They lied about Afghanistan. They lied about Iraq. Now they're lying about Ukraine

8,090 Views | 90 Replies | Last: 5 days ago by william
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lied-afghanistan-lied-iraq-now-160001611.html

They lied about Afghanistan. They lied about Iraq. Now they're lying about Ukraine

The playbook the pimps of war use to lure us into one military fiasco after another, including Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Ukraine, does not change. Freedom and democracy are threatened. Evil must be vanquished. Human rights must be protected. The fate of Europe and NATO, along with a "rules-based international order" is at stake. Victory is assured.

The results are also the same. The justifications and narratives are exposed as lies. The cheery prognosis is false. Those on whose behalf we are supposedly fighting are as venal as those we are fighting against.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a war crime, although one that was provoked by NATO expansion and by U.S. backing of the 2014 "Maidan" coup, which ousted democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych wanted economic integration with the EU, but not at the expense of economic and political ties with Russia. The war will only be solved through negotiations that allow ethnic Russians in Ukraine to have autonomy and Moscow's protection, as well as Ukrainian neutrality, which means the country cannot join NATO. The longer these negotiations are delayed the more Ukrainians will suffer and die. Their cities and infrastructure will continue to be pounded into rubble.

But this proxy war in Ukraine is designed to serve U.S. interests. It enriches the weapons manufacturers, weakens the Russian military and isolates Russia from Europe. What happens to Ukraine is irrelevant.

"First, equipping our friends on the front lines to defend themselves is a far cheaper way in both dollars and American lives to degrade Russia's ability to threaten the United States," admitted Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

Once the truth about these endless wars seeps into public consciousness, the media drastically reduces coverage. The military debacles, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue largely out of view.
"Second, Ukraine's effective defense of its territory is teaching us lessons about how to improve the defenses of partners who are threatened by China. It is no surprise that senior officials from Taiwan are so supportive of efforts to help Ukraine defeat Russia. Third, most of the money that's been appropriated for Ukraine security assistance doesn't actually go to Ukraine. It gets invested in American defense manufacturing. It funds new weapons and munitions for the U.S. armed forces to replace the older material we have provided to Ukraine. Let me be clear: This assistance means more jobs for American workers and newer weapons for American service members."

Once the truth about these endless wars seeps into public consciousness, the media, which slavishly promotes these conflicts, drastically reduces coverage. The military debacles, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue largely out of view. By the time the U.S. concedes defeat, most barely remember that these wars are being fought.

The pimps of war who orchestrate these military fiascos migrate from administration to administration. Between posts they are ensconced in think tanks Project for the New American Century, the American Enterprise Institute, Foreign Policy Initiative, Institute for the Study of War, the Atlantic Council and the Brookings Institution funded by corporations and the war industry. Once the Ukraine war comes to its inevitable conclusion, these Dr. Strangeloves will seek to ignite a war with China. The U.S. Navy and military are already menacing and encircling China. God help us if we don't stop them.

These pimps of war con us into one conflict after another with flattering narratives that paint us as the world's saviors. They don't even have to be innovative. The rhetoric is lifted from the old playbook. We naively swallow the bait and embrace the flag this time blue and yellow to become unwitting agents in our self-immolation.

Since the end of the Second World War, the government has spent between 45 to 90 percent of the federal budget on past, current and future military operations. It is the largest sustained activity of the U.S. government. It has stopped mattering at least to the pimps of war whether these wars are rational or prudent. The war industry metastasizes within the bowels of the American empire to hollow it out from the inside. The U.S. is reviled abroad, drowning in debt, has an impoverished working class and is burdened with a decayed infrastructure as well as shoddy social services.
Wasn't the Russian military because of poor morale, poor generalship, outdated weapons, desertions, a lack of ammunition that supposedly forced soldiers to fight with shovels, and severe supply shortages supposed to collapse months ago? Wasn't Putin supposed to be driven from power? Weren't the sanctions supposed to plunge the ruble into a death spiral? Wasn't the severing of the Russian banking system from SWIFT, the international money transfer system, supposed to cripple the Russian economy? How is it that inflation rates in Europe and the U.S. are higher than in Russia despite these attacks on the Russian economy?
Wasn't the nearly $150 billion in sophisticated military hardware, financial and humanitarian assistance pledged by the U.S., EU and 11 other countries supposed to have turned the tide of the war? How is it that perhaps a third of the tanks Germany and the U.S. provided were swiftly turned by Russian mines, artillery, anti-tank weapons, air strikes and missiles into charred hunks of metal at the start of the vaunted counteroffensive? Wasn't this latest Ukrainian counteroffensive, which was originally known as the "spring offensive," supposed to punch through Russia's heavily fortified front lines and regain huge swathes of territory? How can we explain the tens of thousands of Ukrainian military casualties and the forced conscription by Ukraine's military? Even our retired generals and former CIA, FBI, NSA and Homeland Security officials, who serve as analysts on networks such as CNN and MSNBC, can't say the offensive has succeeded.

And what of the Ukrainian democracy we are fighting to protect? Why did the Ukrainian parliament revoke the official use of minority languages, including Russian, three days after the 2014 coup? How do we rationalize the eight years of warfare against ethnic Russians in the Donbass region before the Russian invasion in February 2022? How do we explain the killing of more than 14,200 people and the 1.5 million who were displaced, before Russia's invasion took place last year?
How do we defend Zelenskyy's decision to ban 11 opposition parties, many of them on the left, while allowing fascists from the Svoboda and Right Sector parties, as well as the Banderite Azov Battalion and other extremist militias, to flourish?

How do we defend the decision by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to ban 11 opposition parties, including the Opposition Platform for Life, which had 10 percent of the seats in the Supreme Council, Ukraine's unicameral parliament, along with the Shariy Party, Nashi, Opposition Bloc, Left Opposition, Union of Left Forces, State, Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, Socialist Party of Ukraine, Socialists Party and Volodymyr Saldo Bloc? How can we accept the banning of these opposition parties many of which are on the left while Zelenskyy allows fascists from the Svoboda and Right Sector parties, as well as the Banderite Azov Battalion and other extremist militias, to flourish?

How do we deal with the anti-Russian purges and arrests of supposed "fifth columnists" sweeping through Ukraine, given that 30 percent of Ukraine's inhabitants are Russian speakers? How do we respond to the neo-Nazi groups supported by Zelenskyy's government that harass and attack the LGBTQ community, the Roma population and anti-fascist protesters, and threaten city council members, media outlets, artists and foreign students? How can we countenance the decision by the U.S and its Western allies to block negotiations with Russia to end the war, despite Kyiv and Moscow apparently being on the verge of negotiating a peace treaty?
I reported from Eastern and Central Europe in 1989 during the breakup of the Soviet Union. NATO, we assumed at the time, had become obsolete. Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev proposed security and economic agreements with Washington and Europe. Secretary of State James Baker, along with West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured Gorbachev that NATO would not be extended beyond the borders of a unified Germany. We naively thought the end of the Cold War meant that Russia, Europe and the U.S. would no longer have to divert massive resources to their militaries.
The so-called "peace dividend," however, was a chimera.

If Russia did not want to be the enemy, Russia would be forced to become the enemy. The pimps of war recruited former Soviet republics into NATO by painting Russia as a threat. Countries that joined NATO, which now include Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia, reconfigured their militaries, often through tens of millions in Western loans, to become compatible with NATO military hardware. This made the weapons manufacturers billions in profits.

It was universally understood in Eastern and Central Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union that NATO expansion was unnecessary and a dangerous provocation. It made no geopolitical sense. But it made commercial sense. War is a business.

In a classified diplomatic cable obtained and released by WikiLeaks dated Feb. 1, 2008, written from Moscow and addressed to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the NATO-European Union Cooperative, the National Security Council, the Russia Moscow Political Collective, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, there was an unequivocal understanding that expanding NATO risked conflict with Russia, especially over Ukraine:
Quote:

Not only does Russia perceive encirclement [by NATO], and efforts to undermine Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face. ...
Dmitri Trenin, Deputy Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, expressed concern that Ukraine was, in the long-term, the most potentially destabilizing factor in U.S.-Russian relations, given the level of emotion and neuralgia triggered by its quest for NATO membership. ... Because membership remained divisive in Ukrainian domestic politics, it created an opening for Russian intervention. Trenin expressed concern that elements within the Russian establishment would be encouraged to meddle, stimulating U.S. overt encouragement of opposing political forces, and leaving the U.S. and Russia in a classic confrontational posture.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine would not have happened if the Western alliance had honored its promises not to expand NATO beyond Germany's borders and Ukraine had remained neutral. The pimps of war knew the potential consequences of NATO expansion. War, however, is their single-minded vocation, even if it leads to a nuclear holocaust with Russia or China.
The war industry, not Putin, is our most dangerous enemy.
KaiBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lied-afghanistan-lied-iraq-now-160001611.html

They lied about Afghanistan. They lied about Iraq. Now they're lying about Ukraine

The playbook the pimps of war use to lure us into one military fiasco after another, including Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Ukraine, does not change. Freedom and democracy are threatened. Evil must be vanquished. Human rights must be protected. The fate of Europe and NATO, along with a "rules-based international order" is at stake. Victory is assured.

The results are also the same. The justifications and narratives are exposed as lies. The cheery prognosis is false. Those on whose behalf we are supposedly fighting are as venal as those we are fighting against.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a war crime, although one that was provoked by NATO expansion and by U.S. backing of the 2014 "Maidan" coup, which ousted democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych wanted economic integration with the EU, but not at the expense of economic and political ties with Russia. The war will only be solved through negotiations that allow ethnic Russians in Ukraine to have autonomy and Moscow's protection, as well as Ukrainian neutrality, which means the country cannot join NATO. The longer these negotiations are delayed the more Ukrainians will suffer and die. Their cities and infrastructure will continue to be pounded into rubble.

But this proxy war in Ukraine is designed to serve U.S. interests. It enriches the weapons manufacturers, weakens the Russian military and isolates Russia from Europe. What happens to Ukraine is irrelevant.

"First, equipping our friends on the front lines to defend themselves is a far cheaper way in both dollars and American lives to degrade Russia's ability to threaten the United States," admitted Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

Once the truth about these endless wars seeps into public consciousness, the media drastically reduces coverage. The military debacles, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue largely out of view.
"Second, Ukraine's effective defense of its territory is teaching us lessons about how to improve the defenses of partners who are threatened by China. It is no surprise that senior officials from Taiwan are so supportive of efforts to help Ukraine defeat Russia. Third, most of the money that's been appropriated for Ukraine security assistance doesn't actually go to Ukraine. It gets invested in American defense manufacturing. It funds new weapons and munitions for the U.S. armed forces to replace the older material we have provided to Ukraine. Let me be clear: This assistance means more jobs for American workers and newer weapons for American service members."

Once the truth about these endless wars seeps into public consciousness, the media, which slavishly promotes these conflicts, drastically reduces coverage. The military debacles, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue largely out of view. By the time the U.S. concedes defeat, most barely remember that these wars are being fought.

The pimps of war who orchestrate these military fiascos migrate from administration to administration. Between posts they are ensconced in think tanks Project for the New American Century, the American Enterprise Institute, Foreign Policy Initiative, Institute for the Study of War, the Atlantic Council and the Brookings Institution funded by corporations and the war industry. Once the Ukraine war comes to its inevitable conclusion, these Dr. Strangeloves will seek to ignite a war with China. The U.S. Navy and military are already menacing and encircling China. God help us if we don't stop them.

These pimps of war con us into one conflict after another with flattering narratives that paint us as the world's saviors. They don't even have to be innovative. The rhetoric is lifted from the old playbook. We naively swallow the bait and embrace the flag this time blue and yellow to become unwitting agents in our self-immolation.

