American lawmakers can't hide the resolutions they've passed, the sanctions they've imposed, the bans they've declared, the organizations they've formed to contain China, the slanders and accusations they've made.
It seems that negotiations between Ukraine and Russia are starting to move forward a bit, some compromises have been agreed to. What I said from the beginning, before invasion started, for more than a month now, is that if serious negotiations had taken place at the beginning, had compromises been reached back then that are being agreed to and considered today, the deaths, the destruction, the displacements, the pain and suffering WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. Look back to what I said then - that they had to show what big balls they had - remember my saying those very words at the beginning, during the conflict, over and over again? Thanks to America and NATO and the EU for pumping up Zelenskyy's balls. After all, there are nations that PROFIT when there's a war, aren't there. But, I got my face slapped, told I was supporting Putin when my criticism was at both of them, that they each had their agenda and boy did I ever get kicked in the ass here by those who only use half their brains at one time, who refuse to look both ways when crossing the road so to speak, who refuse to even CONSIDER that there are at least two sides to EVERYTHING, unless one is only a two dimensional being and can't possibly imagine a third dimension - cartoon characters on a sheet of paper.
At the risk of misinterpreting your comments
I would reccomend reading "The Road to Unfreedom"
by Timothy Snyder, Yale, 2018.
He's somewhat of the expert on Putin's policies and belief
in the fascist writings of Ivan Ilyan, a Hitler and Stalin explainer.
Putin thinks he is a redeemer who will bring the world together
under Mother Russia.
the West is a necessary bogeyman needed to keep him in power
as was Georgia, Crimea and the 2nd Chechnya war ...now Ukraine.
What MsMarple wrote was not "rationalizations", they were facts as she knew them and you didn't. Americans simply cannot take it when someone who knows both sides of a story points out to them that there could be another side that DOESN'T comply with the American agenda.
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy” Do I REALLY have to provide a citation for that?
You ask me what I know about it. Well, let me start by saying that my mother was born in Syberia and my grandmother in Odessa, so I might know a few things, since all things Russian was an interest to my family
The first Chechen war was fought against the USSR and not Putin. There was no talk of a "caliphate", something I am very personally offended by being a living witness to 9/11. There was some bigotry towards some non-Chechens. Kind of payback for how the Russians starved them during WWII. They wanted autonomy. So did Poland. How is Poland different from Chechnya? And Putin flattened Chechnya Oh, and tell me, why did the UN only charge Russia with war crimes and not the Chechens? You know, the Samashki Massacre, which was found to be an ethnic cleansing operation.
As for Georgia... Here is what wiki had to say about it:
Following the election of Vladimir Putin in Russia in 2000 and a pro-Western change of power in Georgia in 2003, relations between Russia and Georgia began to deteriorate , reaching a full diplomatic crisis by April 2008 . On 1 August 2008, the Russian-backed South Ossetian forces started shelling Georgian villages, with a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the area. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] Intensifying artillery attacks by the South Ossetians broke a 1992 ceasefire agreement . [37] [38] [39] [40] To put an end to these attacks, the Georgian army units were sent in to the South Ossetian conflict zone on 7 August. [41] Georgian troops took control of most of Tskhinvali , a separatist stronghold, in hours.
Some Russian troops had illicitly crossed the Russo-Georgian state border through the Roki Tunnel and advanced into the South Ossetian conflict zone by 7 August before the large-scale Georgian military response. [note 4] [39] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] Russia accused Georgia of an "aggression against South Ossetia", [41] and launched a full-scale land, air and sea invasion of Georgia, including its undisputed territory, on 8 August, referring to it as a " peace enforcement " operation. [49]
So what you heard was a false flag operation. Georgia was not the aggressor.
You said: " Crimea had a referendum, which I believe was just ". How was it any more just than the referendums had by both Chechenya or Georgia? They were part of Ukraine. If they had a referendum it was one that should have been settled between Ukraine and Crimea and not with Russian intervention.
Do you even know me? I am the daughter of a holocaust survivor, raised between here and England, and have been an international traveler since I was a child. So before you go making assumptions about a person you don't know... ask first.
You know what Buzz, you are now talking about me and that comment is pretty damn insulting. This is not about America. It is about a totalitarian dictator... something you should know about since you live under one.
Nobody has said that Putin is a good guy, neither MsMarple nor me. In fact if there were an award that was the complete opposite of the Nobel Peace Prize I know that I think and she probably does that he would qualify for it. She has posted what she has seen with her own eyes, notwithstanding what some author has to write about it.
Says the guy living in a country where you can't watch youtube, have social media, and has only state-sponsored news. Ironic no?
I just went back to read the comment you replied to. I'm having difficulty comprehending how it could be interpreted that I criticized ANY individual American, when I said that the nation told the story it wanted to tell to all. I never singled you out, I never singled out ANY individual American. I never said that any American believed what they were told, but you CANNOT deny that what you read or hear might not be trustworthy. So I think YOUR reply is insulting. I'm fully aware that the Chinese media I watch and read might not be trustworthy as well. In fact, as I've said over and over again is that just about the only thing anyone CAN usually trust to be the truth these days is what we see with our own eyes, and even then we can't be absolutely sure. Why else have I been lamenting that Walter Cronkite and Paul Harvey are no longer with us?
I responded to that in the comment I just posted. At least I ADMIT that the government controls the news here.
Time for lunch - will return to reply to more.
Agree - except Chechnya and Georgia were not the innocent bystanders you think there were
Buzz, I will make this simple. Your reply was right after mine, implying that I am one of the US masses just eating up our media. But unlike China, we do have diverse reporting, or have you not noticed that we have a right and a left party of which I belong to neither. There is also independent reporting.
That being said, I read other material, not from the US. I even read Sam Nunn's report on this. Have you?
As for relying on what eyewitnesses say, I do believe them. I have been listening to them as they arrive in Europe and in the US and your beloved Canada. They are all telling the same disgusting stories.
"You know what Buzz, you are now talking about me "
Perrie, seriously? Buzz did not even mention you in 1.3.13. So, no, he was not "talking about you", Perrie.
What are you saying? Are you trying to stifle a discussion from people you don't agree with, or something?
Not right, Perrie, no right
No, Perrie, you are wrong, again. China is not a country with no links to the rest of the World, especially for expats. Goodness gracious, you sound SO embarrassing with this kind of assumptions. YOU are someone we always make excuses for when we travel outside of the US, like you are demented children who know not what they talk about.
Stop, just stop. You are embarrassing.
Perrie, reading about things is not the same as living there, for many years. I mean seriously, you are an intelligent person, can you believe the World is bigger than a report on the news? Seriously.
Really, please point to where I tried to stifle him.
What's not right, is saying that I am trying to do something that I am clearly not trying to do. Buzz is free to feel and say what he wants to, as am I.
Wow... if the best you have is throwing around insults, I can live with that.
Okay, this is just malicious rudeness. There is no value in attacking Perrie. Disagreement is one thing but clearly you have departed from intellectual exchange into personal attacks.
Talk about saying something out of context. Let's try again:
i can be "Serious", if you wish, but i doubt i'll be a fine dish for you to consume
(continued)
I lived in Canada most of my life, within an hour's drive of the USA. When we first got a TV the only station we could get was WBEN-TV (Buffalo). I have travelled extensively throughout the USA starting when I was taken as an infant by my mother in a basket to Baltimore (and coincidentally Baltimore was also the last place in the USA I have been when I went there from China for my son's wedding). As a teenager I spent time during summer vacations in Crystal Beach (on the north shore of Lake Erie just west of the Niagara River) mixing with the kids from Buffalo. In fact I bet I've been to more places in the USA than a lot of Americans besides actually being the owner of a golf condo in Pembroke Pines just west of Hollywood, Florida, and I spent lots of time there - have mixed with and known many Americans, so I know America and Americans. Now I've spent more than 15 years in China, more than 13 of them married to a Chinese woman and living in her home town mixing with her whole family and friends for that last 4 years, and I have travelled quite a bit around China and seen many wonders and mixed with many people, and have been friends with many, including police and government officials, and I think I have a pretty good idea about China as well. And even though I am not and have never been a Communist my mother's sister and her husband and my mother's brother were devout Communists and they were all wonderful people I loved and who loved me and maybe that's why I have no fear or hatred for Communists or Communism and am quite comfortable living in a Communist country - my wife and her whole extended family are not Communists, but they are Buddhists. I am telling you this because I feel that many who post on NT have never stepped a foot in China, whose whole experience may have been a walk through an American Chinatown, know nothing about China but what they read or see on TV and yet are critical of China but I have a pretty good knowledge of America for the reasons I stated and if I am critical of America it is with some knowledge of what America was, and what it has become from then, or perhaps I can't believe ANY of the videos I've seen and what I've read (on American news sites).
