Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, random. said:

Because it was reported that they were discussing it perhaps?

Putin wanted assurances that Ukraine would not become a NATO country.  That is the essence of this standoff.

 

Then Putin better start talking to the French and Germans. And possibly the Ukrainians.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 11.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Stuttgart, Germany, 12. 03. 2022: No guns involved, just a symbol of solidarity and support, made of a few thousand candles and about 50 meters long. At the same time a few thousand re

Here are some photos of the stuff you folks and others bought to help the Ukrainian people, and the happy recipients in Ukraine.  Olga will have the 2nd $3,000 next week to buy more.  Thanks again.

While Mikey is furiously jerking off in a corner, and folks here are staring in fascination, I want to share some reasonably good news about this situation. Out little town of 18,000 people as we

Posted Images

9 minutes ago, bstrdsonofbtl said:

They already have, it's called the Minsk Protocal... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_Protocol

800px-Minsk_Protocol.svg.png

"It failed to stop fighting in Donbas,[4] and was thus followed with a new package of measures, called Minsk II, which was signed on 12 February 2015.[5] This too failed to stop the fighting, but the Normandy Format parties agreed that it remains the basis for any future resolution to the conflict"

 

Failed to stop the fighting, hey?

 

Seems the Russians don't give a fuck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

And that's the problem.

He should have no say what happens in other countries.

 

It's difficult for the nation that invaded Iraq to make that case. I could mention our insistence on telling Iran what they can and can not do as well. 

Heard somebody pushing back on Biden's Washington gaff of saying maybe some intervention by the Russians would be OK mention that for all their bluster Ukraine has not called up their reserves or mobilized their civilian population for war. Interesting.   

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mark K said:

It's difficult for the nation that invaded Iraq to make that case. I could mention our insistence on telling Iran what they can and can not do as well. 

Heard somebody pushing back on Biden's Washington gaff of saying maybe some intervention by the Russians would be OK mention that for all their bluster Ukraine has not called up their reserves or mobilized their civilian population for war. Interesting.   

 

Well, there's two sides.

Standing up to a bully, or being the bully....

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Make it clear that if Russia crosses the border into Ukraine, their oligarchs lose all of their assets which we can reach.

Why does not the world community seize the assets of the US Blobistas who invaded Iraq ?? 

Oh right, exceptionalistas 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Vets For Poontang

Your elk gives slime a bad name. 

Do you have anything of substance to say ?? 

Of course not - and that is because you are a sniveling/anonymous/troll coward. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Betcha people are tired of reading your intemperate blather.

Don't you have a litter box that wants cleaning ?? 

If y'all let 'em go too long, they become sorta intemperate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But back to the OP. 

I can think of any number of entities that have the moral standing to challenge Russia on its Ukraine policies. 

But none of them are USAean. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Someone reads that?

So perhaps you could weigh in on Ukraine ?? 

I thought a number of the comments above were well taken. . . 

Where might you agree and disagree, and why ?? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

I've figured it out - they have free wifi at the Legion. 

I appreciate the humor, however dark it may be . .  

but there is something nauseating about the Dems and NPR 

beating the drums of war.  

Jeebus.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

But back to the OP. 

I can think of any number of entities that have the moral standing to challenge Russia on its Ukraine policies. 

But none of them are USAean. 

Moral standing?

FFS, when has that ever been a thing?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Moral standing?

FFS, when has that ever been a thing?

So if morals are for suckers, why do y'all blather on about what Roosia is right or not right to do ?? 

Might makes right, nicht wahr ?? 

Some of us aspire to a different world, however naive that may seem to the militarists.  

And of course, if morals mean nada . .  

only a simp would care about voter suppression or the trashing of the constitution.  

Don't you see where your logic leads ??  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

So if morals are for suckers, why do y'all blather on about what Roosia is right or not right to do ?? 

Might makes right, nicht wahr ?? 

Some of us aspire to a different world, however naive that may seem to the militarists.  

And of course, if morals mean nada . .  

only a simp would care about voter suppression or the trashing of the constitution.  

Don't confuse my acknowledgement of reality with a lack of caring.