Since the end of the Second World War, the government has spent between 45 to 90 percent of the federal budget on past, current and future military operations. It is the largest sustained activity of the U.S. government. It has stopped mattering at least to the pimps of war whether these wars are rational or prudent. The war industry metastasizes within the bowels of the American empire to hollow it out from the inside. The U.S. is reviled abroad, drowning in debt, has an impoverished working class and is burdened with a decayed infrastructure as well as shoddy social services.
Wasn't the Russian military because of poor morale, poor generalship, outdated weapons, desertions, a lack of ammunition that supposedly forced soldiers to fight with shovels, and severe supply shortages supposed to collapse months ago? Wasn't Putin supposed to be driven from power? Weren't the sanctions supposed to plunge the ruble into a death spiral? Wasn't the severing of the Russian banking system from SWIFT, the international money transfer system, supposed to cripple the Russian economy? How is it that inflation rates in Europe and the U.S. are higher than in Russia despite these attacks on the Russian economy?
Wasn't the nearly $150 billion in sophisticated military hardware, financial and humanitarian assistance pledged by the U.S., EU and 11 other countries supposed to have turned the tide of the war? How is it that perhaps a third of the tanks Germany and the U.S. provided were swiftly turned by Russian mines, artillery, anti-tank weapons, air strikes and missiles into charred hunks of metal at the start of the vaunted counteroffensive? Wasn't this latest Ukrainian counteroffensive, which was originally known as the "spring offensive," supposed to punch through Russia's heavily fortified front lines and regain huge swathes of territory? How can we explain the tens of thousands of Ukrainian military casualties and the forced conscription by Ukraine's military? Even our retired generals and former CIA, FBI, NSA and Homeland Security officials, who serve as analysts on networks such as CNN and MSNBC, can't say the offensive has succeeded.

And what of the Ukrainian democracy we are fighting to protect? Why did the Ukrainian parliament revoke the official use of minority languages, including Russian, three days after the 2014 coup? How do we rationalize the eight years of warfare against ethnic Russians in the Donbass region before the Russian invasion in February 2022? How do we explain the killing of more than 14,200 people and the 1.5 million who were displaced, before Russia's invasion took place last year?
How do we defend Zelenskyy's decision to ban 11 opposition parties, many of them on the left, while allowing fascists from the Svoboda and Right Sector parties, as well as the Banderite Azov Battalion and other extremist militias, to flourish?

How do we defend the decision by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to ban 11 opposition parties, including the Opposition Platform for Life, which had 10 percent of the seats in the Supreme Council, Ukraine's unicameral parliament, along with the Shariy Party, Nashi, Opposition Bloc, Left Opposition, Union of Left Forces, State, Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, Socialist Party of Ukraine, Socialists Party and Volodymyr Saldo Bloc? How can we accept the banning of these opposition parties many of which are on the left while Zelenskyy allows fascists from the Svoboda and Right Sector parties, as well as the Banderite Azov Battalion and other extremist militias, to flourish?

How do we deal with the anti-Russian purges and arrests of supposed "fifth columnists" sweeping through Ukraine, given that 30 percent of Ukraine's inhabitants are Russian speakers? How do we respond to the neo-Nazi groups supported by Zelenskyy's government that harass and attack the LGBTQ community, the Roma population and anti-fascist protesters, and threaten city council members, media outlets, artists and foreign students? How can we countenance the decision by the U.S and its Western allies to block negotiations with Russia to end the war, despite Kyiv and Moscow apparently being on the verge of negotiating a peace treaty?
I reported from Eastern and Central Europe in 1989 during the breakup of the Soviet Union. NATO, we assumed at the time, had become obsolete. Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev proposed security and economic agreements with Washington and Europe. Secretary of State James Baker, along with West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured Gorbachev that NATO would not be extended beyond the borders of a unified Germany. We naively thought the end of the Cold War meant that Russia, Europe and the U.S. would no longer have to divert massive resources to their militaries.
The so-called "peace dividend," however, was a chimera.

If Russia did not want to be the enemy, Russia would be forced to become the enemy. The pimps of war recruited former Soviet republics into NATO by painting Russia as a threat. Countries that joined NATO, which now include Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia, reconfigured their militaries, often through tens of millions in Western loans, to become compatible with NATO military hardware. This made the weapons manufacturers billions in profits.

It was universally understood in Eastern and Central Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union that NATO expansion was unnecessary and a dangerous provocation. It made no geopolitical sense. But it made commercial sense. War is a business.

In a classified diplomatic cable obtained and released by WikiLeaks dated Feb. 1, 2008, written from Moscow and addressed to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the NATO-European Union Cooperative, the National Security Council, the Russia Moscow Political Collective, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, there was an unequivocal understanding that expanding NATO risked conflict with Russia, especially over Ukraine:
Quote:

Not only does Russia perceive encirclement [by NATO], and efforts to undermine Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face. ...
Dmitri Trenin, Deputy Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, expressed concern that Ukraine was, in the long-term, the most potentially destabilizing factor in U.S.-Russian relations, given the level of emotion and neuralgia triggered by its quest for NATO membership. ... Because membership remained divisive in Ukrainian domestic politics, it created an opening for Russian intervention. Trenin expressed concern that elements within the Russian establishment would be encouraged to meddle, stimulating U.S. overt encouragement of opposing political forces, and leaving the U.S. and Russia in a classic confrontational posture.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine would not have happened if the Western alliance had honored its promises not to expand NATO beyond Germany's borders and Ukraine had remained neutral. The pimps of war knew the potential consequences of NATO expansion. War, however, is their single-minded vocation, even if it leads to a nuclear holocaust with Russia or China.
The war industry, not Putin, is our most dangerous enemy.


China is our most dangerous enemy .

As they have bought at least 25% of our federal leadership .
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lied-afghanistan-lied-iraq-now-160001611.html

They lied about Afghanistan. They lied about Iraq. Now they're lying about Ukraine

The playbook the pimps of war use to lure us into one military fiasco after another, including Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Ukraine, does not change. Freedom and democracy are threatened. Evil must be vanquished. Human rights must be protected. The fate of Europe and NATO, along with a "rules-based international order" is at stake. Victory is assured.

The results are also the same. The justifications and narratives are exposed as lies. The cheery prognosis is false. Those on whose behalf we are supposedly fighting are as venal as those we are fighting against.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a war crime, although one that was provoked by NATO expansion and by U.S. backing of the 2014 "Maidan" coup, which ousted democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych wanted economic integration with the EU, but not at the expense of economic and political ties with Russia. The war will only be solved through negotiations that allow ethnic Russians in Ukraine to have autonomy and Moscow's protection, as well as Ukrainian neutrality, which means the country cannot join NATO. The longer these negotiations are delayed the more Ukrainians will suffer and die. Their cities and infrastructure will continue to be pounded into rubble.

But this proxy war in Ukraine is designed to serve U.S. interests. It enriches the weapons manufacturers, weakens the Russian military and isolates Russia from Europe. What happens to Ukraine is irrelevant.

"First, equipping our friends on the front lines to defend themselves is a far cheaper way in both dollars and American lives to degrade Russia's ability to threaten the United States," admitted Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

Once the truth about these endless wars seeps into public consciousness, the media drastically reduces coverage. The military debacles, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue largely out of view.
"Second, Ukraine's effective defense of its territory is teaching us lessons about how to improve the defenses of partners who are threatened by China. It is no surprise that senior officials from Taiwan are so supportive of efforts to help Ukraine defeat Russia. Third, most of the money that's been appropriated for Ukraine security assistance doesn't actually go to Ukraine. It gets invested in American defense manufacturing. It funds new weapons and munitions for the U.S. armed forces to replace the older material we have provided to Ukraine. Let me be clear: This assistance means more jobs for American workers and newer weapons for American service members."

Once the truth about these endless wars seeps into public consciousness, the media, which slavishly promotes these conflicts, drastically reduces coverage. The military debacles, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue largely out of view. By the time the U.S. concedes defeat, most barely remember that these wars are being fought.

The pimps of war who orchestrate these military fiascos migrate from administration to administration. Between posts they are ensconced in think tanks Project for the New American Century, the American Enterprise Institute, Foreign Policy Initiative, Institute for the Study of War, the Atlantic Council and the Brookings Institution funded by corporations and the war industry. Once the Ukraine war comes to its inevitable conclusion, these Dr. Strangeloves will seek to ignite a war with China. The U.S. Navy and military are already menacing and encircling China. God help us if we don't stop them.

These pimps of war con us into one conflict after another with flattering narratives that paint us as the world's saviors. They don't even have to be innovative. The rhetoric is lifted from the old playbook. We naively swallow the bait and embrace the flag this time blue and yellow to become unwitting agents in our self-immolation.

Since the end of the Second World War, the government has spent between 45 to 90 percent of the federal budget on past, current and future military operations. It is the largest sustained activity of the U.S. government. It has stopped mattering at least to the pimps of war whether these wars are rational or prudent. The war industry metastasizes within the bowels of the American empire to hollow it out from the inside. The U.S. is reviled abroad, drowning in debt, has an impoverished working class and is burdened with a decayed infrastructure as well as shoddy social services.
Wasn't the Russian military because of poor morale, poor generalship, outdated weapons, desertions, a lack of ammunition that supposedly forced soldiers to fight with shovels, and severe supply shortages supposed to collapse months ago? Wasn't Putin supposed to be driven from power? Weren't the sanctions supposed to plunge the ruble into a death spiral? Wasn't the severing of the Russian banking system from SWIFT, the international money transfer system, supposed to cripple the Russian economy? How is it that inflation rates in Europe and the U.S. are higher than in Russia despite these attacks on the Russian economy?
Wasn't the nearly $150 billion in sophisticated military hardware, financial and humanitarian assistance pledged by the U.S., EU and 11 other countries supposed to have turned the tide of the war? How is it that perhaps a third of the tanks Germany and the U.S. provided were swiftly turned by Russian mines, artillery, anti-tank weapons, air strikes and missiles into charred hunks of metal at the start of the vaunted counteroffensive? Wasn't this latest Ukrainian counteroffensive, which was originally known as the "spring offensive," supposed to punch through Russia's heavily fortified front lines and regain huge swathes of territory? How can we explain the tens of thousands of Ukrainian military casualties and the forced conscription by Ukraine's military? Even our retired generals and former CIA, FBI, NSA and Homeland Security officials, who serve as analysts on networks such as CNN and MSNBC, can't say the offensive has succeeded.

And what of the Ukrainian democracy we are fighting to protect? Why did the Ukrainian parliament revoke the official use of minority languages, including Russian, three days after the 2014 coup? How do we rationalize the eight years of warfare against ethnic Russians in the Donbass region before the Russian invasion in February 2022? How do we explain the killing of more than 14,200 people and the 1.5 million who were displaced, before Russia's invasion took place last year?
How do we defend Zelenskyy's decision to ban 11 opposition parties, many of them on the left, while allowing fascists from the Svoboda and Right Sector parties, as well as the Banderite Azov Battalion and other extremist militias, to flourish?

How do we defend the decision by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to ban 11 opposition parties, including the Opposition Platform for Life, which had 10 percent of the seats in the Supreme Council, Ukraine's unicameral parliament, along with the Shariy Party, Nashi, Opposition Bloc, Left Opposition, Union of Left Forces, State, Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, Socialist Party of Ukraine, Socialists Party and Volodymyr Saldo Bloc? How can we accept the banning of these opposition parties many of which are on the left while Zelenskyy allows fascists from the Svoboda and Right Sector parties, as well as the Banderite Azov Battalion and other extremist militias, to flourish?

How do we deal with the anti-Russian purges and arrests of supposed "fifth columnists" sweeping through Ukraine, given that 30 percent of Ukraine's inhabitants are Russian speakers? How do we respond to the neo-Nazi groups supported by Zelenskyy's government that harass and attack the LGBTQ community, the Roma population and anti-fascist protesters, and threaten city council members, media outlets, artists and foreign students? How can we countenance the decision by the U.S and its Western allies to block negotiations with Russia to end the war, despite Kyiv and Moscow apparently being on the verge of negotiating a peace treaty?
I reported from Eastern and Central Europe in 1989 during the breakup of the Soviet Union. NATO, we assumed at the time, had become obsolete. Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev proposed security and economic agreements with Washington and Europe. Secretary of State James Baker, along with West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured Gorbachev that NATO would not be extended beyond the borders of a unified Germany. We naively thought the end of the Cold War meant that Russia, Europe and the U.S. would no longer have to divert massive resources to their militaries.
The so-called "peace dividend," however, was a chimera.