By the way, China HAS social media, but it's in Chinese. There are hundreds of millions of netizens on social media here.
That seems strange since in 2014 Ukrainians made up 15% of the population of Crimea and Tatars made up 12%.
What have the Russians done to the Tatars being that they are the indigenous people of Crimea?
I am American. Orphaned as a toddler. Adopted outside of the family. Raised in Arkansas on a dairy farm. Dropped out of high school, married young to a guy who enlisted in the Marine Corps. Over eight years (1976-84), we had two daughters and lived in California, Tennesse and Hawaii. I got to meet all kinds of people from throughout the US and various other countries. Thankfully, most of my experiences were positive because I held a very naive belief that most people are trustworthy.
Through a divorce (or two), I wound up in Missouri over 20 years ago. I really should have moved somewhere south, by a creek, river or lake, and more rural.
I have spent the majority of my life reading, questioning and analyzing. It is just what I am driven to do.
When the US Supreme Court elected W, I was in shock. When it was alleged that Diebold voting machines elected W in 2004, I was pissed.
After US intelligence and W lied their way into some kind of justification for invading Iraq, and opposition voices in US media were silenced, I have not taken anything at face value when it comes to war.
War should be the very last resort instead of a major source of revenue for our country. In order to have endless wars, there will always have to be villains to fight. If one is not handy, then one will be made in one way or the other. If Putin died today, the US war profiteers will find another one. If the Russian people had a fair election, it does not mean that they will ever elect a person who is acceptable to whoever is in control of the US. I hope that me and my family are long dead before they decide they are going to fuck with China leadership.
The US is just one, of many countries, that needs new and future thinking leadership. That is the problem that we don't seem able to even acknowledge.
I am disgusted with the current US economic model that looks like it will crash if the world ever achieves any type of lasting peace.
I am horrified that these war profiteers will one day succeed in biting off more than any of us can chew.
I haven't seen mention of Ukraine arms sales to Myanmar. Nor have I seen US news mention Ukraine's arms industry even in a google search.
Internal conflict in Myanmar - Wikipedia
Arms suppliers [ edit ]
and
I did find a news item that the US is sanctioning some of the companies supplying arms to Myanmar. I wonder if any Ukranian arms dealers were sanctioned or should have been?
Buzz,
Spending some time here in the US gives you the equivalent of me spending some time in Canada. It makes you no more an American than it makes me a Candian, and I would venture to say the same of anyone who has traveled and stayed in places for a period of time. So no, I don't think you really get the American mindset, any more than I get the Candian.
And when I said social media, I meant access to youtube, which the whole world has except for China and now Russia. You can find your own truth there.
I didn't just have a few vacations in America, as you may have had in Canada. I tried to point out that I have spent a LOT of time in America and with Americans, with them both in America and in Canada - I even created a business partnership in Toronto with two American expats, and Canadians generally have a pretty good idea about America and Americans and a LOT more than Americans have about China and the Chinese people. You cannot convince me that I am not familiar with Americans, or who have I been communicating with on NV and then NT for well over a decade? Besides, you know very well it isn't easy to tell the difference between a Canadian and an American for obvious reasons.
So I don't have Youtube. But I have bilibili and YouKu - not as comprehensive but you've probably seen that I've been able to post links to lots of content from them on NT. The one I'm really pissed off about is IMDb which they recently blocked (for a second time - they did before as well and then reinstated it due to a huge number of complaints so I hope they do it again). But I have RottenTomatoes and other sources that are similar if not as complete.
How much Chinese programming do you read or watch? Do you read the China Daily web site? Do you watch CGTN (China Global Television News)? I think they're both available to you. I read and watch USA Today, Microsoft Bing News, npr (both US and World news sites), GROUND and CTV (Canada Television News) every day and I don't have a VPN so they're available to everyone in China. And as you know better than anyone, there's lots about America on NT, isn't there.
Oh, and by the way, I don't consider myself to be an "American" at all, save that I am a "North American", same as you. How could I be an American - I don't consider myself "EXCEPTIONAL"
LOL
Does it occur to you that the US changed as much as China has in the interim you have been in China and since you have spent any really significant time in the USA? Your views on Americans seem to be right out of the 1960s...
LOL. That's a bit exaggerated, don't you think? I spent lots of time in the USA up to 40 years AFTER that page was printed, and my last visit was in 2008. I think I've kept in touch sufficiently since then. And how much time have you spent in China?
What you call "compromise" , rather ridiculously in my opinion, would actually be Ukraine surrender. Rather than saying "compromise" , you should say Russia will have won , since their attempts to forcibly dictate the foreign policy of another sovereign nation will have succeeded.
Buzz, sometimes you seem to be happily bragging that you are not an American, and then you want everyone to believe you can think like an American because you went on extended tours here 40 or 50 years ago. Make up your mind.
First of all, point out to me that I BRAGGED that I'm not an American. I may be happy I'm not, but is that bragging? As well I have never indicated that I can think like an American - as a matter of fact I'm damn happy I DON'T think like an American, and the times that I spent in America extended from when I was an infant until 13 years ago, not 40 or 50 years ago. Make up my mind? My mind is fine, be more concerned about your own, because your comments indicate that accuracy is not your strong suit.
I don't give a flying fuck what it takes to end the destruction, the deaths, the maiming, the displacement, the necessity to escape the country, to end this God damned war and if I didn't use a word that you don't like, well, I'm sure you're familiar with Rhett Butler's last words to Scarlett O'Hara. What do you want to call it? - negotiations leading to a peace deal? If the war hasn't lasted long enough because the arms manufacturers and dealers haven't made enough money yet because BIG BALLS has to be a winner over the other BIG BALLS, because when all the buildings in the Ukraine are flattened and every person either dead, crippled, homeless or gone that's a hell of a lot better in your opinion than ending this war any way possible.
You are touchy about this, lol. Your attacks on America have gotten more intense lately, and no one but you knows why that is so. I'm just pointing out the obvious.
Buzz, the Ukrainians will decide the terms under which they are willing to "compromise" with Russia. I won't object if they feel they have to capitulate to save thousands of Ukrainian lives.
That is up to them and their leadership, but I won't describe that turn of events as "compromise".
Let's call it disappointment. There was lots of criticism of Canada not so long ago coming from its nearest neighbour, and did I complain about it? I admit I have often used the "pot-kettle" and "glass houses" adages - the truth hurts, doesn't it.
Well, as my mother used to sing (and she was Ukrainian, born in Kiev as it was then spelled) - que sera sera....
I am going to reply to both of your posts here.
First of all, "Americans" are not one thing. I am a northerner so I can tell you that living down south was a huge difference culturally than living up north. So you can't say that Americans have a single mindset. I mean are you anything like the Québécois ? I think not. So, you making that statement shows me that you only think you know the "American" mindset since there are so many subcultures here that there is no one mindset.
And yes Buzz, you living in China does give you a unique perspective on the Chinese people, but it doesn't mean that depending on where you live, you could have contact with many Chinese people and talked to them. My SIL is Chinese from the mainland, escaped to Twain then came here as a teen. We have spoken a lot about China. My daughters' high school best friend came from China. I spoke to her parents about how hard it was to hide a daughter before coming here. I am not uninformed about issues in China.