 

It's important to acknowledge what can really happen while working to avoid it.

 

 

Besides, our morals might differ to others who don't eat like we do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

It's important to acknowledge what can really happen while working to avoid it.

that is all we can do . . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Moral standing?

FFS, when has that ever been a thing?

 

Moral standing means nothing, power is what counts. There is really no such thing as a country with "moral standing" with the possible exception of some Pacific island nation that started out as a deserted island and was settled by one tribe that never left. Every other nation on this planet was created by some group, nationality, tribe, or religion that defeated the people that had it before them. AJ's favorite peaceful hangout Costa Rica is a very nice place that is the result of murderous Spanish Conquistadors, they don't have dick for moral standing unless every one of them that isn't pure Indian moves the hell back to Spain. So maybe we will give Costa Rica a pass on that and pretend history started in say the 1950s. They can complain to Russia, say that Russia should be like them and not threaten their neighbors with violence. This will have exactly the same effect as a toy poodle threatening a pit bull, the pit bull will ignore the little yappy thing unless it just won't quit, at which point it will eat it without breaking a sweat.

The only nations Russia will care about are ones that can hurt it militarily or economically.

If you want moral standing, the entire world more or less agreed that WW II was the last time that countries would change their borders with force, tens of thousands of years of human history were supposed to end in 1945, the music stopped, and everyone got the chair they were sitting in. While that has worked out with many huge flaws, the system has more or less kept wars down to a simmer. We now have the prospect of a major power in Europe taking over another country because they can. This is a major step back and pretty much everyone has the "right" to complain about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

So if morals are for suckers, why do y'all blather on about what Roosia is right or not right to do ?? 

Might makes right, nicht wahr ?? 

Ya know what would be great is if, instead of intentionally trying to piss people off every fucking day ... what if Ollie brandished some of that knowledge of world affairs? We all read the same headlines but AJ professes a deeper knowledge and I'd like to hear a more in depth assessment of the situation. I say that sincerely. For starters, I've read that there are many Russians in E Ukraine that would prefer to hug the Russian bear. No?

Or do we need to call Mikey?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Ya know what would be great is if, instead of intentionally trying to piss people off every fucking day ... what if Ollie brandished some of that knowledge of world affairs? We all read the same headlines but AJ professes a deeper knowledge and I'd like to hear a more in depth assessment of the situation. I say that sincerely. For starters, I've read that there are many Russians in E Ukraine that would prefer to hug the Russian bear. No?

Or do we need to call Mikey?

Well, I'm sure Mikey had a job as a military or intel consultant in Ukraine at some point in his illustrious career. His insights are sure to be....   lengthy

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how AJ can resist opining about Russ v Ukraine? He seems to want to just talk about how evil we were south of the borders in the past ... something few of us are interested in ATM and that isn't threatening Whirled Peas and life as we know it.

AJ, can you not find anything to be critical of the US for in this squabble? Limited incursion thoughts? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Ya know what would be great is

What would REALLY be great is if you had some vague notion of morality. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Ya know what would be great is if, instead of intentionally trying to piss people off every fucking day ...

too many pos's out there need pissing off. that's not rocking the boat, that's checking hull integrity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Moral standing

You argue two contradictory positions at the same time: one, that morality in international affairs means nothing, and two, that the morality of the post WWII international order has sorta kept the peace. 

I think your major error if to maintain that human progress does not exist, in spite of tons of evidence to the contrary. 

This is a good read on the topic that I am working on now . . . https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13543093-the-better-angels-of-our-nature

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

This is a good read on the topic that I am working on now . . . https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13543093-the-better-angels-of-our-nature

ALERT: before you buy this book, consider this bit from a long review: 

Miquixote rated it did not like it
 
"Breathtakingly mindless for 2/5 of the book, blowhard the whole way through.

Sometimes a good joke is more revealing than 800 pages of blowhardness. Pinker gives himself away with this quote by George Carlin ..."
 
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

BAD FAITH    ALERT:   

You can't even mention a book without lying about it . .  it is revealing that according to the times of posts recorded above, you were able to thoroughly analyze that book in 16 minutes.  