If Russia did not want to be the enemy, Russia would be forced to become the enemy. The pimps of war recruited former Soviet republics into NATO by painting Russia as a threat. Countries that joined NATO, which now include Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia, reconfigured their militaries, often through tens of millions in Western loans, to become compatible with NATO military hardware. This made the weapons manufacturers billions in profits.

It was universally understood in Eastern and Central Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union that NATO expansion was unnecessary and a dangerous provocation. It made no geopolitical sense. But it made commercial sense. War is a business.

In a classified diplomatic cable obtained and released by WikiLeaks dated Feb. 1, 2008, written from Moscow and addressed to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the NATO-European Union Cooperative, the National Security Council, the Russia Moscow Political Collective, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, there was an unequivocal understanding that expanding NATO risked conflict with Russia, especially over Ukraine:
Quote:

Not only does Russia perceive encirclement [by NATO], and efforts to undermine Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face. ...
Dmitri Trenin, Deputy Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, expressed concern that Ukraine was, in the long-term, the most potentially destabilizing factor in U.S.-Russian relations, given the level of emotion and neuralgia triggered by its quest for NATO membership. ... Because membership remained divisive in Ukrainian domestic politics, it created an opening for Russian intervention. Trenin expressed concern that elements within the Russian establishment would be encouraged to meddle, stimulating U.S. overt encouragement of opposing political forces, and leaving the U.S. and Russia in a classic confrontational posture.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine would not have happened if the Western alliance had honored its promises not to expand NATO beyond Germany's borders and Ukraine had remained neutral. The pimps of war knew the potential consequences of NATO expansion. War, however, is their single-minded vocation, even if it leads to a nuclear holocaust with Russia or China.
The war industry, not Putin, is our most dangerous enemy.
Fact-checking claims that NATO, US broke agreement against alliance expanding eastward

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/28/candace-owens/fact-checking-claims-nato-us-broke-agreement-again/

Two days before Russia invaded Ukraine with an assault that intelligence officials had warned was coming, conservative commentator Candace Owens insisted that the U.S. was "at fault."
"NATO (under direction from the United States) is violating previous agreements and expanding eastward," Owens said in the Feb. 22 tweet, which directed her more than 3 million followers to remarks from Russian President Vladimir Putin that she said showed "what's actually going on."
Owens' comment echoed a grievance claimed by Putin and other Russian leaders regarding the West's negotiations with the Soviet Union after the Cold War.
The subject of the grievance is whether the U.S. and its Western allies promised the Soviet Union during negotiations over the reunification of Germany that they would not allow NATO to expand its membership east of the Cold War border.
The question has fueled decades of debate and disagreement over what was said around those negotiations, what was meant by it all, and whether Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and other leaders received certain assurances regarding NATO's expansion beyond East Germany.
But even historians who argue that the Soviets were led to believe that NATO would not expand farther to the east told PolitiFact Owens' statement is more wrong than right. No binding, legal agreement ever codified the terms that Putin's camp and Owens now say were violated.

"Such an agreement was never made," NATO says in a fact page on its website, one of multiple pages that addresses the Russian allegations. "NATO's door has been open to new members since it was founded in 1949 and that has never changed."
Negotiating German reunification
After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, a divided Germany and the four powers that had occupied it since World War II were discussing whether the country should be reunified.
The treaty they signed in 1990 extended NATO into East Germany, which had been zoned to the Soviet Union. To appease the Soviets, it also granted the territory a "special military status" that ruled out the stationing of foreign NATO forces there.
The agreement said nothing about NATO's ability to expand farther east, a process that began with the admission of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary as members in 1999. Subsequent agreements, like the NATO-Russia Founding Act in 1997, also made no mention of a prohibition on eastward expansion.
"I know of no agreement signed by the United States, Germany, Britain, France or any NATO member that foreswore NATO enlargement," said the Brookings Institution's Steven Pifer, who was the deputy director of the State Department's Soviet desk at the time the 1990 deal was struck.
"This claim (from Owens) is factually incorrect," added John Lough, an associate fellow at Chatham House, a London-based think tank, who served from 1995 to 1998 as NATO's first representative based in Moscow. "NATO never made a commitment to Russia not to enlarge."
The source of controversy, however, is centered around statements made during the negotiations by Western leaders particularly James Baker, the U.S. secretary of state, and German Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher.

"Not shift 1 inch eastward"
One key statement came during a Feb. 9, 1990, meeting between Baker and Gorbachev.
After explaining why the U.S. wanted the reunited Germany to stay within the framework of NATO, Baker told Gorbachev that "if we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO 1 inch to the east."
"I put the following question to (Gorbachev)," Baker recounted in a letter to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. "'Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces, or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO's jurisdiction would not shift 1 inch eastward from its present position?'"

Those comments, along with similar remarks from Baker's European allies, like Genscher and Kohl, were part of what researchers at George Washington University's National Security Archive called a "cascade of assurances" offered to the Soviets.

But Baker and other officials involved in the events have denied that the conversation ever turned on expanding NATO to other countries.

The comments, they say, were made in the context of the German reunification debate. Talk of NATO's expansion to the rest of Europe never came up, in part because the Soviet Union and its associated Warsaw Pact were still intact. And in any event, those assurances were not baked into the final U.S. position and agreement around "special military status," they say.
"There was a discussion about whether the unified Germany would be a member of NATO, and that was the only discussion we ever had," Baker told CNN during a 2009 interview. "There was never any discussion of anything but (East Germany)."
Other figures have said that assurances were made, including Jack Matlock, the last U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, and Robert Gates, the deputy national security adviser at the time. Gates saidthe Soviets "were led to believe" NATO would not expand eastward.
Gorbachev has sent mixed messages. On one occasion, he insistedthat he was promised NATO would not "move 1 centimeter further east." In another interview in 2014, he said the question never came up, though he added that NATO's eventual expansion was "a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990." He said:
"The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up, either."
Scholars have landed on both sides of the debate. Some, like Loughand Harvard University's Mark Kramer, who wrote about it in 2009, have argued that the idea of a no-NATO-enlargement promise is a "myth." Other interpretations say the question is more complicated.
"At one extreme, there's a position you sometimes hear from the American side, that none of this ever came up, it's a total myth, the Russians are psychotic," Johns Hopkins University's Mary Sarotte, the author of a book examining the issue, told the New Yorker. "On the other end, you have the very adamant Russian position: 'We were totally betrayed, there's no doubt about it.' Unsurprisingly, when you get into the evidence, the truth looks to be somewhere in between."
When Russian President Boris Yeltsin protested NATO's expansion, President Bill Clinton's administration asked the German foreign ministry to look into the matter. The ministry reported that Yeltsin's complaint was formally wrong, but it said it could understand "why Yeltsin thought that NATO had committed itself not to extend beyond its 1990 limits," according to the Guardian.

Why Owens' claim is misleading, regardless
To support her argument, Owens shared via Twitter an 2016 op-ed that Joshua Shifrinson wrote for the Los Angeles Times.
Shifrinson, an associate professor of international relations at Boston University, wrote that while no formal agreement restricted NATO's expansion, Baker and other diplomats had offered the Soviets verbal assurances that NATO would not enlarge to the east.
In an interview with PolitiFact, Shifrinson said that he still holds the same view, and that a new document he recently discovered in the British National Archives supports that case.
The record, from 1991, quotes a German official as telling British and American policymakers, "We had made it clear during the 2+4 negotiations that we would not extend NATO beyond the Elbe (a river in Germany). We could not therefore offer membership of NATO to Poland and the others."
But Poland joined NATO in 1999. The reason that was allowed is the same reason why Owens' statement about NATO "violating previous agreements" is misleading: whether or not assurances were made, the West did not tie NATO's hands with any formal agreement.

"Candace Owens' statement is more fiction than not," Shifrinson told PolitiFact. "No. 1, NATO as an organization did not make this commitment. No. 2, it wasn't an agreement."
"There is a legitimate point to say that the U.S. offered assurances to the Soviets that NATO would do something, but that is not the same thing as saying NATO offered an agreement," Shifrinson continued. "NATO is not violating, and it never offered an agreement."
None of that justifies Russia's invasion of Ukraine, he added.
Marc Trachtenberg, a professor emeritus from the University of California, Los Angeles, has summarized the research on the NATO-enlargement-promise debate. His writing also argued that U.S. officials made assurances to the Soviets that they ultimately reneged on.
But in an email to PolitiFact, he also took issue with Owens' use of the word "agreement."
"What we had here were purely unilateral statements made by high U.S. and German officials," Trachtenberg said. "Strictly speaking, this does not show there was an 'agreement' … I think the term 'tacit understanding' is a better way to put it."

Our ruling
Owens said, "NATO (under direction from the United States) is violating previous agreements and expanding eastward."
There is an ongoing historical debate over comments that Western leaders, including Baker, made during post-Cold War negotiations, and whether what they said amounted to assurances that NATO would refrain from welcoming in countries closer to modern-day Russia.
But NATO as an organization made no such pledge, and the formal agreement signed at the end of those negotiations said nothing about the alliance not expanding eastward.
We rate this claim Mostly False.
One-Eyed Wheeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KaiBear said:

Mothra said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lied-afghanistan-lied-iraq-now-160001611.html

They lied about Afghanistan. They lied about Iraq. Now they're lying about Ukraine

The playbook the pimps of war use to lure us into one military fiasco after another, including Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Ukraine, does not change. Freedom and democracy are threatened. Evil must be vanquished. Human rights must be protected. The fate of Europe and NATO, along with a "rules-based international order" is at stake. Victory is assured.

The results are also the same. The justifications and narratives are exposed as lies. The cheery prognosis is false. Those on whose behalf we are supposedly fighting are as venal as those we are fighting against.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a war crime, although one that was provoked by NATO expansion and by U.S. backing of the 2014 "Maidan" coup, which ousted democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych wanted economic integration with the EU, but not at the expense of economic and political ties with Russia. The war will only be solved through negotiations that allow ethnic Russians in Ukraine to have autonomy and Moscow's protection, as well as Ukrainian neutrality, which means the country cannot join NATO. The longer these negotiations are delayed the more Ukrainians will suffer and die. Their cities and infrastructure will continue to be pounded into rubble.

But this proxy war in Ukraine is designed to serve U.S. interests. It enriches the weapons manufacturers, weakens the Russian military and isolates Russia from Europe. What happens to Ukraine is irrelevant.

"First, equipping our friends on the front lines to defend themselves is a far cheaper way in both dollars and American lives to degrade Russia's ability to threaten the United States," admitted Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

Once the truth about these endless wars seeps into public consciousness, the media drastically reduces coverage. The military debacles, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue largely out of view.
"Second, Ukraine's effective defense of its territory is teaching us lessons about how to improve the defenses of partners who are threatened by China. It is no surprise that senior officials from Taiwan are so supportive of efforts to help Ukraine defeat Russia. Third, most of the money that's been appropriated for Ukraine security assistance doesn't actually go to Ukraine. It gets invested in American defense manufacturing. It funds new weapons and munitions for the U.S. armed forces to replace the older material we have provided to Ukraine. Let me be clear: This assistance means more jobs for American workers and newer weapons for American service members."

Once the truth about these endless wars seeps into public consciousness, the media, which slavishly promotes these conflicts, drastically reduces coverage. The military debacles, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue largely out of view. By the time the U.S. concedes defeat, most barely remember that these wars are being fought.

The pimps of war who orchestrate these military fiascos migrate from administration to administration. Between posts they are ensconced in think tanks Project for the New American Century, the American Enterprise Institute, Foreign Policy Initiative, Institute for the Study of War, the Atlantic Council and the Brookings Institution funded by corporations and the war industry. Once the Ukraine war comes to its inevitable conclusion, these Dr. Strangeloves will seek to ignite a war with China. The U.S. Navy and military are already menacing and encircling China. God help us if we don't stop them.