I read China Global News. It's skewed. Most national papers are. And you are not hearing about the bad things that China is doing, which is why I started to read it in the first place. I also get Japan Today daily to my email. They have some concerns about China, too.
And this was unnecessary:
Mocking never adds to a discussion.
If all of the far rightwing fringe who normally taunted and trolled me for years suddenly agreed with me and gave me thumbs up and yet my longterm friends and supporters were exasperated by my obstinate refusal to be persuaded, that would give me pause to think that maybe I might have been misinformed...
Yes, I understand that, and in my travels throughout America I have been north and south, east and west, As I've said, I have been to all the places Woody wrote and sang about, from California to the New York island, from the redwood forest to the gulf stream waters, and in between and beyond as well, and I have met with people in all those places.
I've lived in three different cities in three different areas here, and spoken to people in other areas of China as well, but of course I could not possibly become familiar with all the people in such a big country with such a huge population, but at least my conversations with Chinese people have been current. I do consider the two or three NT members who have actually spent time in China (I think I can mention their names as they have posted comments on this seed), Kavika and Gsquared, more credible than others in what they have to say about China.
Yes, the Chinese media is skewed, but as well sometimes it does tell the truth. And that is no different than the American media is skewed but as well sometimes it does tell the truth. I have never been to Xinjiang so I don't know if what is being said about it by both China and America is accurate, but I have never said that I believe what EITHER side has been saying about it, but have simply said what has been said about it to indicate that there actually are two sides to stories (as much as many refuse to acknowledge that) - and I don't have to believe a story that simply copies what a devout Christian dedicated anti-Communist Adrian Zenz who so OBVIOUSLY despises China has to say about it, but didn't Pompeo eat it up? Have you missed the times I HAVE been critical of the CPC and the Chinese officials? I don't believe that ANYONE or ANY NATION is beyond criticism - and that includes me, so thank you for your comment.
By the way, I didn't make up the word "exceptional" when describing America or the American people. It was an American who posted it on NT. I say so with humility...
With US politics it's difficult to distinguish between warnings and a search for pretext. These fearmongering discussions are often used to find out what would be a politically acceptable justification (or excuse) to become more involved. How can we know for certain that these are warnings or if they are signals to tell someone in Ukraine what would get the United States into the fight?
The supposed context for these types of discussed is premised on the idea that Russia is 'losing'. IMO this can be attributed to the sports mentality prevalent in the United States. The sports mentality uses score keeping to determine what is considered 'winning' in the United States. It's unwise to take the advice of those who believe running around and hitting things with their heads is 'winning'.
Russia is fighting to get something it wants. Putin laid out what Russia wants before invading. The points and conditions Putin cited as justification for war are what was agreed to in the trilateral Minsk Agreements of 2014-2015. Yes, it's quite possible that Putin wants something other than what he has claimed. Yes, it's quite possible that Putin lied to justify a war. But those possibilities are hypothetical and unknown. Why should the United States act on what it doesn't know while completely ignoring what it does know?
The United States is trying to find a pretext for getting into the fight and 'win'; that's the sports mentality. Russia is fighting to get something it wants. Russia has told the US what it wants (which may be a lie or may not be a lie). And apparently Russia wants what it wants badly enough to ignore the scoreboard.
At least these discussions of Russia possibly using weapons of mass destruction recognizes that Russia doesn't want Ukraine. Why would Russia destroy what it wants to possess? Why would Russia poison a territory that Russia wants to occupy? Russia wants something otherwise Russia would not be fighting. One thing we know for certain is we won't find out what Russia wants by guessing. Or by running around hitting things with our heads.
Yeah, like when the Biden administration told us Russia was going to invade Ukraine, and then Russia didn't.
Oh, wait.
Who the fuck cares what Putin wanted before he started invading? It's clear he wants to deny another nation's sovereignty, but that's apparently ok by some folks. It's possible he lied to justify the war?
Okay, let's go with that. Putin has lied about everything. Putin wants to capture Ukraine, install a puppet government, and rebuild the Soviet Union. And Putin is willing to sacrifice thousands of Russian soldiers and wreck the Russian economy to accomplish that. Russia is making that sacrifice to get what Russia (or Putin) wants.
Would the United States be willing to sacrifice thousands of American soldiers and wreck the US economy to prevent that?
Obviously Joe Biden is not defending the national sovereignty of Ukraine since the Russian military has been operating inside Ukraine for four weeks and have been doing whatever they intend to do. The Russian military is doing whatever it intends to do; quickly or slowly doesn't seem to matter. Strong resistance may have slowed the Russian military and may have caused more casualties but that hasn't stopped the Russian military. Russia isn't showing any signs of withdrawing from Ukraine.
Right now Ukraine's national sovereignty is just lines on a map. Apparently Joe Biden doesn't believe Ukraine's national sovereignty is worth fighting for because the United States isn't fighting. Joe Biden is not willing to sacrifice thousands of American soldiers and wreck the US economy for Ukraine's national sovereignty.
What is Joe Biden defending? It's not Ukraine's national sovereignty.
You're trying to play to both sides, Nerm. The US is both looking for a reason to get in the war we shouldn't be in, and simultaneously isn't doing enough to support Ukraine, to hear you tell it.
The United States is trying to straddle the fence. Joe Biden defending Ukraine's national sovereignty is a transparent falsehood. That's not what Biden is doing. So, what is Joe Biden defending?
Gaslighting ourselves over Ukraine only allows us to ignore what the United States really, really cares about. What does the United States really, really care about?
Pronouns. Other than that I don't think they (we) know.
Nerm, you know we're supporting Ukraine with weapons, armor, and medical supplies, yes?
To, you know, defend themselves and their right to remain an independent, sovereign state.
So, the United States is providing Ukraine the means to fight to the death. Remember the Alamo. Who gets the movie rights?
Is that what the United States really, really cares about?
Where is the United Nations? The UN could mobilize a peacekeeping force, open corridors for refugees and relief, and enforce a cease fire. Of course a peacekeeping mission wouldn't allow its corridors to be used to arm belligerents. Peacekeepers wouldn't allow Ukrainians to fight to the death.
The problem for the United States is that a UN peacekeeping force would raise the same questions that were raised with Bosnia and Herzegovina peacekeeping mission. What's the point of NATO? Isn't that what the United States really, really cares about?
As if Russia didn't veto the UN resolution...
What about the hundreds of thousands of skilled educated Russians leaving Russia?
The loss of their skills will cripple Russia...
The US is providing Ukraine the means to fight. To whose death that will be remains to be seen. Kyiv still stands, much to Putin's chagrin.
And they've put some pretty severe sanctions on Russia.
So, yeah, the US would appear to be concerned about Ukraine's sovereignty.
Oh, now we're moving on the the UN, are we? Is that the one with Russia as a permanent member of the Security Council? I seem to recall something about that.
What about NATO? Has a NATO nation been attacked?
No.
You're really all over the place here, Nerm. And it's easy to see why. Nobody bought into your "we're looking for an excuse to fight and why aren't we fighting" word salad. So now you're tossing in a few more veggies into the salad mix.
Nobody's going to buy that, either.
How come separatists regions of Ukraine are fighting against Russia instead of welcoming Russian troops as liberators as you expected?
Apparently Putin (and Russia) is willing to make that sacrifice to get what they want. What sacrifice is the United States willing to make for what it really, really cares about?
What does the United States really, really care about?
I expected Joe Biden to attempt to find a diplomatic solution to avoid Russia invading Ukraine. I was wrong. I didn't believe Russia would invade Ukraine because I believed the United States would engage in diplomacy. That is the rhetoric we hear from Washington D.C. on a regular basis, isn't it? Diplomacy, negotiation, cooperation, and compromise?
Apparently Biden cares about something else more than he cares about Ukraine. What is that something that Biden really, really cares about?
That had absolutely nothing to do with what JBB asked you.
Kind of reminds me of a segment that Trevor Noah would have on the Daily Show - What Was the Question? (or something like that) where #45 would be rambling on about some nonsense and when you went back to what the actual question was - bore no meaning to what was asked.