Unlike you, I'll read it before analyzing it. 

I don't know much about Pinker, but I am a big fan of Harvard's Robert Putnam, who grew up near us in Port Clinton, Ohio
 
“The Better Angels of Our Nature” is a supremely important book. To have command of so much research, spread across so many different fields, is a masterly achievement. Pinker convincingly demonstrates that there has been a dramatic decline in violence, and he is persuasive about the causes of that decline.
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

You argue two contradictory positions at the same time: one, that morality in international affairs means nothing, and two, that the morality of the post WWII international order has sorta kept the peace. 

 

Sorta-Kinda. "Moral Standing" as in my country never did anything bad ever hardly exists. Every single bit of the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand is occupied by settler colonists that did various bad things to the original inhabitants. The Europeans have been killing and conquering each other for all of recorded history and a quick read of the Old Testament shows no clean hands to be found in the Middle East. If you want to find some international version of a saint and only have them complain about Russia, you likely can't find one and they likely would be ignored by all if you did since they would be from some tiny place no one ever bothered to conquer.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, we actually have put a stop to major-power territorial wars, by the normal schedule we would have had WW III and IV by now. I think pretty much EVERY country has the right to bitch about Russia invading Ukraine.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ollie, I clearly mentioned it was a review from your cite. A couple of you guys need to slow your outrage down. I thought it perfect because of the blowhard remark because ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'll admit I need to do a lot more research on this book, but this review needs a 5-star award of its own!

Pinker gives himself away with this quote by George Carlin on page 622: I think motivation is overrated. You show me some lazy prick who's lying around all day watching game shows and stroking his penis, and I'll show you someone who's not causing any fucking trouble!...

...I hope I am not the only one who thinks it is not necessarily a good thing to be reduced to lazy pricks watching game shows and stroking our penises...

ROFLMAO

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Meanwhile, back in the real world, we actually have put a stop to major-power territorial wars, by the normal schedule we would have had WW III and IV by now. I think pretty much EVERY country has the right to bitch about Russia invading Ukraine.

Yeah, and about those "territorial wars", some of us are consistent, and not blinded by national chauvinism . .  

What I mean by that is to ask you, Did you oppose the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 ?? 

I really doubt it, which to me means you have no right to get all huffy about Russia and Ukraine. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Yeah, and about those "territorial wars", some of us are consistent, and not blinded by national chauvinism . .  

What I mean by that is to ask you, Did you oppose the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 ?? 

I really doubt it, which to me means you have no right to get all huffy about Russia and Ukraine. 

Well there you go again................

You have no idea what I thought about anything in 2003, but you do have a system for people and countries that goes like "Well if you did this or didn't oppose that, then you cannot ever have any opinion about anything ever again". To give one example, if Germany tells some other country to quit some genocide operation, should that country jump up and down yelling "Heil Hitler, fuck off Nazi pricks" :rolleyes: This leaves essentially no one in your mind that can speak to Russia.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Well, Ollie and a pal think it's a good read. So there's that.

 

 

I wonder if HE read it.

"“Though imperial conquest and rule can themselves be brutal, they do reduce endemic violence among the conquered” (56)." Seems like the kind of thing he would hate, unless he doesn't mind conquest as long as the USA isn't doing it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I wonder if HE read it.

As I wrote above, I have just started the book, and 

will not claim to understand it before I read it - as you are doing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

You have no idea what I thought about anything in 2003,

I can prove I opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and paid a price for it. 

Vets For Peace opposes hyper-power military aggression in general, not only when it is politically convenient. 

The Iraq invasion was based on preposterous and implausible lies - and too many USAeans backed it in spite of that - 

and threatened those of us who declined to chug the Kool-aid. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, anyway, it appears the Russian position is they want the arming of states near Russia to stop, and say the Minsk agreements stipulated a special status for the Donbass, complete with their own elections. 

 They seek a separation, a partitioning, of Ukraine. See at about 19:00 of this. Yeah, it's RT, but western media is not paying much attention to what the Russians are saying, only what Blinken is, and Blinken is only being asked what we intend to do, not what the Russians are saying. 