These pimps of war con us into one conflict after another with flattering narratives that paint us as the world's saviors. They don't even have to be innovative. The rhetoric is lifted from the old playbook. We naively swallow the bait and embrace the flag this time blue and yellow to become unwitting agents in our self-immolation.

Since the end of the Second World War, the government has spent between 45 to 90 percent of the federal budget on past, current and future military operations. It is the largest sustained activity of the U.S. government. It has stopped mattering at least to the pimps of war whether these wars are rational or prudent. The war industry metastasizes within the bowels of the American empire to hollow it out from the inside. The U.S. is reviled abroad, drowning in debt, has an impoverished working class and is burdened with a decayed infrastructure as well as shoddy social services.
Wasn't the Russian military because of poor morale, poor generalship, outdated weapons, desertions, a lack of ammunition that supposedly forced soldiers to fight with shovels, and severe supply shortages supposed to collapse months ago? Wasn't Putin supposed to be driven from power? Weren't the sanctions supposed to plunge the ruble into a death spiral? Wasn't the severing of the Russian banking system from SWIFT, the international money transfer system, supposed to cripple the Russian economy? How is it that inflation rates in Europe and the U.S. are higher than in Russia despite these attacks on the Russian economy?
Wasn't the nearly $150 billion in sophisticated military hardware, financial and humanitarian assistance pledged by the U.S., EU and 11 other countries supposed to have turned the tide of the war? How is it that perhaps a third of the tanks Germany and the U.S. provided were swiftly turned by Russian mines, artillery, anti-tank weapons, air strikes and missiles into charred hunks of metal at the start of the vaunted counteroffensive? Wasn't this latest Ukrainian counteroffensive, which was originally known as the "spring offensive," supposed to punch through Russia's heavily fortified front lines and regain huge swathes of territory? How can we explain the tens of thousands of Ukrainian military casualties and the forced conscription by Ukraine's military? Even our retired generals and former CIA, FBI, NSA and Homeland Security officials, who serve as analysts on networks such as CNN and MSNBC, can't say the offensive has succeeded.

And what of the Ukrainian democracy we are fighting to protect? Why did the Ukrainian parliament revoke the official use of minority languages, including Russian, three days after the 2014 coup? How do we rationalize the eight years of warfare against ethnic Russians in the Donbass region before the Russian invasion in February 2022? How do we explain the killing of more than 14,200 people and the 1.5 million who were displaced, before Russia's invasion took place last year?
How do we defend Zelenskyy's decision to ban 11 opposition parties, many of them on the left, while allowing fascists from the Svoboda and Right Sector parties, as well as the Banderite Azov Battalion and other extremist militias, to flourish?

How do we defend the decision by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to ban 11 opposition parties, including the Opposition Platform for Life, which had 10 percent of the seats in the Supreme Council, Ukraine's unicameral parliament, along with the Shariy Party, Nashi, Opposition Bloc, Left Opposition, Union of Left Forces, State, Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, Socialist Party of Ukraine, Socialists Party and Volodymyr Saldo Bloc? How can we accept the banning of these opposition parties many of which are on the left while Zelenskyy allows fascists from the Svoboda and Right Sector parties, as well as the Banderite Azov Battalion and other extremist militias, to flourish?

How do we deal with the anti-Russian purges and arrests of supposed "fifth columnists" sweeping through Ukraine, given that 30 percent of Ukraine's inhabitants are Russian speakers? How do we respond to the neo-Nazi groups supported by Zelenskyy's government that harass and attack the LGBTQ community, the Roma population and anti-fascist protesters, and threaten city council members, media outlets, artists and foreign students? How can we countenance the decision by the U.S and its Western allies to block negotiations with Russia to end the war, despite Kyiv and Moscow apparently being on the verge of negotiating a peace treaty?
I reported from Eastern and Central Europe in 1989 during the breakup of the Soviet Union. NATO, we assumed at the time, had become obsolete. Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev proposed security and economic agreements with Washington and Europe. Secretary of State James Baker, along with West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured Gorbachev that NATO would not be extended beyond the borders of a unified Germany. We naively thought the end of the Cold War meant that Russia, Europe and the U.S. would no longer have to divert massive resources to their militaries.
The so-called "peace dividend," however, was a chimera.

If Russia did not want to be the enemy, Russia would be forced to become the enemy. The pimps of war recruited former Soviet republics into NATO by painting Russia as a threat. Countries that joined NATO, which now include Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia, reconfigured their militaries, often through tens of millions in Western loans, to become compatible with NATO military hardware. This made the weapons manufacturers billions in profits.

It was universally understood in Eastern and Central Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union that NATO expansion was unnecessary and a dangerous provocation. It made no geopolitical sense. But it made commercial sense. War is a business.

In a classified diplomatic cable obtained and released by WikiLeaks dated Feb. 1, 2008, written from Moscow and addressed to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the NATO-European Union Cooperative, the National Security Council, the Russia Moscow Political Collective, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, there was an unequivocal understanding that expanding NATO risked conflict with Russia, especially over Ukraine:
Quote:

Not only does Russia perceive encirclement [by NATO], and efforts to undermine Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face. ...
Dmitri Trenin, Deputy Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, expressed concern that Ukraine was, in the long-term, the most potentially destabilizing factor in U.S.-Russian relations, given the level of emotion and neuralgia triggered by its quest for NATO membership. ... Because membership remained divisive in Ukrainian domestic politics, it created an opening for Russian intervention. Trenin expressed concern that elements within the Russian establishment would be encouraged to meddle, stimulating U.S. overt encouragement of opposing political forces, and leaving the U.S. and Russia in a classic confrontational posture.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine would not have happened if the Western alliance had honored its promises not to expand NATO beyond Germany's borders and Ukraine had remained neutral. The pimps of war knew the potential consequences of NATO expansion. War, however, is their single-minded vocation, even if it leads to a nuclear holocaust with Russia or China.
The war industry, not Putin, is our most dangerous enemy.


China is our most dangerous enemy .

As they have bought at least 25% of our federal leadership .
China can't fight their way out of a paper bag. Ask Vietnam how tough they think the Chinese are. Vietnam kicked their a$$ in 1979. It was embarrassing. They can't make a decision at the battalion, or lower unit size to save their live. Not able to make a decision on their own for fear of being executed.
KaiBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
One-Eyed Wheeler said:

KaiBear said:

Mothra said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lied-afghanistan-lied-iraq-now-160001611.html

They lied about Afghanistan. They lied about Iraq. Now they're lying about Ukraine

The playbook the pimps of war use to lure us into one military fiasco after another, including Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Ukraine, does not change. Freedom and democracy are threatened. Evil must be vanquished. Human rights must be protected. The fate of Europe and NATO, along with a "rules-based international order" is at stake. Victory is assured.

The results are also the same. The justifications and narratives are exposed as lies. The cheery prognosis is false. Those on whose behalf we are supposedly fighting are as venal as those we are fighting against.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a war crime, although one that was provoked by NATO expansion and by U.S. backing of the 2014 "Maidan" coup, which ousted democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych wanted economic integration with the EU, but not at the expense of economic and political ties with Russia. The war will only be solved through negotiations that allow ethnic Russians in Ukraine to have autonomy and Moscow's protection, as well as Ukrainian neutrality, which means the country cannot join NATO. The longer these negotiations are delayed the more Ukrainians will suffer and die. Their cities and infrastructure will continue to be pounded into rubble.

But this proxy war in Ukraine is designed to serve U.S. interests. It enriches the weapons manufacturers, weakens the Russian military and isolates Russia from Europe. What happens to Ukraine is irrelevant.

"First, equipping our friends on the front lines to defend themselves is a far cheaper way in both dollars and American lives to degrade Russia's ability to threaten the United States," admitted Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

Once the truth about these endless wars seeps into public consciousness, the media drastically reduces coverage. The military debacles, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue largely out of view.
"Second, Ukraine's effective defense of its territory is teaching us lessons about how to improve the defenses of partners who are threatened by China. It is no surprise that senior officials from Taiwan are so supportive of efforts to help Ukraine defeat Russia. Third, most of the money that's been appropriated for Ukraine security assistance doesn't actually go to Ukraine. It gets invested in American defense manufacturing. It funds new weapons and munitions for the U.S. armed forces to replace the older material we have provided to Ukraine. Let me be clear: This assistance means more jobs for American workers and newer weapons for American service members."

Once the truth about these endless wars seeps into public consciousness, the media, which slavishly promotes these conflicts, drastically reduces coverage. The military debacles, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue largely out of view. By the time the U.S. concedes defeat, most barely remember that these wars are being fought.

The pimps of war who orchestrate these military fiascos migrate from administration to administration. Between posts they are ensconced in think tanks Project for the New American Century, the American Enterprise Institute, Foreign Policy Initiative, Institute for the Study of War, the Atlantic Council and the Brookings Institution funded by corporations and the war industry. Once the Ukraine war comes to its inevitable conclusion, these Dr. Strangeloves will seek to ignite a war with China. The U.S. Navy and military are already menacing and encircling China. God help us if we don't stop them.

These pimps of war con us into one conflict after another with flattering narratives that paint us as the world's saviors. They don't even have to be innovative. The rhetoric is lifted from the old playbook. We naively swallow the bait and embrace the flag this time blue and yellow to become unwitting agents in our self-immolation.

Since the end of the Second World War, the government has spent between 45 to 90 percent of the federal budget on past, current and future military operations. It is the largest sustained activity of the U.S. government. It has stopped mattering at least to the pimps of war whether these wars are rational or prudent. The war industry metastasizes within the bowels of the American empire to hollow it out from the inside. The U.S. is reviled abroad, drowning in debt, has an impoverished working class and is burdened with a decayed infrastructure as well as shoddy social services.
Wasn't the Russian military because of poor morale, poor generalship, outdated weapons, desertions, a lack of ammunition that supposedly forced soldiers to fight with shovels, and severe supply shortages supposed to collapse months ago? Wasn't Putin supposed to be driven from power? Weren't the sanctions supposed to plunge the ruble into a death spiral? Wasn't the severing of the Russian banking system from SWIFT, the international money transfer system, supposed to cripple the Russian economy? How is it that inflation rates in Europe and the U.S. are higher than in Russia despite these attacks on the Russian economy?
Wasn't the nearly $150 billion in sophisticated military hardware, financial and humanitarian assistance pledged by the U.S., EU and 11 other countries supposed to have turned the tide of the war? How is it that perhaps a third of the tanks Germany and the U.S. provided were swiftly turned by Russian mines, artillery, anti-tank weapons, air strikes and missiles into charred hunks of metal at the start of the vaunted counteroffensive? Wasn't this latest Ukrainian counteroffensive, which was originally known as the "spring offensive," supposed to punch through Russia's heavily fortified front lines and regain huge swathes of territory? How can we explain the tens of thousands of Ukrainian military casualties and the forced conscription by Ukraine's military? Even our retired generals and former CIA, FBI, NSA and Homeland Security officials, who serve as analysts on networks such as CNN and MSNBC, can't say the offensive has succeeded.

And what of the Ukrainian democracy we are fighting to protect? Why did the Ukrainian parliament revoke the official use of minority languages, including Russian, three days after the 2014 coup? How do we rationalize the eight years of warfare against ethnic Russians in the Donbass region before the Russian invasion in February 2022? How do we explain the killing of more than 14,200 people and the 1.5 million who were displaced, before Russia's invasion took place last year?
How do we defend Zelenskyy's decision to ban 11 opposition parties, many of them on the left, while allowing fascists from the Svoboda and Right Sector parties, as well as the Banderite Azov Battalion and other extremist militias, to flourish?

How do we defend the decision by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to ban 11 opposition parties, including the Opposition Platform for Life, which had 10 percent of the seats in the Supreme Council, Ukraine's unicameral parliament, along with the Shariy Party, Nashi, Opposition Bloc, Left Opposition, Union of Left Forces, State, Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, Socialist Party of Ukraine, Socialists Party and Volodymyr Saldo Bloc? How can we accept the banning of these opposition parties many of which are on the left while Zelenskyy allows fascists from the Svoboda and Right Sector parties, as well as the Banderite Azov Battalion and other extremist militias, to flourish?