Prove it. Seriously. The Russian separatists of Ukraine are not fighting back against the Russian invasion. They have joined it.
Now, did Putin expect more pro Russian Ukrainians to join his side; yes. But that is completely different than the Russians in the separatist regions who are working with Russian troops to expand their territory.
Stop drinking the main stream media bilge water!
Sorry, dude, they are not. Got a credible link? Normally I agree with you...
Seems you are always cheering for Russia these days. What's up with that ?
Seems it's become a mistake on NT to even LOOK at the other side of a story. Why is it that America appreciates sports with teams or individuals competing against each other, has a justice system that calls for prosecution and defence, a political system that pits parties against each other, but when somebody considers looking at the possibility that there could be another side to a story, they are crucified on this site. Paul Harvey, PLEASE come back from the dead, almost everyone here has forgotten what you did your best to show them.
Because in this case, it's disingenuous. Did you even read what Nerm has written? His criticism boils down to two things here.
He thinks we're looking for an excuse to go to war with Russia.
He also thinks we're not quite at war enough with Russia.
Oh, and he wonders what Putin wanted, because that surely makes a difference.
Very good Buzz. We don't really need Paul Harvey. We need the people given the authority positions to set an example.
Why smear him for having a point of view.
So Pat, what do you plan to do about Russia?
Let me guess, you want the exact same set of sanctions imposed by das dumb leader?
And that's YOUR point of view. Isn't it great to be able to express your point of view and not be put down for it.
You surely can't do that in Vlad Putin's Russia!
Buzz, would you be saying the same thing about Hitler, when he was engaging in an attempted conquest of Europe? Should we have just listened to what he wanted? Given him what he wanted to keep him sweet?
Blamed anybody who supported any country he attacked, accused them of itching for a fight, and simultaneously blamed them for not fighting him hard enough?
Or would that sound like you were reflexively trying to blame everyone but him?
Because the crock of bullshit I addressed is a reflexive attempt to deflect blame from Putin onto Biden for not indulging Putin's paranoia, which is not genuine and has no basis in reality. The reason for all the twisting is that the attempt was a lost cause from the start.
In other words, you are so confident that you are right, dissenting opinions must be pro-Putin?
The last I heard Neville Chamberlain was still roasting in hell for appeasing Adolph Hitler...
What could possibly be the other side of this story? Putin invaded a sovereign nation just because he wanted to. He wants to reconstitute the former USSR but in this case it won't be "socialist", it will be an Imperial Dictatorship. If he could crown himself Emperor of Russia, he would
They're perilously close.
But in this case, they're just rabidly anti-Biden, and are trying desperately and unsuccessfully to justify that.
Those who would appease evil are fools, and complicit in that evil.
She is correct, as usual.
Buzz has logged off. His argument was for freedom of speech. If you want to know more about Nerm's comments it may be best to talk to Nerm.
Are you saying that Nerm's argument was anti-Biden?
There is no other side to this story. putin is a murdering thug bastard - killing Ukranians for no reason whatsoever.
What a waste of time that would be!
Buzz will see my comment tomorrow or tonite. I know what his schedule is.
I have Nerm on ignore. His word salads make my head ache.
Buzz has freedom of speech on NT. And the rest of us are free to disagree with him, and with Nerm.
That's how freedom of speech works.
Thirty members of the Manhattan Project gave Russia the secrets of the Bomb. We had 8 years of ignoring North Korea. We helped China into the WTO.
Where do we begin?
Let's keep that in mind.
[deleted]
False equivalencies are false on their faces...
[deleted]
Blaming Biden (and the US, under his administration) both for looking for a pretext for war and for not fighting is absolutely anti-Biden. It's a ridiculously transparent attempt at damning him if he does, and damning him if he doesn't.
Your reminder is unnecessary, as nobody has infringed on Buzz's freedom of speech.
I don't want the war that Joe Biden is pushing us into. Why do you want another ten to twenty year war?
Us? It is all up to Vlad Putin if Russia gets you into a twenty year stalemate in Ukraine. We, the United States, are not going to be and our President Joe Biden is not going to do it...
Biden is looking for some way to improve his standing in the polls. Biden isn't getting a war bump in the polls. Democrats have allowed thousands to be killed and wounded in Ukraine for nothing.
Biden has been pushing the 'not enough' war narrative. Now we're even talking about weapons of mass destruction, just like the excuse for the United States to invade Iraq. Before this is over Biden will be talking about terrorism.
The Minsk Agreements of 2014 laid out a framework for resolving the conflict. Russia can't act as mediator to move the process forward because Russia is one of the belligerents. Someone else has to step up to mediate the peace process. One thing I have learned from just a little research is that the Obama administration was trying to undermine the Minsk agreements. Why?
Why do you want the war that Biden is pushing? The United States already has 100,000 soldiers in Europe. Why do we need to deploy more? The United States already spends more of its GDP on the military than any other country. Why do we need to spend more? Why should the United States give up butter for more guns?
Seems to me that Biden would be accused by some of encouraging bad consequences no matter what he did.
Biden has been trying to avoid war. That's why he imposed sanctions, and why he hasn't sent troops to fight for Ukraine. It's why he told American citizens living there to get out, and that they wouldn't be rescued by us if they chose to stay.
But sure, he's pushing us into a war.
Putin has threatened to attack Bosnia, which would require him to violate NATO nations and provoke war with NATO. But that's Biden's fault, too, I'm sure.
Post quotes of me saying I want a war, or admit that that accusation was dishonest.
The factcheckers on NT only care about their facts. And when facts don't match what they want then discussions drifts off into emotive propaganda about NAZIs, fascists, and dead babies.
A country bordering NATO Europe is pretty serious. So, I wanted to find out what it was all about. Just a little research showed that the facts don't match the flag waving. There was a 2014 insurrection in Ukraine that toppled an elected government, that's a fact. Russia did annex Crimea in 2014, that's a fact. Pro-Russian Ukrainians in the Donbas region did claim autonomy from the Kyiv government in 2014, that's a fact.
The facts are there were negotiations in 2014 under the auspices of United Nations peacekeeping to develop a framework to resolve the conflict. The path to peace was established in 2014.
The position of the United States since 2014 has been that Russia give up Crimea before any negotiations. The Russian position has been to establish security guarantees before Russia would negotiate returning Crimea to Ukraine. The issue of NATO in Ukraine was the point of conflict between the United States and Russia in 2014.
The war in Ukraine is about NATO in Ukraine. Joe Biden is pushing us into World War III to defend NATO being in Ukraine. Biden cares most about NATO and not about Ukraine or Ukrainian national sovereignty. Biden's war over NATO is not a war worth fighting.
And who benefits from war? It is NOT the people. In this case, rising oil prices is just the tip of the iceberg of the economic pain that most people, in industrialized nations, will experience. Some people in the US might temporarily see more employment opportunities as Ukraine was one of the countries that US companies use to outsource jobs that can be outsourced.
In the long run, there are many companies and countries that will be seeing windfall profits because of the war in Ukraine. It would be against their best economic interests for peace talks to be successful.
The facts don't support that claim. Ignorance of global politics since World War II is not an excuse to let a claim that 'Biden is trying to avoid war' go unchallenged.
When the United Nations was established there was the Soviet bloc dominated by Russia and the NATO bloc dominated by the United States. The Cold War pitted the Soviet bloc and NATO bloc against each other. The Cold War was about expansion of both the Soviet bloc and NATO bloc to force one or the other to collapse. The collapse of the Soviet bloc ended the Cold War.
During the Cold War there were attempts to establish other blocs to challenge both the Soviet bloc and NATO bloc. China was attempting to establish its own Asian bloc; that's Truman's domino theory which expanded the Cold War to include China. China achieved limited success in establishing an Asian bloc and much of Chinese regional politics is still directed toward establishing an Asian bloc. The OPEC bloc dominated by Saudi Arabia was the only one that succeeded in establishing itself and exerting influence over international affairs.