The Ukes got to decide if that eastern part, in which most of the people identify as Russians and has been willing to resort to violence to prevent being ruled by the government of Kyiv, is worth fighting the Russians for.  

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

ALERT: before you buy this book, consider this bit from a long review: 

Miquixote rated it did not like it
 
"Breathtakingly mindless for 2/5 of the book, blowhard the whole way through.

Sometimes a good joke is more revealing than 800 pages of blowhardness. Pinker gives himself away with this quote by George Carlin ..."
 

I actually liked Pinker's book :) Then again, I quote Carlin on occasion as well so my opinion is suspect!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

Well, anyway, it appears the Russian position is they want the arming of states near Russia to stop, and say the Minsk agreements stipulated a special status for the Donbass, complete with their own elections. 

 They seek a separation, a partitioning, of Ukraine. See at about 19:00 of this. Yeah, it's RT, but western media is not paying much attention to what the Russians are saying, only what Blinken is, and Blinken is only being asked what we intend to do, not what the Russians are saying. 

The Ukes got to decide if that eastern part, in which most of the people identify as Russians and has been willing to resort to violence to prevent being ruled by the government of Kyiv, is worth fighting the Russians for.  

 

 

I quite like Lavrov.

The fucker's a snake. But he's a well spoken snake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I quite like Lavrov.

The fucker's a snake. But he's a well spoken snake.

Yes, he's very smart and his mastery of the English language is absolute. There was an extended "conversation" between him and John Kerry back in the day when we were trying to figure out what to do with ISIS. All conversations with Kerry are, of course, extended. He displayed remarkable patience and cleverness. It went on for days. Russian bureaucrats...guys who manage to get to the top survived a Squid Game of a mill. When you meet them have some courtesy, have some sympathy and some taste, use all your well-learned politics, or... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

Yes, he's very smart and his mastery of the English language is absolute. There was an extended "conversation" between him and John Kerry back in the day when we were trying to figure out what to do with ISIS. All conversations with Kerry are, of course, extended. He displayed remarkable patience and cleverness. It went on for days. Russian bureaucrats...guys who manage to get to the top survived a Squid Game of a mill. When you meet them have some courtesy, have some sympathy and some taste, use all your well-learned politics, or... 

I appreciate politicians like Lavrov.

He speaks in code but it's obvious what he is trying to say. I suppose the detail is more in what he doesn't say.

And yes, he's a devil. And deserves the kudo's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, random. said:

The learning out of this is how effective the US propaganda is on USaens, how they suck up everything they are told if it it wrapped in Patriotism.

Yeah, our MSM went full-on hysteric for war - even bouncing Phil Donahue off MSNBC. 

But there were some exceptions - MCClatchy & some others. 

At the time of the attack, 85% of USAeans were in favor of it. I don't blame them as much as the Dem pols who absolutely knew better. 

Vets For Peace was staunchly opposed - many of us had lived through the Vietnam War lies, so we were justifiably skeptical. 

This is some of the fan mail I received . .  

Your voice against our elected government is a voice
against its people, a voice against this nation.  Check your political
science texts if you need the theory behind that statement--I assume you
have a few reputable texts amongst the Franz Fanons.  . . . I think you are a traitor.  

Strangely, he never got back to me to apologize. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, back to policy and the OP . . ..

I am actually surprised that almost no one is calling for the 

creation of a DMZ in Central and Eastern Europe 

as a way out of this mess. 

NATO moves back to Germany, Italy (Austria is still neutral I think),

and Russia withdraws to its own borders. 

The Baltics, Poland, Georgia, Hungary might not like it . . 

but might be better off under such a scenario. 

Pretty sure Gorby had something like this in mind . .   

Where is  @Ed Ladawhen we need him ?? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

OK, back to policy and the OP . . ..

I am actually surprised that almost no one is calling for the 

creation of a DMZ in Central and Eastern Europe 

as a way out of this mess. 

NATO moves back to Germany, Italy (Austria is still neutral I think),

and Russia withdraws to its own borders. 