How do we deal with the anti-Russian purges and arrests of supposed "fifth columnists" sweeping through Ukraine, given that 30 percent of Ukraine's inhabitants are Russian speakers? How do we respond to the neo-Nazi groups supported by Zelenskyy's government that harass and attack the LGBTQ community, the Roma population and anti-fascist protesters, and threaten city council members, media outlets, artists and foreign students? How can we countenance the decision by the U.S and its Western allies to block negotiations with Russia to end the war, despite Kyiv and Moscow apparently being on the verge of negotiating a peace treaty?
I reported from Eastern and Central Europe in 1989 during the breakup of the Soviet Union. NATO, we assumed at the time, had become obsolete. Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev proposed security and economic agreements with Washington and Europe. Secretary of State James Baker, along with West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured Gorbachev that NATO would not be extended beyond the borders of a unified Germany. We naively thought the end of the Cold War meant that Russia, Europe and the U.S. would no longer have to divert massive resources to their militaries.
The so-called "peace dividend," however, was a chimera.

If Russia did not want to be the enemy, Russia would be forced to become the enemy. The pimps of war recruited former Soviet republics into NATO by painting Russia as a threat. Countries that joined NATO, which now include Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia, reconfigured their militaries, often through tens of millions in Western loans, to become compatible with NATO military hardware. This made the weapons manufacturers billions in profits.

It was universally understood in Eastern and Central Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union that NATO expansion was unnecessary and a dangerous provocation. It made no geopolitical sense. But it made commercial sense. War is a business.

In a classified diplomatic cable obtained and released by WikiLeaks dated Feb. 1, 2008, written from Moscow and addressed to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the NATO-European Union Cooperative, the National Security Council, the Russia Moscow Political Collective, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, there was an unequivocal understanding that expanding NATO risked conflict with Russia, especially over Ukraine:
Quote:

Not only does Russia perceive encirclement [by NATO], and efforts to undermine Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face. ...
Dmitri Trenin, Deputy Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, expressed concern that Ukraine was, in the long-term, the most potentially destabilizing factor in U.S.-Russian relations, given the level of emotion and neuralgia triggered by its quest for NATO membership. ... Because membership remained divisive in Ukrainian domestic politics, it created an opening for Russian intervention. Trenin expressed concern that elements within the Russian establishment would be encouraged to meddle, stimulating U.S. overt encouragement of opposing political forces, and leaving the U.S. and Russia in a classic confrontational posture.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine would not have happened if the Western alliance had honored its promises not to expand NATO beyond Germany's borders and Ukraine had remained neutral. The pimps of war knew the potential consequences of NATO expansion. War, however, is their single-minded vocation, even if it leads to a nuclear holocaust with Russia or China.
The war industry, not Putin, is our most dangerous enemy.


China is our most dangerous enemy .

As they have bought at least 25% of our federal leadership .
China can't fight their way out of a paper bag.


US army generals thought the same thing during the Korean War. They ignored repeated Chinese warnings and invaded North Korea .

Only total US air superiority kept several of our divisions from being annihilated by the Chinese.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Don't disagree with this, but NATO's eastern expansion - or fear of it - has been cited by Russia as a cause of their operation. If security guaranties had been made - instead of bellicose rhetoric - Biden could have avoided this conflict in all likelihood.

I don't agree with everything in this article, but he is correct we are indeed using this as an opportunity to weaken Russia using Ukrainian lives. It's despicable. But you neocons love your proxy wars.
ron.reagan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
China is competent. It is not likely they will destroy themselves like Russia has.

Anyone that acts like Russia invading Ukraine is not the best thing to ever happen to US national interests is simply a fool.
Frank Galvin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Don't disagree with this, but NATO's eastern expansion - or fear of it - has been cited by Russia as a cause of their operation. If security guaranties had been made - instead of bellicose rhetoric - Biden could have avoided this conflict in all likelihood.

I don't agree with everything in this article, but he is correct
we are indeed using this as an opportunity to weaken Russia using Ukrainian lives. It's despicable. But you neocons love your proxy wars.


Two things can be true. We can believe the current Ukrainian government is the best, albeit imperfect, expression of how Ukrainians wish to be governed. That government therefore deserves assistance fending off a Russian invasion.

We can also recognize that one of our two great adversaries has stumbled into something that greatly weakens them.

Whatever the more important reason, we did not attack a sovereign nation. And we are not causing the Ukrainians to fight back. They are risking their lives all on their own. Our assistance greatly improves their chance of achieving a result they can live with. That's not despicable.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frank Galvin said:

Mothra said:

Don't disagree with this, but NATO's eastern expansion - or fear of it - has been cited by Russia as a cause of their operation. If security guaranties had been made - instead of bellicose rhetoric - Biden could have avoided this conflict in all likelihood.

I don't agree with everything in this article, but he is correct
we are indeed using this as an opportunity to weaken Russia using Ukrainian lives. It's despicable. But you neocons love your proxy wars.


Two things can be true. We can believe the current Ukrainian government is the best, albeit imperfect, expression of how Ukrainians wish to be governed. That government therefore deserves assistance fending off a Russian invasion.

We can also recognize that one of our two great adversaries has stumbled into something that greatly weakens them.

Whatever the more important reason, we did not attack a sovereign nation. And we are not causing the Ukrainians to fight back. They are risking their lives all on their own. Our assistance greatly improves their chance of achieving a result they can live with. That's not despicable.
More Ukrainians are going to die as a result of us escalating war with Russia instead of us brokering peace.

We're about to get them into NATO and put US troops on the ground.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Don't disagree with this, but NATO's eastern expansion - or fear of it - has been cited by Russia as a cause of their operation. If security guaranties had been made - instead of bellicose rhetoric - Biden could have avoided this conflict in all likelihood.

I don't agree with everything in this article, but he is correct we are indeed using this as an opportunity to weaken Russia using Ukrainian lives. It's despicable. But you neocons love your proxy wars.
Do you really believe what Putin cites as a reason for anything? I doubt it. He has similar excuses for his activities and incursions elswhere around the world. I do believe that Biden sent a mixed message early on, essentially inviting Putin to move on Ukraine. He may not have taken that step, if Biden hadn't signaled lack of resolve to Russian aggression.

I've got a question for you. Unlike, Afghanisistan, Iraq, the people of Ukraine want to live in a western style democracy, and they are putting their lives on the line paying in blood for it. Are they not more deserving of our/western financial support, in the face of Russianand Chinese active and threatened agression, than places like Iraq, Afghanistan and elswhere? There is a reason China has locked up 80% of the rare earth elements, and seeks control high tech components, and natural resources. Russia is nothing more than a Chinese proxy now, with its proximal vast natural resources available for China's beck and call. We're lucky that appeasement and isolationism didn't cost us WWII. We may not be so lucky this time. U. S. taking the lead and recognizing its importance on the world stage post WWII is the only reason Russia and China have been curtailed. Don't forget, Russia (and less overtly China also) has actively supported forces aligned against the ideals of western democracy around the world. Isolationism and appeasement is a recipe and invitation for Chinese and their proxies agression/domination.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ron.reagan said:

China is competent. It is not likely they will destroy themselves like Russia has.

Anyone that acts like Russia invading Ukraine is not the best thing to ever happen to US national interests is simply a fool.


Yes, you Dems and Neocons haven't met a foreign war you don'T like. What's a few billion dollars and a few thousand dead Vietnamese, Iraqis, Afghanis, Ukrainians, __________ as long as it supposedly furthers our national interests?
Frank Galvin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Frank Galvin said:

Mothra said:

Don't disagree with this, but NATO's eastern expansion - or fear of it - has been cited by Russia as a cause of their operation. If security guaranties had been made - instead of bellicose rhetoric - Biden could have avoided this conflict in all likelihood.

I don't agree with everything in this article, but he is correct
we are indeed using this as an opportunity to weaken Russia using Ukrainian lives. It's despicable. But you neocons love your proxy wars.


Two things can be true. We can believe the current Ukrainian government is the best, albeit imperfect, expression of how Ukrainians wish to be governed. That government therefore deserves assistance fending off a Russian invasion.

We can also recognize that one of our two great adversaries has stumbled into something that greatly weakens them.

Whatever the more important reason, we did not attack a sovereign nation. And we are not causing the Ukrainians to fight back. They are risking their lives all on their own. Our assistance greatly improves their chance of achieving a result they can live with. That's not despicable.
More Ukrainians are going to die as a result of us escalating war with Russia instead of us brokering peace.

We're about to get them into NATO and put US troops on the ground.
Right. "Brokering peace" with Putin that would not leave Ukraine as a Russiam-dominated client state is super easy, particularly where the Ukraine military is left defenseless. Sometimes the best answer is still not a good answer.

Criticism of the decades-long NATO buildup as a threat to Russia I understand and even have some symapthy for, but I think the folks living in Eastern Europe are happier for it. But prior eastward expansion of NATO's influence does not equate to the best course of action being allowing Ukraine to be swallowed up.

If we put American servicemen and women at risk, I will agree we have gone too far.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frank Galvin said:

Doc Holliday said:

Frank Galvin said:

Mothra said:

Don't disagree with this, but NATO's eastern expansion - or fear of it - has been cited by Russia as a cause of their operation. If security guaranties had been made - instead of bellicose rhetoric - Biden could have avoided this conflict in all likelihood.

I don't agree with everything in this article, but he is correct
we are indeed using this as an opportunity to weaken Russia using Ukrainian lives. It's despicable. But you neocons love your proxy wars.


Two things can be true. We can believe the current Ukrainian government is the best, albeit imperfect, expression of how Ukrainians wish to be governed. That government therefore deserves assistance fending off a Russian invasion.

We can also recognize that one of our two great adversaries has stumbled into something that greatly weakens them.

Whatever the more important reason, we did not attack a sovereign nation. And we are not causing the Ukrainians to fight back. They are risking their lives all on their own. Our assistance greatly improves their chance of achieving a result they can live with. That's not despicable.
More Ukrainians are going to die as a result of us escalating war with Russia instead of us brokering peace.

We're about to get them into NATO and put US troops on the ground.
Right. "Brokering peace" with Putin that would not leave Ukraine as a Russiam-dominated client state is super easy, particularly where the Ukraine military is left defenseless. Sometimes the best answer is still not a good answer.

Criticism of the decades-long NATO buildup as a threat to Russia I understand and even have some symapthy for, but I think the folks living in Eastern Europe are happier for it. But prior eastward expansion of NATO's influence does not equate to the best course of action being allowing Ukraine to be swallowed up.

If we put American servicemen and women at risk, I will agree we have gone too far.
I mean they're telling us that's what's going to happen and what they want to happen.

The plan is to add Ukraine to NATO so we can go from fighting a proxy war to a direct war with Russia.



I mean after Afghanistan why on earth would we believe otherwise? They were itching to get US troops on the ground back then and nothing has changed since.
BearN
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ron.reagan said:



Anyone that acts like Russia invading Ukraine is not the best thing to ever happen to US national interests is simply a fool.

The logical reasoning demonstrated here is ... nonexistent.

Surely you can present some facts and make some actual points.

How is weakening an already weak adversary that posed little threat to us, that is now costing us hundreds of billions of dollars and putting the world at high risk of nuclear war the "best thing to ever happen to US national interests?" Try to do this from the perspective of someone who is not a major shareholder of a US Arms manufacturer.
KaiBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ron.reagan said:

China is competent. It is not likely they will destroy themselves like Russia has.

Anyone that acts like Russia invading Ukraine is not the best thing to ever happen to US national interests is simply a fool.


No doubt the 10's of thousands of Ukrainian families who have had loved ones killed are grateful to be manipulated into serving '' US interests '.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Mothra said:

Don't disagree with this, but NATO's eastern expansion - or fear of it - has been cited by Russia as a cause of their operation. If security guaranties had been made - instead of bellicose rhetoric - Biden could have avoided this conflict in all likelihood.