When the Soviet bloc collapsed, the European Union bloc emerged to challenge the NATO bloc dominated by the United States. Germany appears to exert the most influence over the EU bloc but has not dominated the bloc. The UK leaving the EU bloc because of Brexit strengthens Germany's ability to dominate the EU bloc and challenge the NATO bloc.
Joe Biden is trying to strengthen the dominance of the United States over the NATO bloc. Joe Biden is trying to strengthen the influence of the NATO bloc over the EU bloc. The NATO bloc is imposing sanctions according to the demands of Joe Biden. Biden is reviving Cold War international politics but this time the NATO bloc is pitted against the EU bloc. Biden is using Ukraine to expand the NATO bloc within Europe.
If the influence of the NATO bloc diminishes or the NATO bloc collapses then the United States loses its dominant position in international affairs. The collapse of the NATO bloc would relegate the United States to the same position as China. The United States could attempt to form a Pan American bloc but previous attempts to do so have failed miserably.
Yes, Joe Biden wants this war and is pushing the NATO bloc into war. Joe Biden will fight World War III over NATO; he has said so. But the war Biden is pushing is not about Russia. The war Biden is pushing is about the diminishing influence of the NATO bloc in international affairs and the weakening of United States dominant position in international affairs. Without the NATO bloc the United States will become another China.
Is that what Putin's Russian State News says?
Because, President Biden says that isn't true!
Some info on rare earth minerals from 2020. I read a recent article that Russia was trying to expand their market share of rare earth minerals by mining more inside and outside of their country.
and a good article on why China and Russia are in the process of controlling access to essential rare earth metals that are a critical component in manufacturing "green energy" products. Article from Jan 2022. Note that Russia is proving mercenaries to some African countries' governments.
How many people in the world are paying attention to who owns and controls the resources that are vital to our lifestyles in today's world? How many wars will be waged to gain control and keep control in order to profit from those resources?
Are we waging wars to help ordinary citizens live better lives or to help billionaires expand wealth?
Neoliberal global politics has not been about singing folk songs around campfires. Neoliberal global politics is about creating and expanding spheres of influence (or blocs) to achieve a dominant position in international affairs. Neoliberalism has been around for quite a while but did not become an influential force in international affairs until the collapse of the Soviet bloc. Neoliberals use economics to fight wars and, as with any other war, the casualties are ordinary people.
Biden's demands that the NATO bloc impose economic measures against the Russian Federation, as a country, is the neoliberal equivalent of nuclear war. And Biden doesn't care what the fallout does to ordinary people.
Vladimir Putin is directly challenging the NATO bloc that is dominated by the United States. That's what Putin's demands for security measures are about. Putin is fighting against expansion of the NATO bloc.
Russia doesn't have the Soviet bloc to challenge the NATO bloc. So, punitive warfare is really the only viable option Russia has to challenge expansion of the NATO bloc. Putin is punishing Ukraine for wanting to become a member of NATO - and - challenging the NATO bloc to a direct confrontation. Putin has drawn a red line and is challenging NATO to step across it.
Putin has not committed Russia's best trained and most experienced military forces to Ukraine. Putin has not equipped the Russian forces in Ukraine with Russia's most advance and best weapons. The Russian troops in Ukraine are supposed to destroy things, commit atrocities, and threaten the civilian population to provoke NATO into stepping across the red line.
Putin is not fighting a war in Ukraine. Putin is trying to provoke NATO into starting the real war.
That's how global politics works. That's how Cold War politics works.
That is why I find them to be the epitome of hypocrites when they go on and on about caring about the struggles of ordinary people.
These folks are Wall Streeters and their ilk whose profits come from creating the struggles of ordinary people.
They want to take it a step further and put social security funds on Wall Street, eliminate tax "loopholes" by eliminating tax deductions and rebates for the working class and forcing them to pay at least $1 in federal income tax so the impoverished are pulling their weight in this country.
What are the motivations of the people who support the people and policies that profit from keeping the world either involved in ongoing wars or at the brink of war at all times?
Do they know what/who they are really supporting or just don't care?
IMO what is so odd about global politics is that it is driven by institutional ideology that spans shifts in political leadership. The struggle for global dominance is actually being directed by technocratic bureaucrats who are not directly accountable to an electorate. The global bureaucracy has gradually become more independent from country (or state) governments and electorates.
That's why spheres of influence (or blocs) have played a prominent role in global politics. A sphere of influence transcends petty national interests and meddling electorates. Global technocrats don't care about national sovereignty; they care about spheres of influence.
As globalization increases it becomes more difficult for nation states to protect their national interests for the benefit of their populations. Wall Street is manipulated by the Federal Reserve according to institutional ideology intended to expand a sphere of influence. The Federal Reserve is politically independent from the national government. And global technocrats exert more influence over the Federal Reserve than does the political government of the United States. The President cannot order the Fed to shift policy and Congress has limited authority over how the Fed operates. Voters in the United States do not have a voice in global politics and are not represented in global politics.
Globalization is about creating a stateless bureaucracy that doesn't need to care about petty national interests or meddlesome political processes. Global technocrats really don't care about the things ordinary people care about.
But Nerm clearly does not want war either. Therefore maybe you shouldn't characterize him as anti-Biden.
You are still not getting it. Buzz is defending Nerm's freedom of speech. Nerm's opinions should be discussed without characterizations.
Certainly not sympathize with them/putin.
You thought about that, I can see.
So, pat, when you have no answer, silence is golden.
I kind of knew.
I think that through their own hubris/narcissism that some ordinary people in the US believe that they not only have a voice in global politics, but that their voice really counts in global politics.
Their over inflated ego makes them impossible to communicate with because their lives are guided by feelings - not logic or education in world history and current events.
Many, if not most, of our so-called rights today are the result of in-fighting among the nobility of Europe. From my perspective on history, these rights were never really intended to be extended to the masses. This is why the masses are in a continual fight with oligarchs to keep the rights that we do have.
Freedom of speech means everything is subject to questions and discussion - everything. The government that guarantees freedom of speech doesn't leverage the media and/or social platforms to ban anyone who has an unpopular view of a government position.
Times like these really make me miss Christopher Hitchens. He knew how to stir the pot and keep the discussions ongoing and interesting.
Master baiters have their place, but we really need many more skilled debaters who know how to educate and entertain at the same time.
Nobody has infringed on Nerm's freedom of speech, either.
You're inventing victims here.
In many ways hasn't that already happened throughout the world as businesses have gone international? What is an American owned business today?
Question: Are global technocrats in charge of telling ordinary people who and what to care about ?
Example: When the US invades and bombs a country, the women and children killed are easily wrote off as collateral damage and shouldn't be thought about or mentioned.
But when an adversary does the exact same thing, this is completely barbaric and unacceptable behavior to kill innocent women and children.
Same actions but entirely different framing.
Geoge Lakoff's "Framing 101" comes to mind.
or better yet a video to explain how vital it is to frame a message properly.
No quotes of me saying I want war, huh?
So you tacitly admit your accusation was false.
Noted.
So Germany, which is part of both NATO and the EU, wants the EU to challenge NATO, despite the fact that many NATO countries are also part of the EU. Uh huh.
YOU have decided that Biden wants this war, and the only evidence you have provided is speculation and biased interpretations. Given your false accusations against me, I think we can all judge just how credible those accusations against Biden are likely to be.
Nerm has damned Biden both for supposedly looking for a pretext for war, and for
Anyone seriously reading Nerm's posts can see that Nerm would condemn Biden no matter what Biden does. You don't get any more anti-Biden than that.
The fallout damage to ordinary people is worldwide. How many ordinary people throughout the world will lose their jobs, their homes and their possessions because of rising prices across many sectors?
How many ordinary people throughout the world will starve to death because of rising food prices due to shortages because the crops of Ukraine and Russia will be taken off of the world market?
The winners will be the people who have enough money to speculate and profit from war.
If Biden really cared about the ordinary people, he would be doing everything possible to broker peace instead of sending bombs, making threats, sending more bombs and making more threats.