The Baltics, Poland, Georgia, Hungary might not like it . . 

but might be better off under such a scenario. 

Pretty sure Gorby had something like this in mind . .   

Where is  @Ed Ladawhen we need him ?? 

You REALLY are willing to throw any number of sovereign countries to the wolves without giving even a second thought to their desire to be wolf chow or not.

Lebensraum is never enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Lebensraum is never enough.

Yeah, dude. Your wanna be Armageddon is way better. 

Best not even THINK of ways out of it. 

I'll wager you said the same crap in 2003, amirite ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

You REALLY are willing to throw any number of sovereign countries to the wolves without giving even a second thought to their desire to be wolf chow or not.

Lebensraum is never enough.

And you are primed for war, right ??  

What could possibly go wrong  ??  

Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, random. said:

At the time, outside the US, although we get splashed from some of the propaganda, most Australians were watching it unfold in disbelief.

And actually, that just goes to prove that NATO, ASEAN, ANZUS and all that sycophantic alphabet soup . .  

in failing utterly to speak out in 2003,  

shows that they are vassals, not allies. 

No offense intended to all our valiant Ozzies for PAX

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bstrdsonofbtl said:

That comment's an obscenity. 35~ million Russians died fighting the fascists. Chop your fingers off.

No - it is entirely apropos. Giving up a few countries or parts of them never works out in the long run. Even better is when you give them up without even asking them what they think about it :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the issues here is like the Kurds, someone drew a political line that did not take into account the cultural differences.  In the early 1900s Ukranian anarchists ravaged the eastern Ukraine and the Ukranian government at the time was unable to stop them.  A hundred years have not stopped the animosity and modern Ukranian governments have done little to calm things down.  The eastern Ukraine is culturally not a part of the Ukraine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The start of the whole shit storm in Iraq was Desert Shield/Storm in 90-91. I got into an argument on air on a radio station in NYC about the DJs apparent rah rah! support of the invasion that night. When I told him he should be ashamed to applaud the killing of innocent civilians because they lived in Baghdad, his response was "Look, dude, I don't have to be impartial, I'm a radio voice, I spin records, and push carts into slots. I don't really care about ragheads one way or another! Next caller!" CLICK"

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, random. said:

At the time, outside the US, although we get splashed from some of the propaganda, most Australians were watching it unfold in disbelief.

Most? Probably a lot but most? Australia was in the Coalition of the Willing. That would have been John Howard, your center right Liberal Party and closer to Republicans for us.

Don't get me wrong though. The Iraq invasion was stupid beyond belief. I was opposed from the beginning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Laker said:

One of the issues here is like the Kurds, someone drew a political line that did not take into account the cultural differences.  In the early 1900s Ukranian anarchists ravaged the eastern Ukraine and the Ukranian government at the time was unable to stop them.  A hundred years have not stopped the animosity and modern Ukranian governments have done little to calm things down.  The eastern Ukraine is culturally not a part of the Ukraine.

History does change things.

I think I've seen 3 different maps with 3 different Ukraines

Of course, I've seen different maps for China too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

History does change things.

I think I've seen 3 different maps with 3 different Ukraines

Of course, I've seen different maps for China too.

Ukraine may want to think about how much they even want a bunch of Russians that will be nothing but trouble for the next 100 years. Kind of like how next time Texas wants to leave, maybe they should get a boot in the ass right out the door :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is why I think the best thing to do is set up the area as a russian-aligned sovereign country.  I think it would be politically impossible, just like Turkey and Iraq letting Kurdistan go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

The Iraq invasion was stupid beyond belief. I was opposed from the beginning.

Did you oppose it in public ?? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Laker said:

That is why I think the best thing to do is set up the area as a russian-aligned sovereign country.  I think it would be politically impossible, just like Turkey and Iraq letting Kurdistan go.

I think the Ukrainian elite prefer dollars to rubles...

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Did you oppose it in public ?? 

Yes. I was at a protest in Dolores Park. Swords to Plowshares was there. The Bay Area was fairly anti-war so this protest and many more were not surprising.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

The Bay Area was fairly anti-war so this protest and many more were not surprising.