I don't agree with everything in this article, but he is correct we are indeed using this as an opportunity to weaken Russia using Ukrainian lives. It's despicable. But you neocons love your proxy wars.
Do you really believe what Putin cites as a reason for anything? I doubt it. He has similar excuses for his activities and incursions elswhere around the world. I do believe that Biden sent a mixed message early on, essentially inviting Putin to move on Ukraine. He may not have taken that step, if Biden hadn't signaled lack of resolve to Russian aggression.

I've got a question for you. Unlike, Afghanisistan, Iraq, the people of Ukraine want to live in a western style democracy, and they are putting their lives on the line paying in blood for it. Are they not more deserving of our/western financial support, in the face of Russianand Chinese active and threatened agression, than places like Iraq, Afghanistan and elswhere? There is a reason China has locked up 80% of the rare earth elements, and seeks control high tech components, and natural resources. Russia is nothing more than a Chinese proxy now, with its proximal vast natural resources available for China's beck and call. We're lucky that appeasement and isolationism didn't cost us WWII. We may not be so lucky this time. U. S. taking the lead and recognizing its importance on the world stage post WWII is the only reason Russia and China have been curtailed. Don't forget, Russia (and less overtly China also) has actively supported forces aligned against the ideals of western democracy around the world. Isolationism and appeasement is a recipe and invitation for Chinese and their proxies agression/domination.


We will never know if Putin would have forgone the invasion because Biden never tried to diffuse the situation. He wanted a proxy war with Russia and his bellicose rhetoric got us exactly that. I know that is red meat for neocons such as yourself. I'm glad that brand of conservatism is dying a slow death. You guys love your wars.

I never said we should provide no support for Ukraine. What I said is the current admin could have done much to diffuse the situation and didn't. As a result Ukraine is in a quagmire where numerous Ukrainians will be killed . They've proven they are unable to push Russia out of their territory so what's the end game here? More blood? Are we going to continue to fund this bloody war indefinitely?
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

If Russia did not want to be the enemy, Russia would be forced to become the enemy. The pimps of war recruited former Soviet republics into NATO by painting Russia as a threat. Countries that joined NATO, which now include Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia, reconfigured their militaries, often through tens of millions in Western loans, to become compatible with NATO military hardware. This made the weapons manufacturers billions in profits.


Only a slightly creative way of reframing an unprovoked invasion. I think the right wing zealots are parroting Putin's narrative of "we were forced into this! It was either Nato aggression or we invade first!" to cover themselves in the event Trump really does turn out to be a Russian plant. The only way I see such a turnaround from the deep anti-communist hatred going back how long? Anything for dear leader, even uniting with... another dear leader.

In a parallel timeline, the American right wing is already embracing communism. I know, hold on Porteroso, this one is crazy enough.
TWD 1974
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lied-afghanistan-lied-iraq-now-160001611.html

They lied about Afghanistan. They lied about Iraq. Now they're lying about Ukraine

The playbook the pimps of war use to lure us into one military fiasco after another, including Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Ukraine, does not change. Freedom and democracy are threatened. Evil must be vanquished. Human rights must be protected. The fate of Europe and NATO, along with a "rules-based international order" is at stake. Victory is assured.

The results are also the same. The justifications and narratives are exposed as lies. The cheery prognosis is false. Those on whose behalf we are supposedly fighting are as venal as those we are fighting against.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a war crime, although one that was provoked by NATO expansion and by U.S. backing of the 2014 "Maidan" coup, which ousted democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych wanted economic integration with the EU, but not at the expense of economic and political ties with Russia. The war will only be solved through negotiations that allow ethnic Russians in Ukraine to have autonomy and Moscow's protection, as well as Ukrainian neutrality, which means the country cannot join NATO. The longer these negotiations are delayed the more Ukrainians will suffer and die. Their cities and infrastructure will continue to be pounded into rubble.

But this proxy war in Ukraine is designed to serve U.S. interests. It enriches the weapons manufacturers, weakens the Russian military and isolates Russia from Europe. What happens to Ukraine is irrelevant.

"First, equipping our friends on the front lines to defend themselves is a far cheaper way in both dollars and American lives to degrade Russia's ability to threaten the United States," admitted Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

Once the truth about these endless wars seeps into public consciousness, the media drastically reduces coverage. The military debacles, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue largely out of view.
"Second, Ukraine's effective defense of its territory is teaching us lessons about how to improve the defenses of partners who are threatened by China. It is no surprise that senior officials from Taiwan are so supportive of efforts to help Ukraine defeat Russia. Third, most of the money that's been appropriated for Ukraine security assistance doesn't actually go to Ukraine. It gets invested in American defense manufacturing. It funds new weapons and munitions for the U.S. armed forces to replace the older material we have provided to Ukraine. Let me be clear: This assistance means more jobs for American workers and newer weapons for American service members."

Once the truth about these endless wars seeps into public consciousness, the media, which slavishly promotes these conflicts, drastically reduces coverage. The military debacles, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue largely out of view. By the time the U.S. concedes defeat, most barely remember that these wars are being fought.

The pimps of war who orchestrate these military fiascos migrate from administration to administration. Between posts they are ensconced in think tanks Project for the New American Century, the American Enterprise Institute, Foreign Policy Initiative, Institute for the Study of War, the Atlantic Council and the Brookings Institution funded by corporations and the war industry. Once the Ukraine war comes to its inevitable conclusion, these Dr. Strangeloves will seek to ignite a war with China. The U.S. Navy and military are already menacing and encircling China. God help us if we don't stop them.

These pimps of war con us into one conflict after another with flattering narratives that paint us as the world's saviors. They don't even have to be innovative. The rhetoric is lifted from the old playbook. We naively swallow the bait and embrace the flag this time blue and yellow to become unwitting agents in our self-immolation.

Since the end of the Second World War, the government has spent between 45 to 90 percent of the federal budget on past, current and future military operations. It is the largest sustained activity of the U.S. government. It has stopped mattering at least to the pimps of war whether these wars are rational or prudent. The war industry metastasizes within the bowels of the American empire to hollow it out from the inside. The U.S. is reviled abroad, drowning in debt, has an impoverished working class and is burdened with a decayed infrastructure as well as shoddy social services.
Wasn't the Russian military because of poor morale, poor generalship, outdated weapons, desertions, a lack of ammunition that supposedly forced soldiers to fight with shovels, and severe supply shortages supposed to collapse months ago? Wasn't Putin supposed to be driven from power? Weren't the sanctions supposed to plunge the ruble into a death spiral? Wasn't the severing of the Russian banking system from SWIFT, the international money transfer system, supposed to cripple the Russian economy? How is it that inflation rates in Europe and the U.S. are higher than in Russia despite these attacks on the Russian economy?
Wasn't the nearly $150 billion in sophisticated military hardware, financial and humanitarian assistance pledged by the U.S., EU and 11 other countries supposed to have turned the tide of the war? How is it that perhaps a third of the tanks Germany and the U.S. provided were swiftly turned by Russian mines, artillery, anti-tank weapons, air strikes and missiles into charred hunks of metal at the start of the vaunted counteroffensive? Wasn't this latest Ukrainian counteroffensive, which was originally known as the "spring offensive," supposed to punch through Russia's heavily fortified front lines and regain huge swathes of territory? How can we explain the tens of thousands of Ukrainian military casualties and the forced conscription by Ukraine's military? Even our retired generals and former CIA, FBI, NSA and Homeland Security officials, who serve as analysts on networks such as CNN and MSNBC, can't say the offensive has succeeded.

And what of the Ukrainian democracy we are fighting to protect? Why did the Ukrainian parliament revoke the official use of minority languages, including Russian, three days after the 2014 coup? How do we rationalize the eight years of warfare against ethnic Russians in the Donbass region before the Russian invasion in February 2022? How do we explain the killing of more than 14,200 people and the 1.5 million who were displaced, before Russia's invasion took place last year?
How do we defend Zelenskyy's decision to ban 11 opposition parties, many of them on the left, while allowing fascists from the Svoboda and Right Sector parties, as well as the Banderite Azov Battalion and other extremist militias, to flourish?

How do we defend the decision by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to ban 11 opposition parties, including the Opposition Platform for Life, which had 10 percent of the seats in the Supreme Council, Ukraine's unicameral parliament, along with the Shariy Party, Nashi, Opposition Bloc, Left Opposition, Union of Left Forces, State, Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, Socialist Party of Ukraine, Socialists Party and Volodymyr Saldo Bloc? How can we accept the banning of these opposition parties many of which are on the left while Zelenskyy allows fascists from the Svoboda and Right Sector parties, as well as the Banderite Azov Battalion and other extremist militias, to flourish?

How do we deal with the anti-Russian purges and arrests of supposed "fifth columnists" sweeping through Ukraine, given that 30 percent of Ukraine's inhabitants are Russian speakers? How do we respond to the neo-Nazi groups supported by Zelenskyy's government that harass and attack the LGBTQ community, the Roma population and anti-fascist protesters, and threaten city council members, media outlets, artists and foreign students? How can we countenance the decision by the U.S and its Western allies to block negotiations with Russia to end the war, despite Kyiv and Moscow apparently being on the verge of negotiating a peace treaty?
I reported from Eastern and Central Europe in 1989 during the breakup of the Soviet Union. NATO, we assumed at the time, had become obsolete. Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev proposed security and economic agreements with Washington and Europe. Secretary of State James Baker, along with West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured Gorbachev that NATO would not be extended beyond the borders of a unified Germany. We naively thought the end of the Cold War meant that Russia, Europe and the U.S. would no longer have to divert massive resources to their militaries.
The so-called "peace dividend," however, was a chimera.

If Russia did not want to be the enemy, Russia would be forced to become the enemy. The pimps of war recruited former Soviet republics into NATO by painting Russia as a threat. Countries that joined NATO, which now include Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia, reconfigured their militaries, often through tens of millions in Western loans, to become compatible with NATO military hardware. This made the weapons manufacturers billions in profits.

It was universally understood in Eastern and Central Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union that NATO expansion was unnecessary and a dangerous provocation. It made no geopolitical sense. But it made commercial sense. War is a business.

In a classified diplomatic cable obtained and released by WikiLeaks dated Feb. 1, 2008, written from Moscow and addressed to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the NATO-European Union Cooperative, the National Security Council, the Russia Moscow Political Collective, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, there was an unequivocal understanding that expanding NATO risked conflict with Russia, especially over Ukraine:
Quote:

Not only does Russia perceive encirclement [by NATO], and efforts to undermine Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face. ...
Dmitri Trenin, Deputy Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, expressed concern that Ukraine was, in the long-term, the most potentially destabilizing factor in U.S.-Russian relations, given the level of emotion and neuralgia triggered by its quest for NATO membership. ... Because membership remained divisive in Ukrainian domestic politics, it created an opening for Russian intervention. Trenin expressed concern that elements within the Russian establishment would be encouraged to meddle, stimulating U.S. overt encouragement of opposing political forces, and leaving the U.S. and Russia in a classic confrontational posture.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine would not have happened if the Western alliance had honored its promises not to expand NATO beyond Germany's borders and Ukraine had remained neutral. The pimps of war knew the potential consequences of NATO expansion. War, however, is their single-minded vocation, even if it leads to a nuclear holocaust with Russia or China.
The war industry, not Putin, is our most dangerous enemy.
I apologize if I offend, but I find all of the above to be disinformative hogwash. Putin began stockpiling cash and resources more than a year in advance of the invasion, anticipating the sanctions that were coming. His invasion more than any conceivable action in the West has led to NATO expansion. Ukraine was not getting into NATO prior to the invasion -- it had not even formally applied. Germany and few others were blocking the way. Putin knew this. His demands for public assurances that neither Ukraine nor neighboring states would be allowed into NATO, was in effect a demand he be given a right of first refusal on NATO membership. In the 75 plus years of NATO, when has it ever acted offensively against anyone? Again, Putin knows in every corpuscle of his twisted cold brain that NATO would never attack him except in defense of a full out invasion of NATO countries.. He is playing us with a soviet doubletalk. All of this is on him.

“No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love Him.” 1 Corinthians 2:9
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Quote:

If Russia did not want to be the enemy, Russia would be forced to become the enemy. The pimps of war recruited former Soviet republics into NATO by painting Russia as a threat. Countries that joined NATO, which now include Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia, reconfigured their militaries, often through tens of millions in Western loans, to become compatible with NATO military hardware. This made the weapons manufacturers billions in profits.


Only a slightly creative way of reframing an unprovoked invasion. I think the right wing zealots are parroting Putin's narrative of "we were forced into this! It was either Nato aggression or we invade first!" to cover themselves in the event Trump really does turn out to be a Russian plant. The only way I see such a turnaround from the deep anti-communist hatred going back how long? Anything for dear leader, even uniting with... another dear leader.

In a parallel timeline, the American right wing is already embracing communism. I know, hold on Porteroso, this one is crazy enough.
Russia hasn't been communist for decades. Why should our policy be based on hatred?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frank Galvin said:

Mothra said:

Don't disagree with this, but NATO's eastern expansion - or fear of it - has been cited by Russia as a cause of their operation. If security guaranties had been made - instead of bellicose rhetoric - Biden could have avoided this conflict in all likelihood.

I don't agree with everything in this article, but he is correct
we are indeed using this as an opportunity to weaken Russia using Ukrainian lives. It's despicable. But you neocons love your proxy wars.


Two things can be true. We can believe the current Ukrainian government is the best, albeit imperfect, expression of how Ukrainians wish to be governed. That government therefore deserves assistance fending off a Russian invasion.

We can also recognize that one of our two great adversaries has stumbled into something that greatly weakens them.

Whatever the more important reason, we did not attack a sovereign nation. And we are not causing the Ukrainians to fight back. They are risking their lives all on their own. Our assistance greatly improves their chance of achieving a result they can live with. That's not despicable.
I don't think any of that is true. We're supporting a corrupt government, strengthening our adversaries, isolating ourselves, and destroying a country for no good reason. Most despicable thing I've seen the US do in my lifetime, and that's saying something. At least in Iraq we were willing to fight our own battle.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Quote:

If Russia did not want to be the enemy, Russia would be forced to become the enemy. The pimps of war recruited former Soviet republics into NATO by painting Russia as a threat. Countries that joined NATO, which now include Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia, reconfigured their militaries, often through tens of millions in Western loans, to become compatible with NATO military hardware. This made the weapons manufacturers billions in profits.


Only a slightly creative way of reframing an unprovoked invasion. I think the right wing zealots are parroting Putin's narrative of "we were forced into this! It was either Nato aggression or we invade first!" to cover themselves in the event Trump really does turn out to be a Russian plant. The only way I see such a turnaround from the deep anti-communist hatred going back how long? Anything for dear leader, even uniting with... another dear leader.

In a parallel timeline, the American right wing is already embracing communism. I know, hold on Porteroso, this one is crazy enough.


Chris Hegdes is an avowed socialist who writes for the liberal publication Salon. He has a long history of being anti-war - especially wars started by republicans. The idea that he's right wing or speaking for the right wing is laughable.

He makes some cogent points and some points I don't agree with, but to try to write him off as some crazy right winger is absurd.
william
How long do you want to ignore this user?
just leave bremond, our dear sweet beloved bremond, alone.

- kkm

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating chocolate muffin }

go bears!

dale 2028
TWD 1974
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Frank Galvin said:

Mothra said:

Don't disagree with this, but NATO's eastern expansion - or fear of it - has been cited by Russia as a cause of their operation. If security guaranties had been made - instead of bellicose rhetoric - Biden could have avoided this conflict in all likelihood.

I don't agree with everything in this article, but he is correct
we are indeed using this as an opportunity to weaken Russia using Ukrainian lives. It's despicable. But you neocons love your proxy wars.


Two things can be true. We can believe the current Ukrainian government is the best, albeit imperfect, expression of how Ukrainians wish to be governed. That government therefore deserves assistance fending off a Russian invasion.

We can also recognize that one of our two great adversaries has stumbled into something that greatly weakens them.

Whatever the more important reason, we did not attack a sovereign nation. And we are not causing the Ukrainians to fight back. They are risking their lives all on their own. Our assistance greatly improves their chance of achieving a result they can live with. That's not despicable.
I don't think any of that is true. We're supporting a corrupt government, strengthening our adversaries, isolating ourselves, and destroying a country for no good reason. Most despicable thing I've seen the US do in my lifetime, and that's saying something. At least in Iraq we were willing to fight our own battle.
You seem to be arguing against the last war. We invaded Iraq not because of any direct action of Iraq's leaders, but because of what we mistakenly thought they might have and what they might do if they had it. We strained our relations with a number of allies because of the pressure we put on them to support us.

Ukraine was invaded by an aggressor that has continued attacks against civilian populations. The support for our actions by Western Nations is as strong as anything since the Persian Gulf War. Do you honestly think Ukrainians would have just given up without our aid. Do you honestly think Putin's forces would have suddenly treated the citizens of Ukraine humanely if they had done so? Ten years ago, people said, "Crimea, that's what Putin really wanted." Now, they say, just Donbas (because the move on Kiev failed).

Finally, yes Ukraine has a long standing problem with corruption. So, apparently do we. If we were suddenly attacked, would we expect our would be allies to help us, or stand back and wonder if our current government was fully optimal?
“No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love Him.” 1 Corinthians 2:9
Frank Galvin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Frank Galvin said:

Mothra said:

Don't disagree with this, but NATO's eastern expansion - or fear of it - has been cited by Russia as a cause of their operation. If security guaranties had been made - instead of bellicose rhetoric - Biden could have avoided this conflict in all likelihood.

I don't agree with everything in this article, but he is correct
we are indeed using this as an opportunity to weaken Russia using Ukrainian lives. It's despicable. But you neocons love your proxy wars.


Two things can be true. We can believe the current Ukrainian government is the best, albeit imperfect, expression of how Ukrainians wish to be governed. That government therefore deserves assistance fending off a Russian invasion.

We can also recognize that one of our two great adversaries has stumbled into something that greatly weakens them.

Whatever the more important reason, we did not attack a sovereign nation. And we are not causing the Ukrainians to fight back. They are risking their lives all on their own. Our assistance greatly improves their chance of achieving a result they can live with. That's not despicable.
I don't think any of that is true. We're supporting a corrupt government, strengthening our adversaries, isolating ourselves, and destroying a country for no good reason. Most despicable thing I've seen the US do in my lifetime, and that's saying something. At least in Iraq we were willing to fight our own battle.
The Ukranians fought back before they knew how well they would be supplied. It is really tough to see that given the obvious will of the Ukranian people to avoid Russian domination how we just let them twist in the wind.

Our recent interventionist history gives me pause also, but the Ukraniains seem much more resolute that the South Vietnamese, the Iranians and the Afghanis about protecting themselves from would be oppressors. And it is not like American foreign policy post WWII is without its successes. Without the "neocons" Europe and South Korea would not be what they are today-free and prosperous.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TWD 1974 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Frank Galvin said:

Mothra said:

Don't disagree with this, but NATO's eastern expansion - or fear of it - has been cited by Russia as a cause of their operation. If security guaranties had been made - instead of bellicose rhetoric - Biden could have avoided this conflict in all likelihood.

I don't agree with everything in this article, but he is correct
we are indeed using this as an opportunity to weaken Russia using Ukrainian lives. It's despicable. But you neocons love your proxy wars.


Two things can be true. We can believe the current Ukrainian government is the best, albeit imperfect, expression of how Ukrainians wish to be governed. That government therefore deserves assistance fending off a Russian invasion.

We can also recognize that one of our two great adversaries has stumbled into something that greatly weakens them.

Whatever the more important reason, we did not attack a sovereign nation. And we are not causing the Ukrainians to fight back. They are risking their lives all on their own. Our assistance greatly improves their chance of achieving a result they can live with. That's not despicable.
I don't think any of that is true. We're supporting a corrupt government, strengthening our adversaries, isolating ourselves, and destroying a country for no good reason. Most despicable thing I've seen the US do in my lifetime, and that's saying something. At least in Iraq we were willing to fight our own battle.
Do you honestly think Ukrainians would have just given up without our aid.
I'm certain of it. We've scuttled negotiations at least half a dozen times before and since the invasion, including one deal where Ukraine would have agreed not to seek NATO membership. That's in addition to supporting a coup in 2014, building Ukraine's army from the ground up, and providing most of their equipment, training, and intelligence throughout the war.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

TWD 1974 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Frank Galvin said:

Mothra said:

Don't disagree with this, but NATO's eastern expansion - or fear of it - has been cited by Russia as a cause of their operation. If security guaranties had been made - instead of bellicose rhetoric - Biden could have avoided this conflict in all likelihood.

I don't agree with everything in this article, but he is correct
we are indeed using this as an opportunity to weaken Russia using Ukrainian lives. It's despicable. But you neocons love your proxy wars.


Two things can be true. We can believe the current Ukrainian government is the best, albeit imperfect, expression of how Ukrainians wish to be governed. That government therefore deserves assistance fending off a Russian invasion.

We can also recognize that one of our two great adversaries has stumbled into something that greatly weakens them.

Whatever the more important reason, we did not attack a sovereign nation. And we are not causing the Ukrainians to fight back. They are risking their lives all on their own. Our assistance greatly improves their chance of achieving a result they can live with. That's not despicable.
I don't think any of that is true. We're supporting a corrupt government, strengthening our adversaries, isolating ourselves, and destroying a country for no good reason. Most despicable thing I've seen the US do in my lifetime, and that's saying something. At least in Iraq we were willing to fight our own battle.
Do you honestly think Ukrainians would have just given up without our aid.
I'm certain of it. We've scuttled negotiations at least half a dozen times before and since the invasion, including one deal where Ukraine would have agreed not to seek NATO membership. That's in addition to supporting a coup in 2014, building Ukraine's army from the ground up, and providing most of their equipment, training, and intelligence throughout the war.
Yup. This war would have ended long ago without our involvement.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

TexasScientist said:

Mothra said:

Don't disagree with this, but NATO's eastern expansion - or fear of it - has been cited by Russia as a cause of their operation. If security guaranties had been made - instead of bellicose rhetoric - Biden could have avoided this conflict in all likelihood.

I don't agree with everything in this article, but he is correct we are indeed using this as an opportunity to weaken Russia using Ukrainian lives. It's despicable. But you neocons love your proxy wars.
Do you really believe what Putin cites as a reason for anything? I doubt it. He has similar excuses for his activities and incursions elswhere around the world. I do believe that Biden sent a mixed message early on, essentially inviting Putin to move on Ukraine. He may not have taken that step, if Biden hadn't signaled lack of resolve to Russian aggression.

I've got a question for you. Unlike, Afghanisistan, Iraq, the people of Ukraine want to live in a western style democracy, and they are putting their lives on the line paying in blood for it. Are they not more deserving of our/western financial support, in the face of Russianand Chinese active and threatened agression, than places like Iraq, Afghanistan and elswhere? There is a reason China has locked up 80% of the rare earth elements, and seeks control high tech components, and natural resources. Russia is nothing more than a Chinese proxy now, with its proximal vast natural resources available for China's beck and call. We're lucky that appeasement and isolationism didn't cost us WWII. We may not be so lucky this time. U. S. taking the lead and recognizing its importance on the world stage post WWII is the only reason Russia and China have been curtailed. Don't forget, Russia (and less overtly China also) has actively supported forces aligned against the ideals of western democracy around the world. Isolationism and appeasement is a recipe and invitation for Chinese and their proxies agression/domination.


We will never know if Putin would have forgone the invasion because Biden never tried to diffuse the situation. He wanted a proxy war with Russia and his bellicose rhetoric got us exactly that. I know that is red meat for neocons such as yourself. I'm glad that brand of conservatism is dying a slow death. You guys love your wars.

I never said we should provide no support for Ukraine. What I said is the current admin could have done much to diffuse the situation and didn't. As a result Ukraine is in a quagmire where numerous Ukrainians will be killed . They've proven they are unable to push Russia out of their territory so what's the end game here? More blood? Are we going to continue to fund this bloody war indefinitely?
Then it appears we agree on most points. They are in a quagmire of Biden's doing. We (Nato) should give them the weapons and munitions to win, and win quickly. Piecemeal delivery of weapons just in time will prolong the war, and cause more death an misery. Do you think Russia is entitled to Moldova?
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TWD 1974 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Frank Galvin said:

Mothra said:

Don't disagree with this, but NATO's eastern expansion - or fear of it - has been cited by Russia as a cause of their operation. If security guaranties had been made - instead of bellicose rhetoric - Biden could have avoided this conflict in all likelihood.