It is the ordinary people who lose because of war.
Who are the people throughout the world profit from war? Do those people ever want peace when it is detrimental to their bank accounts? Are the war profiteers responsible for engineering wars behind the scenes?
How much accurate information do the ordinary people ever have access to?
If we want peace, then we really need to elect leaders who do not profit from war and/or do not answer to the people who profit from war.
I will note that I have been reading discussions on other sites. Most of the responses seem to be geared along generational lines. Wars fought prior to a person's existence or awareness of war are largely ignored.
Russia is not seen as much of a threat to people who did not live through the Cold War. China's power to rule the world seems to be largely recognized by the younger generation because of China's economic wealth, population and weaponry. Many tend to view the US dependence on China's manufacturing and the US growing debt to be the greatest threat to the well-being of US citizens.
Fearmongering of Russia seems to be pretty ineffective with the younger generation.
Thank you Vic. Although I was careful not to AGREE with everything Nerm_L said, just as I don't agree with everything the CPC does or says, it is those whose intent is to squelch the freedom of speech they celebrate if it is not in lockstep with their personal beliefs that I have challenged.
Whose freedom of speech has been squelched?
Nobody's. Disagreement is not squelching freedom of speech.
The younger generation seem to understand that they did not cause the world's problems and they do not have the power and obligation to fix other people.
Maybe they have learned not to give their power away to others.
I would like a reply from the one saying it is!
How about some historical facts that have already been related that I need not repeat? How about the fact that Putin does not want to have a military force aimed at his nation on its doorstep? And how about the fact that human beings should have the brainpower to realize that opinions vary and sometimes there are opposing facts, and other sides to or more to a story, and that as Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." and as I've posted over and over again and again on NT, to no avail it appears as I am constantly criticized for exercising it, on my very first day in Law School the first lecture was given by the Dean. What he told us was, in so many words, that if you are unwilling or unable to realize and to learn and to be able to argue your opponent's case as well as your own you might just as well walk out that door and never come back. I took that lesson seriously. Obviously it's a lesson that many are unwilling or incapable of learning. And as some have been trying to do to smear me for believing in free speech, using a comparison with Hitler as an example, when Goebbles is their own is exceptionally disappointing.
I'm amused that there are those who feel they need to disagree with the fact that I have argued that even Nerm_L has freedom of speech and prefer to argue that I have agreed with him by saying so. LOL
It's never stopped you though has it ?
My daughter did this for a high school term paper on the death penalty.
I read her paper and asked her if that was her position.
She said no, but it was her teacher's position. She knew she would get an "A" for validating her teacher's viewpoint.
First of all, Putin had absolutely no fear that the Ukrainians were going to use their military for anything other than defense. Even if Ukraine joined NATO, there is absolutely nothing about NATO to cause fear for the Russians, except if the Russians decide to attack a NATO member.
Further, you seem to be ignoring the fact the the Ukrainians do not want to have a military force invading and destroying their country, and trying to overthrow their duly-elected government to subsume it under a foreign fascist regime. By your logic, it would make more sense for the Ukrainians to have attacked Russia than the other way around.
Your argument also seems to give carte blanche to Putin to invade every country that borders Russia. They all have militaries, don't they? Would you understand Vietnam attacking China because the do not want a military force aimed at their nation on their doorstep?
We are all entitled to our opinions. However, I resent the implication that by indicating that there are two sides to every story I am a supporter of Hitler or that I am a Chamberlain. My opinion is that all of this is going to end up with no different a result than could have been reached originally before one shot was fired, but instead it will end up with thousands killed, dystopian destruction, millions displaced, people all over the world being negatively affected by the battle and the sanctions, and as I've just seen on the TV news here, a boon to human traffickers who are taking advantage of the refugees. What were my first comments about it way back when it started? Everyone's got to show they've got big balls.
You have also failed to demonstrate that anybody has infringed on Nerm's right to free speech.
GG, I'm not arguing with you, you may be right, but I also believe that this war did not have to happen, as I indicate in my most previous comment. If Ukraine had agreed to neutrality with ample guarantees of security, I doubt that Putin would have had Russia invade.
Ukraine gained independence in 1991 after 70 years under Russian rule. At no time has Ukraine threatened Russia, or aimed their military at Russia. In 2014 Russian sponsored separatists in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. No provocation on the Ukraine government. Ukraine has fought back from then until now costing the lives of 14,000 Ukrainians. Then there was the shooting down of the Malaysian airliner by the Russians. You might want to research what the Russians have done to the indigenous people of Crimea, the Tartars. Explain what that has to do with joining NATO since Putin gave a totally different reason.
In Feb of this year Russia invaded Ukraine and have been blasting the cities to rubble, killing hundreds/thousands of Ukrainians including many children. You can find the photos on the internet.
According to you, it's because Ukraine wanted to be part of NATO but Putin has stated other reasons which I have posted before.
Putin invaded Chechnya and destroyed it with over 250,000 civilians dead and installed a strongman. Why do you think that he did that?
There there was Georgia, another phony reason much like saving the Russians in Crimea, thousands killed and Russia now controls 20% of Georgia. Again many civilians killed. Then there is Syria with the bombing of civilians and used chemical weapons. Think that he was saving Russians there, Buzz?
Since the Ukrainians are doing a good job of kicking Russia ass, an estimated 15,000 KIA and thousands more WIA, POW, and deserters. The war is not going well for Russia so Putin threatens nuclear weapons and of course, there is the chance that he will use chemical weapons. That is a sure sign that he is only interested in protecting Russians because NATO and Ukraine are on the verge of conquering Moscow. /s
Yup, he just trying to protect Russia from big bad aggressor Ukraine just like Georgia or Chechnya or Syria was a huge threat to Russia.
So, there it is again.
BTW, I really don't give a fuck what Nerm posts or his opinions. It's a free country so he can post anything that he wants, unlike Russia or China.
Buzz, you have consistently expressed the opinion that Ukraine provoked Russia by applying for NATO membership. Expecting an independent nation to obey the rule of another, especially one led by a megalomaniacal, paranoid murderer like Putin, is the sort of appeasement Chamberlain engaged in with Hitler.
Everybody would have liked to avoid it. Except Putin and his supporters. The ones who started the whole damn thing. The ones who attacked Georgia in 2008. The ones who attacked Ukraine a month ago. The ones who threatened to attack Bosnia.
There might be two sides to every story, but they are not always equally valid.
Personally, I think that's as unfair a statement as I constantly weather about China on this site.
Ukraine was not threatening Russia in any way. And Putin is not to be trusted.
That is not an infringement on yours or anybody's free speech. You can exercise your right to free speech. Others can do the same, up to and including criticizing your remarks here.
If you think it's false, show it to be so.
Same as I did when Nerm falsely accused me of wanting war in Ukraine.
Maybe you're absolutely correct, Kavika, but as I said again and again and will continue to believe no matter what - I believe this war could have been avoided. I believe that what Nerm_L said about had Biden worked as hard to gain a diplomatic solution as everyone involved had to prove what big balls they had that the war could have been avoided. I said that right from the beginning and I have not changed my mind now matter how much the "Give me liberty or give me death" advocates bleat their beliefs. And having Hitler and Chamberlain thrown in my face has not made me change my mind.
No more than Russia provoked the USA when it planted missiles in Cuba.
I try to stay out of these prolonged and combative arguments about this war. It becomes a slog.
However, I will say something now. Buzz, I think you are wrong when you say Putin and Russia were provoked by Ukraine. The FACT is I believe , that Putin wants to restore what he believes was the previous glory of Russia. He believes Russia deserves to be an empire. He cant have his empire unless the large nation of Ukraine is under his thumb.
I'm not making this theory up, it has been in the news consistently since this whole thing started months ago now.
In other words it is Putin's AMBITIONS , not his desire to defend Russia , that has led to this war.
You're right. All it is is an insult and a provocation to a person who has the guts to challenge the "acceptable" point of view.
Not the same. The US and Russia were engaged in the Cold War at the time.
NATO and Russia were not engaged in any such war at the time of this attack.