Good on ya - the Bay area really did stand up  . .  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, random. said:

Don't confuse politics with public opinion on something that was not an election topic.

We were not injected with as much Kool-aid, the RW government was acting in line with the overarching agreements.  I also think that our armed forces treat our small commitments to US lead disasters as training exercises.  Excursions to keep the Special Forces tuned up.

The public, not so much.   Howard lost his Seat in the next election.

Not the next election after the invasion. That was 2004 after the 2003 invasion. He was re-elected in 2004 but then he lost his seat in 2007. Second longest tenure as PM. You only had around 2000 to the UK's 45K and the US 200K.

I only point this out to say that Australia is a little like the US. We re-elected W the Stupid after we fucking knew well that he'd lied us into the war. In many ways, W was worse than Shitstain. He was just 'nicer' about being worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bstrdsonofbtl said:

Sort-of. I think everyone knows that NATO is not going to start a major war to protect a non-NATO country. Putin can lob a shell over the border once a month for forever and keep Ukraine in an active conflict, thus making them ineligible to join NATO even they wanted to and we wanted them in.

OTOH there is a LOT that hasn't been done yet that could be to make life miserable for Russia.

Here is my guess: Smart Putin wants to solidify what they already have and hopes Ukraine doesn't really want a bunch of Russian speakers back that don't really want to be back. Best case is this is all happening on the down-low.

Or...

Dumb Putin thinks he is Stalin+Hitler reincarnated and thinks he actually can start chewing up Europe bit by bit, a new Russian empire formed at gun-point with the Baltics and old Warsaw Pact territory back under his thumb. That would not end well, to put it mildly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of what is happening here can be explained by international systems theory . . . 

It is to be expected that small  powers will seek allies against nearby large powers. 

It makes sense for the Rep. of Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, etc. to seek out the US as an ally. 

But that may not be good for the stability of the international system, or for peace. 

Best for the cause of peace to expand the EU and junk NATO. 

It is amazing how little global leaders have learned from history. 

Class is dismissed for today. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The NLAWS will be an unpleasant surprise for Russian armored vehicles, I'm thinking. But it wouold be great if we could get them some A-10 Warthogs, take a while to train the pilots and crews, but that would be the ultimate deterrent to anybody who likes tanks.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

The NLAWS will be an unpleasant surprise for Russian armored vehicles, I'm thinking. But it wouold be great if we could get them some A-10 Warthogs, take a while to train the pilots and crews, but that would be the ultimate deterrent to anybody who likes tanks.

Respectfully sir, Vets For Peace has a better idea. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You would think, that after Napoleon, and Hitler's failures, that Putin would think twice about fighting in that area at this time of year..... While both started their invasions in June, they ended in embarrassment and defeat in December. Now imagine invading Ukraine in late January, early February, and what happens when all your gear is up to it's ears in mud in late March.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only teeth Biden has are sanctions which Putin isn’t afraid of. Appeasement is a nasty word but I don’t see what else Biden can do at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, corkob said:

The only teeth Biden has are sanctions which Putin isn’t afraid of. Appeasement is a nasty word but I don’t see what else Biden can do at this point.

If Putin was not afraid of more sanctions, he'd be in Maidan Square already. The possibility of more sanctions are in fact the only thing Putin is complaining about.

(The Conservative PM) Neville Chamberlain had peace for his time by selling out Czechoslovkia, "the settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem". That's appeasement. Sanctioning the fuck out of the Russkis (to the tune of $50B/yr) and threatening to turn up those thumb screws if they take something which is on their border on the other side of the world from us, a country which as Mark has pointed out, hasn't even called up its reserves is not appeasement.

If Putin wants to do this thing there will be economic consequences. NATO does not have to put boots on the ground for this not to be appeasement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

If Putin was not afraid of more sanctions, he'd be in Maidan Square already. The possibility of more sanctions are in fact the only thing Putin is complaining about.