I don't agree with everything in this article, but he is correct
we are indeed using this as an opportunity to weaken Russia using Ukrainian lives. It's despicable. But you neocons love your proxy wars.


Two things can be true. We can believe the current Ukrainian government is the best, albeit imperfect, expression of how Ukrainians wish to be governed. That government therefore deserves assistance fending off a Russian invasion.

We can also recognize that one of our two great adversaries has stumbled into something that greatly weakens them.

Whatever the more important reason, we did not attack a sovereign nation. And we are not causing the Ukrainians to fight back. They are risking their lives all on their own. Our assistance greatly improves their chance of achieving a result they can live with. That's not despicable.
I don't think any of that is true. We're supporting a corrupt government, strengthening our adversaries, isolating ourselves, and destroying a country for no good reason. Most despicable thing I've seen the US do in my lifetime, and that's saying something. At least in Iraq we were willing to fight our own battle.
You seem to be arguing against the last war. We invaded Iraq not because of any direct action of Iraq's leaders, but because of what we mistakenly thought they might have and what they might do if they had it. We strained our relations with a number of allies because of the pressure we put on them to support us.

Ukraine was invaded by an aggressor that has continued attacks against civilian populations. The support for our actions by Western Nations is as strong as anything since the Persian Gulf War. Do you honestly think Ukrainians would have just given up without our aid. Do you honestly think Putin's forces would have suddenly treated the citizens of Ukraine humanely if they had done so? Ten years ago, people said, "Crimea, that's what Putin really wanted." Now, they say, just Donbas (because the move on Kiev failed).

Finally, yes Ukraine has a long standing problem with corruption. So, apparently do we. If we were suddenly attacked, would we expect our would be allies to help us, or stand back and wonder if our current government was fully optimal?
You willing to put US troops on the ground? Because that's where this is headed if we get desperate and work around NATO rules.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Frank Galvin said:

Mothra said:

Don't disagree with this, but NATO's eastern expansion - or fear of it - has been cited by Russia as a cause of their operation. If security guaranties had been made - instead of bellicose rhetoric - Biden could have avoided this conflict in all likelihood.

I don't agree with everything in this article, but he is correct
we are indeed using this as an opportunity to weaken Russia using Ukrainian lives. It's despicable. But you neocons love your proxy wars.


Two things can be true. We can believe the current Ukrainian government is the best, albeit imperfect, expression of how Ukrainians wish to be governed. That government therefore deserves assistance fending off a Russian invasion.

We can also recognize that one of our two great adversaries has stumbled into something that greatly weakens them.

Whatever the more important reason, we did not attack a sovereign nation. And we are not causing the Ukrainians to fight back. They are risking their lives all on their own. Our assistance greatly improves their chance of achieving a result they can live with. That's not despicable.
I don't think any of that is true. We're supporting a corrupt government, strengthening our adversaries, isolating ourselves, and destroying a country for no good reason. Most despicable thing I've seen the US do in my lifetime, and that's saying something. At least in Iraq we were willing to fight our own battle.
Strenghtneing our adversaries? Isolating ourselves? Destroying a country? Most despicable thing in your lifetime? Seems to me Russia is the one doing those things. They could end the war today.

I think the way we conducted the Vietnam war is the most despicable thing we've been involved in.

Though, China may be the big winner, without ever firing a shot.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Supposedly the Ukrainians are kicking ass and I keep hearing on the news that the Ukrainians aren't only holding their own, but they're making steady progress and pretty soon they'll be on the footsteps of Moscow ready to knock Putin on his ass.

If that's true then why are we sending them over a 100 units of cluster munitions? Joe Biden also just effectively admitted we have a munitions shortage btw.

How can we trust western legacy media reporting on this war when they all said Russia probably blew up Russia's bridge to Crimea many moons ago and just two days ago Ukraine admitted to doing it?

The narratives just aren't lining up with reality.
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

Frank Galvin said:

Mothra said:

Don't disagree with this, but NATO's eastern expansion - or fear of it - has been cited by Russia as a cause of their operation. If security guaranties had been made - instead of bellicose rhetoric - Biden could have avoided this conflict in all likelihood.

I don't agree with everything in this article, but he is correct
we are indeed using this as an opportunity to weaken Russia using Ukrainian lives. It's despicable. But you neocons love your proxy wars.


Two things can be true. We can believe the current Ukrainian government is the best, albeit imperfect, expression of how Ukrainians wish to be governed. That government therefore deserves assistance fending off a Russian invasion.

We can also recognize that one of our two great adversaries has stumbled into something that greatly weakens them.

Whatever the more important reason, we did not attack a sovereign nation. And we are not causing the Ukrainians to fight back. They are risking their lives all on their own. Our assistance greatly improves their chance of achieving a result they can live with. That's not despicable.
I don't think any of that is true. We're supporting a corrupt government, strengthening our adversaries, isolating ourselves, and destroying a country for no good reason. Most despicable thing I've seen the US do in my lifetime, and that's saying something. At least in Iraq we were willing to fight our own battle.
Strenghtneing our adversaries? Isolating ourselves? Destroying a country? Most despicable thing in your lifetime? Seems to me Russia is the one doing those things. They could end the war today.

I think the way we conducted the Vietnam war is the most despicable thing we've been involved in.

Though, China may be the big winner, without ever firing a shot.

This has been just about the worst outcome for China that they could have forseen.

They will get some cheap energy out of it in the near term, but the great decoupling from them has quietly begun in earnest. They wanted the "3 days to take Kyiv" outcome that Putin surely promised, a long protracted conflict that instead ties down their main potential ally is not at all helpful to them. If China moved on Taiwan now, they wouldn't expect Russia to be able to offer much/any assistance as things currently stand, meanwhile it's not likely that the US Pacific fleet is very distracted by events in Europe. Also, whether they were intentional or not, Biden's previous public comments about using US military power to defend Taiwan has to give China pause.

The West has demonstrated real resolve and strength so far, and Ukraine's continued survival completely trashes whatever calculus China was using to size up Taiwan. This conflict has shown that the tech advantage of the West over other peers is greater than was originally thought (we still haven't even debuted the high end stuff...), and so are our training and logistics capabilities.

The biggest thing China and Russia want is for us to elect leadership that will just let them keep whatever they can take by force for the sake of "peace". Lucky for them, that is basically the stance of the two leading opposition candidates running against Biden right now.
TWD 1974
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

TWD 1974 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Frank Galvin said:

Mothra said:

Don't disagree with this, but NATO's eastern expansion - or fear of it - has been cited by Russia as a cause of their operation. If security guaranties had been made - instead of bellicose rhetoric - Biden could have avoided this conflict in all likelihood.

I don't agree with everything in this article, but he is correct
we are indeed using this as an opportunity to weaken Russia using Ukrainian lives. It's despicable. But you neocons love your proxy wars.


Two things can be true. We can believe the current Ukrainian government is the best, albeit imperfect, expression of how Ukrainians wish to be governed. That government therefore deserves assistance fending off a Russian invasion.

We can also recognize that one of our two great adversaries has stumbled into something that greatly weakens them.

Whatever the more important reason, we did not attack a sovereign nation. And we are not causing the Ukrainians to fight back. They are risking their lives all on their own. Our assistance greatly improves their chance of achieving a result they can live with. That's not despicable.
I don't think any of that is true. We're supporting a corrupt government, strengthening our adversaries, isolating ourselves, and destroying a country for no good reason. Most despicable thing I've seen the US do in my lifetime, and that's saying something. At least in Iraq we were willing to fight our own battle.
Do you honestly think Ukrainians would have just given up without our aid.
I'm certain of it. We've scuttled negotiations at least half a dozen times before and since the invasion, including one deal where Ukraine would have agreed not to seek NATO membership. That's in addition to supporting a coup in 2014, building Ukraine's army from the ground up, and providing most of their equipment, training, and intelligence throughout the war.
If we were dictating terms to Ukraine, which I don't think we have been able to do. Ukraine and Zelensky may be unable to accept 20% less of itself than before the invasion, just as Putin cannot accept a full retreat. Both sides need to spin some sort of victory in order to stay in power, though clearly Ukraine is in a better position strategically at present. As to the notion that the war would have ended without US help, that does not jive with my observations. Russia suffered most of their 200k plus casualties in the horrific offensive toward Kiev last year (before a lot of our munitions had arrived). Since then, Russia has fought a mostly defensive war and relied on missile and drone assaults on urban areas. I don't see, based on the incompetence of Russian military last year, they were capable of taking Ukraine out even without our weapons.
“No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love Him.” 1 Corinthians 2:9
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TWD 1974 said:

Sam Lowry said:

TWD 1974 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Frank Galvin said:

Mothra said:

Don't disagree with this, but NATO's eastern expansion - or fear of it - has been cited by Russia as a cause of their operation. If security guaranties had been made - instead of bellicose rhetoric - Biden could have avoided this conflict in all likelihood.

I don't agree with everything in this article, but he is correct
we are indeed using this as an opportunity to weaken Russia using Ukrainian lives. It's despicable. But you neocons love your proxy wars.


Two things can be true. We can believe the current Ukrainian government is the best, albeit imperfect, expression of how Ukrainians wish to be governed. That government therefore deserves assistance fending off a Russian invasion.

We can also recognize that one of our two great adversaries has stumbled into something that greatly weakens them.

Whatever the more important reason, we did not attack a sovereign nation. And we are not causing the Ukrainians to fight back. They are risking their lives all on their own. Our assistance greatly improves their chance of achieving a result they can live with. That's not despicable.
I don't think any of that is true. We're supporting a corrupt government, strengthening our adversaries, isolating ourselves, and destroying a country for no good reason. Most despicable thing I've seen the US do in my lifetime, and that's saying something. At least in Iraq we were willing to fight our own battle.
Do you honestly think Ukrainians would have just given up without our aid.
I'm certain of it. We've scuttled negotiations at least half a dozen times before and since the invasion, including one deal where Ukraine would have agreed not to seek NATO membership. That's in addition to supporting a coup in 2014, building Ukraine's army from the ground up, and providing most of their equipment, training, and intelligence throughout the war.
If we were dictating terms to Ukraine, which I don't think we have been able to do. Ukraine and Zelensky may be unable to accept 20% less of itself than before the invasion, just as Putin cannot accept a full retreat. Both sides need to spin some sort of victory in order to stay in power, though clearly Ukraine is in a better position strategically at present. As to the notion that the war would have ended without US help, that does not jive with my observations. Russia suffered most of their 200k plus casualties in the horrific offensive toward Kiev last year (before a lot of our munitions had arrived). Since then, Russia has fought a mostly defensive war and relied on missile and drone assaults on urban areas. I don't see, based on the incompetence of Russian military last year, they were capable of taking Ukraine out even without our weapons.
They've been using our munitions from day one. We spent years helping them stockpile. Zelensky was ready to deal within weeks of the invasion, but Russia will never take a deal that the US rejects. They know too well who's behind all of this.

As for Ukraine's position, it could hardly be worse. They'll be lucky if Putin is even willing to negotiate at this point.
ron.reagan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KaiBear said:

ron.reagan said:

China is competent. It is not likely they will destroy themselves like Russia has.

Anyone that acts like Russia invading Ukraine is not the best thing to ever happen to US national interests is simply a fool.


No doubt the 10's of thousands of Ukrainian families who have had loved ones killed are grateful to be manipulated into serving '' US interests '.
No doubt if Russia came into your house and raped your family you would try to make a deal with them
Limited IQ Redneck in PU
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I always thought keeping other powers in check by engaging them overseas and or helping others engsge them overseas was a good thing.

To sit back and watch Russia gain assets till they are ready for the US would be a mistake.
Last Page
Page 1 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.