This is about Putin's paranoia and Putin's grasp for power.
You're on a political discussion forum, Buzz. If you defend a war of aggression on a political discussion forum, prepare for some criticism.
I did not throw either in your face, Buzz. So stop it.
By your logic, it will be Taiwan's fault if they don't surrender to China and become part of China. Why would Taiwan want to remain a free democratic country when they can simply surrender and become a vassal of a dictatorship?
I'm sure that Syria, Georgia, and Chechnya are relieved that it was their fault that Putin invaded and killed tens of thousands.
Yup, agree Buzz. Had Ukraine said they would remain neutral, like Switzerland, there'd be no excuse Putin could trot out to invade Ukraine.
Why couldn't they say that? Because they thought Biden will come and fight for them against Putin. This is the whole reason why Zelenskyy doesn't want to peace-negotiate with Russia even now. He still thinks Biden and Nato will swoop in and rescue Ukraine.
And I really like Zelensky. But it seems he's been getting some bad advice lately.
It's not a personal argument, just a discussion.
I believe that Putin's goal is to reabsorb Ukraine into the Russian "Empire", notwithstanding any potential declaration of neutrality by Ukraine.
I recommend that you read up on Putin's position on "Eurasianism". I'm not certain which links might be accessible to you, so I will let you do the research however you are best able.
In brief summary, "Eurasianism" is a political doctrine developed by Russian neo-fascists, supported by Putin, that puts Russia at the center of an empire under Russian control emcompassing Europe and Asia. The Eurasianists argue that Ukraine is an essential.part of the new Russian Empire. Putin has stated in his writings and speeches that Ukraine is not a country. The idea that Putin would be willing to tolerate an independent Ukraine, even a neutral one, is not within Putin's concept for Russia's future.
I'm not going to disagree with you, John. Unfortunately, nobody except Putin knows the actual reason he invaded - not you, not me, not anyone else proffering an opinion here. I started off this article with the first comment, voicing my concern that Putin might be stupid enough or insane enough to use a nuclear weapon, and surely nobody can fault me for that, Unfortunately this has turned into a different kind of forum. But I have ALWAYS said, here and elsewhere, and defended myself for doing so, that there are always two sides to every story - and I NEVER said which one was the right one, although I may have indicated that there could be some truth to both. I liken the whole thing to an arbitration - if one side is happy with the result then it was a failure, because only if BOTH sides are not happy with the result, is it more successful. More effort towards negotiation before it all started was what was needed, but please don't deny that there are some who prefer a war to be more of a benefit to them.
Perhaps at my age my memory is fading, please point out where I have defended a war of aggression.
Putin has said repeatedly that Ukraine is not a country; that it is part of Russia. For the Eurasianists, which includes Putin, that is a fundamental religious tenet.
The issue of Ukrainian neutrality, just like Putin's complaints about NATO, is a red herring employed to disguise Putin's true intent.
When you make excuses for Putin, you justify his aggression.
Please be more careful with what I say, Kavika, because I did not say that YOU threw Hitler and Chamberlain in my face, my comment was to respond that it HAD been thrown in my face and was a reason for my general attitude.
No, by my logic, the issue of Taiwan should be settled by greater efforts being made for negotiations and the encouragement for that instead of fanning the flames and provocations like sailing warships through the straights. Never have I posted a comment to say that Taiwan SHOULD "surrender" to China.
And by the way, of course it's very American to demonize China in every possible way, but what I happen to see by living here is that the people are not as unhappy as they are made out to be, and personally, I think people in the USA have more reasons to be unhappy than Chinese people do.
I've MADE an excuse for Putin to invade Ukraine? Now you've insulted me. What I've done is try to analyze why Putin was concerned, and provide an opinion. Now you see how your "innocent" comments can be deemed to be insulting, the very point I made in how you dealt with Nerm_L. God help ANYONE who doesn't accept what the majority believes is the ONLY righteous answer.
You were commenting to me so it's a good assumption that i would think you were talking to me.
Taiwan has NO intention of becoming part of China and there is no negotiation that will change that since China wants Taiwan to be part of China. As for the sailing warships through the straits, it is international waters and if you want to talk about provocations then address China violating Taiwan's airspace with fighter jets on a regular basis or their or their constant threats of towards Taiwan.
So you think that I demonize China or are you not speaking to me? As for how happy the Chinese are that isn't something that I consider and how happy they are vs the US isn't something that I give a shit about. I am speaking of the Chinese government and its actions. And this article is about Russia and its inhumane attack on a sovereign country and the killing of thousands of civilians as they have done in three other countries in recent history.
I apologize for not being clear about that.
Today - I'm not a swami so I don't know what is going to happen in the future.
Then why did you bring up Taiwan - it is NOT the same issue. Even America still has not changed its honouring the One China Policy.
I try to avoid you missteps.
Yes, Buzz, you've made excuses. If you don't like being called out for making excuses for bullies, don't make excuses for bullies who are literally bombing hospitals treating children and women in labor.
That's an astute observation but only tells part of the story. Ruling classes have been creating rights for themselves since ancient times. Oddly, even elected rulers throughout history have been viewed as a different class of people with their own specific rights and privileges. Partly that's just human nature. But it is also partly a necessity so a ruler can govern. If the masses rally to a popular leader then that allows the leader new and different rights and privileges. That's a requirement to be a leader. A ruler must have the right to rule; even a popularly elected ruler.
The Protestant Reformation really did begin establishing that the masses also have their own specific rights and privileges. The rights and privileges of the masses are just as divine as the rights and privileges of nobility. But they're still different rights and privileges out of necessity. The rights of the masses weren't granted by nobility. They are inherent and inalienable human rights, as we call them today.
Democracy doesn't eliminate the disparity in rights and privileges between the masses and the rulers. Democracy won't do away with nobility. Democracy won't stop autocrats, dictators, or tyrants. Once someone becomes the ruler they will always have the right to rule and the ability to protect their right to rule. That's necessary for a leader or ruler to be a leader or ruler.
Democracy does not provide equality or the newly established social measure of equity. Those who govern will always have rights and privileges that the masses do not have; that's a requirement for governing. The masses have their own inherent inalienable rights and privileges but the right to govern is not a right of the masses.
Just because someone has been elected doesn't prevent them from governing as an autocrat and tyrant.
Thank you and thank you for sharing your perspective.
I see the logic in your perspective.
It gives me much information to mull over for weeks/months. LOL!
Supporting what Joe Biden is doing means you want war. Biden has directly and explicitly told us that the war in Ukraine is about NATO; not about Ukraine's national sovereignty. Biden has framed the war in terms of Vladimir Putin wanting to divide NATO and now NATO is more united than ever. Biden is telling the world that NATO is going to expand by defeating Russia.
Joe Biden is using the NATO bloc to challenge the EU bloc. Germany has considerable influence in the EU bloc. Now Germany has indicated it will increase its influence in the NATO bloc. Germany has wisely avoided dominating the EU and being an influential member of NATO. If Germany assumes a dominate position then they will be labeled Nazis and both blocs will attempt to punish Germany.
Germany is in the position to dominate the EU bloc and challenge the dominance of the United States in the NATO bloc. Germany can leverage its joint membership in the EU and NATO to challenge the influence of the United States in Europe.
BTW, France is in the same position. The UK was in a similar position but Brexit removed the UK's influence in the EU. The United States has never had influence in the EU. Germany will have more influence in Eastern Europe than will France or the United States.
Joe Biden wants a wider war. That's what demanding the NATO bloc impose sanctions and economic measures to isolate the Russian Federation is all about. Russia will weaponize economics, too. Russia has more influence in the OPEC bloc than does the United States. What happens if oil producing countries begin demanding payment in rubles?
Only just begun the NATO wars have. (to paraphrase Yoda)
Is that why Ukrainians have been waging a civil war on Russia's border?
Protesters in Kyiv overthrew the duly elected government of Ukraine in 2014. Eastern Ukraine did not accept the new government established by insurrection. That was the beginning of the civil war in Ukraine. Ukraine destabilized into open warfare in the Donbas region shortly after the insurrection in Kyiv overthrew the duly elected government.
NATO and the United States military were operating at the Yavoriv military base north of Lviv, very near the Polish border, before the 2014 insurrection overthrew the duly elected government of Ukraine. The NATO presence in Ukraine was part of NATO's Partnership for Peace program. NATO claims that military training maintains peace but NATO doesn't train a military contingent to kill with kindness. NATO maintains peace by threat of military force.
Russian troops have not been welcomed as liberators even in separatist regions. Ukraine expelled their corrupt Russian implemented overloads in 2014 in favor of their current lawful leadership. And, living under the NATO umbrella is much preferred by everyone to dying under the despotic rule of the tyrant and despot Russian Dictator Vladimir Putin!
Spin away. Your deliberately pejorative partisan interpretations still don't cover how dishonest that false accusation was.
Well, if the people in eastern Ukraine were happy about expelling their corrupt Russian overlords then why has there been a civil war over the last eight years?
Zelensky and Biden have been telling us they know Putin's real intentions; Putin has been lying all along. Zelensky and Biden will claim victory because Putin doesn't do what Zelensky and Biden told us Putin will do. In the end Putin will get what he said he wanted before invading. So, who will be the real winners and losers in this war?
They wanted to be independent of Russia and Ukraine but it is Russians killing them so now!
I disagree. Putin has been planning this for years, as evidenced by his agression against other, weaker nations in the same geographical area, and the false flag operations the Russians had been working on that were uncovered . Putin wants to reassemble parts of the Soviet Union, and to do this he has to act before he is dead. The only way that NATO and the US as a member of NATO could have averted this war was to renounce any future ties to or claims of protection of Ukriane: Basically, "Here. You can have Ukraine." So, really, there was no route to peace save capitulation, and capitulation on NATOs part would not have prevented the Ukrainians from defending their country. It would just mean that the Ukrainans had even less of a chance of being conquered by Russia without the aid organized by by other nations. NATO and Biden, IMO, had no real chance of averting this war through diplomatic means.
But all of this is merely naval gazing, because that horse has left the barn.
The important question to ask now is how far are the nations organized against the Russian invasion and war in Ukraine willing to go to defend Ukraine?
It would seem to me that, short of actual military, boots on the ground support, Ukraine is destined to fall to the Russians, no matter the sanctions and arms supplied, because they face greater military depth than they possess. Putin, despite his bluster, IMO will not use tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine, but he will trot the possibility out at any chance just because he knows that is what we are afriad of. If the possiblity of the use of nuclear weapons is the sole rationale of the nations aligned against him, then we have lost the conflict already. By raising this spectre, Putin has called, or, if you prefer, put the rest of the world in "Check". Personally, I feel that he will win this conflict because he has the chutzpah to say he will and his adversaries have not, as of yet, realized that they need to lay this card on the table, also.
We already know that Putin is an asshole who lies, cheats and bullies to arrange situations more to his liking. He does not fear political ramifications because he has managed to suround and secure his position. So, in a way, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by playing all of his cards available. Will we? I don't think so, but you never know.
Yes, the DPR and LPR want independence. Russia isn't a liberator in eastern Ukraine, Russia is an ally. Russia is killing the Ukrainians that the people in Donetsk and Luhansk have been fighting and killing for eight years.
According to the OSCE monitors, as many as 60 civilians are killed by landmines and unexploded ordinance each month. Ukrainians have been killing Ukrainians for eight years. A ceasefire was negotiated in 2014 and has never been enforced. The Zelensky government has claimed that Russian-Ukrainians aren't Ukrainians; Zelensky has claimed they are Russian terrorists.
There are three military forces fighting in Ukraine (a fourth if you count mercenaries). There is the Russian military, the Kyiv government military, and the separatist military. The separatists in eastern Ukraine have held back the Kyiv military for eight years so they are not an insubstantial military force. The separatists are battle hardened and know how to fight; especially how to fight an insurgent war.
The war in Ukraine has been going on for eight years; not one month.
No, the people of Eastern Ukraine do not see the invading Russian as allies. The people of Eastern Ukraine are fighting the Russians and Russians are killing Eastern Ukrainians by the thousands, bombing Ukranian factories, homes, hospitals, shelters, orphanages and depriving them of sustenance and medicine while displacing hundreds of thousands on Ukrainian women, children and old folks...
This is from April, 2014. Not January, 2022. Note that the Obama administration was sanctioning Russia in 2014.
Yep, they all want to think about it but it seems no one wants to make a decision about what we would actually do and when we would do it. I have to wonder if our reluctance to communicate exactly what the ramifications of certain actions by Putin would be is making Putin believe we would do nothing other than extra sabre rattling. It may be time for Nato to draw a red line and then stick to it.
The longer this goes on the closer we get to that.
Of course hindsight is a lovely thing but I would have thought our brain trust would have thought of this possibility and devised a contingency plan before thousands of deaths and several cities had been destroyed. It is not like Putin has been keeping his desires a secret.
All the pundits talk about how much better the Ukrainians are doing than was expected. It makes me question what our goal in giving them weapons was if we fully expected them to get beat quickly anyway.
I am aware I do not have all the info our leaders do but I have to wonder if the red line shouldn't have been when civilians were targeted and that should have been made very clear to Putin before he did it. At this point I am not sure why NATO does not set up escape routes for civilians and it made clear to Putin that those are off limits. Any action against them on his part will be considered an escalation and will be addressed as such. Make him worry about our reaction to his actions for once.
How so? NATO isn't hasn't been this united until now and we just extricated ourselves from a decade of war (and that didn't go well either) so it wasn't as if there was a lot of political will going into this thing. Then no one (and I mean no one) thought we'd be here still watching Ukraine holding out nearly a month in.
I expect our goal is to give as much hell to Putin as possible within the political framework as possible. I also expect that political framework to be a shifting goal as it always is.
I'm very certain that our red line was stated that we are only assisting Ukraine as stated above and defending NATO countries under Article 4. Pretty much what Biden has stated several times. We only go as NATO as a whole. I'm sure that's part of what Biden is doing on this trip today.
How is NATO to do that and stay out as they have stated. We are assisting with refugees, moving troops around nearby countries, and providing intel along with supplies and weapons to Ukraine. There isn't anything more we can do without officially stepping foot inside Ukraine - again something we said we wouldn't do.
I totally understand your points and stance. My opinion of what we should do or what NATO should do isn't far from yours. I'd have already dropped a bunker buster on Putin's summer home... It's probably a good thing I'm not in charge!
Same here. Putin has made his feelings about NATO known and is exploiting their own rules and what we say we won't do. Things change, what we wouldn't do yesterday can change. My feeling is sometimes to beat a bully you need to punch them in the nose, or unleash the CIA of old on them.
I believe if if you are going to arm a country to defend themselves from an aggressor than arm them and help them push them all the way out no matter what it takes (short of nukes), not just prolong the war and end up losing after thousands are killed or displaced. If you can't do that than don't get their hopes up only to have them destroyed in the end. "Live free or die" may be a great motto for New Hampshire but I am not sure the Ukrainian people would have gone to this extreme if NATO did not get involved at all. Remember they pretty much didn't believe it would happen until it did.
The Danger i think, is that Putin may prefer to lose to The US and NATO than Ukraine.
On that I think I agree with you. I think Putin has painted himself into a corner, his back is against the wall and he does not want to lose because I think if he sees himself losing this battle he sees himself losing everything and the danger is that if he sees himself in Hitler's position at the end of the war he may not be satisfied with just killing himself but might start a nuclear war. At the very beginning of this I had hoped that negotiations would have led to a compromise, that was my position on all of this and hopefully there is still a chance of that happening, but God help ALL OF US if he chooses to go out with a bang rather than a whimper.
It's also possible putin is suffering from Parkinson's Disease. The middle and late stages of this disease are accompanied by Dementia. ..." Kremlin, we have a problem."
Did this really only occur to people this week?