(The Conservative PM) Neville Chamberlain had peace for his time by selling out Czechoslovkia, "the settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem". That's appeasement. Sanctioning the fuck out of the Russkis (to the tune of $50B/yr) and threatening to turn up those thumb screws if they take something which is on their border on the other side of the world from us, a country which as Mark has pointed out, hasn't even called up its reserves is not appeasement.

If Putin wants to do this thing there will be economic consequences. NATO does not have to put boots on the ground for this not to be appeasement.

If Biden leads from behind I’m gonna be pissed off, especially if he acts like an emperor in the process. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Much like Trump, ignoring his blather and sturm und drang, while handcuffing his finances will go farther than trying to strong arm him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2022 at 7:15 AM, kent_island_sailor said:

Dumb Putin thinks he is Stalin+Hitler reincarnated and thinks

How do you know what Vlad or anyone thinks ?? 

You geniuses of the Blob are just so adept at reading the minds of people with whom you have never been nearer than hundreds of miles, more likely thousands. 

Quite a skill ya got there.  

Y'all must be terrific at the poker table.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, corkob said:

Appeasement is a nasty word

Oh yeah, and we sure showed those rascally Central Americans back in the 1980's that we would murder them in large numbers rather than "appease" them - i.e., just leave them the hell alone. 

Sorry for the snark, but please take care that you don't let the Blob define you mental parameters. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Oh yeah, and we sure showed those rascally Central Americans back in the 1980's that we would murder them in large numbers rather than "appease" them - i.e., just leave them the hell alone. 

Sorry for the snark, but please take care that you don't let the Blob define you mental parameters. 

 

You may want to take the same advice, there is more than one Blob ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Russian stock market today;
FJ3hT3dWQAQrKjJ?format=jpg&name=small

Absolute carnage across Russian stock market. Gazprom and Sberbank, the two benchmark stocks, are falling over a cliff with losses if 10% plus today alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Olsonist said:

If Putin was not afraid of more sanctions, he'd be in Maidan Square already. The possibility of more sanctions are in fact the only thing Putin is complaining about.

(The Conservative PM) Neville Chamberlain had peace for his time by selling out Czechoslovkia, "the settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem". That's appeasement. Sanctioning the fuck out of the Russkis (to the tune of $50B/yr) and threatening to turn up those thumb screws if they take something which is on their border on the other side of the world from us, a country which as Mark has pointed out, hasn't even called up its reserves is not appeasement.

If Putin wants to do this thing there will be economic consequences. NATO does not have to put boots on the ground for this not to be appeasement.

Neville doesn't get a fair shake on that. Fact was Britain was still haunted by memories of The Somme and like-such, the no-war crowd was huge, and had not mobilized. At the time British armor was a bad joke, there were about a dozen Spitfires in an experimental squadron somewhere, and even that wasn't a long-range fighter. Their army was still quite small and all but bereft of logistical capability. No way they were a credible threat to the fully mobilized and armored German army and air force of the time. And Adolf knew it. 

  Yet somehow people seem to think that if only Neville had gotten tough right there, why Adolf would have tucked tail and sworn on a stack of Mein Kampfs to never threaten anyone ever again. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Fakenews said:

You and Tucker see things the same way.
Troubling….

And I agreed with Stalin about the danger and evil of Hitler's Nazis. 

So what ?? 

Guilt by association only gets you so far. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Neville doesn't get a fair shake on that. Fact was Britain was still haunted by memories of The Somme and like-such, the no-war crowd was huge, and had not mobilized. At the time British armor was a bad joke, there were about a dozen Spitfires in an experimental squadron somewhere, and even that wasn't a long-range fighter. Their army was still quite small and all but bereft of logistical capability. No way they were a credible threat to the fully mobilized and armored German army and air force of the time. And Adolf knew it. 

  Yet somehow people seem to think that if only Neville had gotten tough right there, why Adolf would have tucked tail and sworn on a stack of Mein Kampfs to never threaten anyone ever again. 

That was September 1938. The invasion of Poland was a year off and Dunkirk was two. It is true that the British public had no stomach for war. But I think there were other choices than that dichotomy. Similarly, I think there are other choices today than appeasement and boots on the ground.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites