I just saw this document about the DoD pushing DEI: lies in the military's public schools:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YeueUfJVdsGRykCwQT8Jj8FFjpMxiAJi/view

Realitybites said:

---

whiterock said:

---

When did you fall in love with Russia?

---

I'm what you call an honest broker. When we're doing the right thing, I call it. When they are doing the right thing, I call it.
What, exactly, is Russia doing RIGHT here?
Why are they entitled to have all of Ukraine?
Where do their "rights" stop?
Where do Ukrainian rights start?
Does Nato have any interest at all in the fate of Ukraine?

Quote:

---

Why is an autocratic regime 1/10th the size of Nato entitled to have anything it wants?

---

When you say NATO, you really mean the United States, and to a lesser extent Turkey. The rest of the NATO countries couldn't win a straight up one on one fight with pre invasion Iraq.
Statements like that show how superficial is your understanding of the subject material. You should research a little more on the military abilities of Nato members, some of whom have the same kinds of strategic assets we have, assets which meet or exceed the capabilities of Russia.

The Bundeswehr doesn't even have enough H&Ks for its infantry.
In no small part, Germany's unwillingness to ever fully meet its Nato obligations reflects its keen awareness that the implicit secondary purpose of Nato is to negate the need for a large standing German army. If you don't understand that.....well, it's just another item on the long list of things you do not understand.

Describing one of the largest countries on the planet with the largest nuclear aresenal as you have is silly. Actually it's worse than silly - it's dangerous.
I have described Russia exactly as it is = an autocratic third world power with nuclear weapons. Neither Nato nor the USA, nor any of the Nato members with nuclear weapons & aircraft carriers & such has any reason to be any more afraid of Russia than Russia is of Nato.

There is a concept in sniper doctrine that your reasoning totally ignores = line of sight is reciprocal. If you can see your enemy, your enemy can see you. Every single argument you make for giving Russia deference applies by orders of magnitude MORE to Nato. It is Russia who should be treading more carefully here. They are a pip-squeak compared to the powers they are poking. They need to be reminded of that. If sending that lesson involves creating another half-million Russian casualties.....then let's get on with it. Eventually, they will have to learn that they are not the titan they think they are. Nato can write the check to do that, with ease. And will......

Quote:

---

Why does NATO have to tiptoe around Russia, rather than the other way around?
We have nukes, too, right? Does not Russia have any imperative to worry about what we will do with nukes?

---

In a post Hiroshima/Nagasaki world, everyone needs to tiptoe around everyone else.
Except Russia, you say. Russia can do any damned thing it wants, according to your policy. Because.....Russia!

Quote:

---

Here's an idea. Why don't we make the Black Sea a demilitarized zone. NO warships allowed. Fair proposal? That would render Russian basing requirements in the Crimea irrelevant, would it not?

---

Here's a better idea: we agree not to crash parties in Russia's backyard, they agree not to do it in ours. Then we get back to negotiating some arms control treaties.
LOL the reflexive false construction. WE are not crashing into Russia's backyard. Russia is crashing into Nato's backyard, literally invading with hundreds of thousands of troops a sovereign nation touching four Nato countries.

Your points of view are hopelessly out of date.
Your points are disconnected from reality.

Were you aware that the Army gave soldiers a briefing at the installation formerly known as Fort Bragg telling them that American pro-lifers were terrorists and that having a Pro-Life custom license plate could identify a terrorist? Of course not. You think it's still 1985.
Yes, I'm aware of that. It's a problem. It needs to be fixed. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the balance of power in Europe, which is a core strategic interest of the USA no matter what is happening in domestic politics.

---

You don't even understand how much you don't understand.

historian said:

---

Demilitarizing the Black Sea is an interesting idea but it will never happen: Russia will never agree to it. And they would be foolish to consider it. A cursory glance at geography makes that obvious.

---

Not likely without a total Russian collapse.

But it should be a centerpiece of US and Nato foreign policy, and be on the table in negotiations. It will implicitly position Russia as the primary source of instability in the region, and make Russia give up things to retain the right to have warships at all in the Black Sea.

So many positives, diplomatically, would flow from that. Russian AND Ukrainian wheat are central to food supply for much of the Mediterranean basin, and it all flows thru the Black Sea. So make the BS an international waterway, with severe tonnage limits on combatant warships, effectively forcing all BS nations to operate only Coast Guard equivalents to limit piracy and facilitate customs & regulatory enforcement. It would be one of my first agenda items were I in charge of policy.

whiterock said:

---

So make the BS an international waterway, with severe tonnage limits on combatant warships, effectively forcing all BS nations to operate only Coast Guard equivalents to limit piracy and facilitate customs & regulatory enforcement. It would be one of my first agenda items were I in charge of policy.

---

Its a good thing that you're not.

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

Demilitarizing the Black Sea is an interesting idea but it will never happen: Russia will never agree to it. And they would be foolish to consider it. A cursory glance at geography makes that obvious.

---

Not likely without a total Russian collapse.

But it should be a centerpiece of US and Nato foreign policy, and be on the table in negotiations. It will implicitly position Russia as the primary source of instability in the region, and make Russia give up things to retain the right to have warships at all in the Black Sea.

So many positives, diplomatically, would flow from that. Russian AND Ukrainian wheat are central to food supply for much of the Mediterranean basin, and it all flows thru the Black Sea. So make the BS an international waterway, with severe tonnage limits on combatant warships, effectively forcing all BS nations to operate only Coast Guard equivalents to limit piracy and facilitate customs & regulatory enforcement. It would be one of my first agenda items were I in charge of policy.

---

That's totally unrealistic and will never happen. From the Russian perspective, it would be like someone telling us not to have any warships in the Gulf of Mexico. We would never agree to such a proposal and would be so incensed by the idea that no one would even propose it. Geography matters.

a good way to start an unnecessary war

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

Demilitarizing the Black Sea is an interesting idea but it will never happen: Russia will never agree to it. And they would be foolish to consider it. A cursory glance at geography makes that obvious.

---

Not likely without a total Russian collapse.

But it should be a centerpiece of US and Nato foreign policy, and be on the table in negotiations. It will implicitly position Russia as the primary source of instability in the region, and make Russia give up things to retain the right to have warships at all in the Black Sea.

So many positives, diplomatically, would flow from that. Russian AND Ukrainian wheat are central to food supply for much of the Mediterranean basin, and it all flows thru the Black Sea. So make the BS an international waterway, with severe tonnage limits on combatant warships, effectively forcing all BS nations to operate only Coast Guard equivalents to limit piracy and facilitate customs & regulatory enforcement. It would be one of my first agenda items were I in charge of policy.

---

That's totally unrealistic and will never happen. From the Russian perspective, it would be like someone telling us not to have any warships in the Gulf of Mexico. We would never agree to such a proposal and would be so incensed by the idea that no one would even propose it. Geography matters.

---

Negotiations are full of canards like that. It's part of the game. You gotta keep your opponent off-balance. Never, ever cede him anything. Make him defend the right to take a breath (if only in order to get millimeters of concessions elsewhere.)

Why would Russia need to have anything more than a customs & coast guard capability in the Black Sea, if all other nations agree to also keep their navies out? Bulgaria and Romania would agree to it. So would Ukraine and Turkey. It would prevent them from having to build navies. And if all those nations would sign on (and they would), it would make Russia look imperialist for refusing to do so. Why would Russia need a navy in the Black Sea if no one else had one....(except for retaining the right to invade other places.....) Probably could get a UN resolution past encouraging all BS nations to agree to the proposal.

Of course, Russia would never agree to it willingly.
But.
If they collapse in Ukraine, how could they stop it?
Nations who lose don't get to dictate terms.

It ups the ante on Russia to cut its losses in Ukraine before they lose a lot more than the trenches they've dug.

Why would the U.S. need anything more than a coast guard & customs presence in the Gulf of Mexico?

It's not about objective reality but what the country in question thinks is in their best interest. How do you propose to force Putin to follow those restrictions without a war? Does any American really believe that is an issue worth fighting a war with Russia over? How do you propose to prevent such a war from EVER becoming nuclear? Would you be willing to nuke Moscow or other cities over it? Or risk the Russians nuking New York, Washington, Dallas, or Houston? Would you be willing to die for it? If not, then why should anyone else?

Again, understanding geography is imperative when discussing the Black Sea. That's where Russia's ONLY warm water ports exist. That's why they took the Crimea with Obama's blessing and that might be a big reason they attacked Ukraine. And it's not just Putin: the Soviet leaders and the tsars, going back centuries, considered the Black Sea of great importance.

historian said:

---

Why would the U.S. need anything more than a coast guard & customs presence in the Gulf of Mexico?

It's not about objective reality but what the country in question thinks is in their best interest. How do you propose to force Putin to follow those restrictions without a war? Does any American really believe that is an issue worth fighting a war with Russia over? How do you propose to prevent such a war from EVER becoming nuclear? Would you be willing to nuke Moscow or other cities over it? Or risk the Russians nuking New York, Washington, Dallas, or Houston? Would you be willing to die for it? If not, then why should anyone else?

Again, understanding geography is imperative when discussing the Black Sea. That's where Russia's ONLY warm water ports exist. That's why they took the Crimea with Obama's blessing and that might be a big reason they attacked Ukraine. And it's not just Putin: the Soviet leaders and the tsars, going back centuries, considered the Black Sea of great importance.

---

You don't IF you keep Guantanamo, Key West, Corpus, Pensicola,etc... We have a pretty good presence on the GUlf.

historian said:

---

Why would the U.S. need anything more than a coast guard & customs presence in the Gulf of Mexico?
because it's not protected by a Bosphorus strait. Any nation with a naval vessel can sail into it and there's no practical way to stop it short of naval surface action. But the Black Sea is uniquely positioned to become a closed waterway. If all nations agree to tonnage limits to corvette or smaller vessels for customs & law enforcement missions, it'd be quite easy to effect.

It's not about objective reality but what the country in question thinks is in their best interest. How do you propose to force Putin to follow those restrictions without a war? Does any American really believe that is an issue worth fighting a war with Russia over? How do you propose to prevent such a war from EVER becoming nuclear? Would you be willing to nuke Moscow or other cities over it? Or risk the Russians nuking New York, Washington, Dallas, or Houston? Would you be willing to die for it? If not, then why should anyone else?
Nations that lose wars have to follow the terms dictated upon them. As long as Russia ends the war on its own terms, it faces no risk of having to agree to a demilitarized Black Sea. BUT. IF Nato makes it clear that it WILL demilitarize the Black Sea if Russia is defeated......well, we've just given Russia something to think about. IF they choose to play their current hand too far....... IF they collapse with armies in the field (which has happened in the recent past)...... Well, things could be worse for them than just having to bring their armies home.

Again, understanding geography is imperative when discussing the Black Sea. That's where Russia's ONLY warm water ports exist. That's why they took the Crimea with Obama's blessing and that might be a big reason they attacked Ukraine. And it's not just Putin: the Soviet leaders and the tsars, going back centuries, considered the Black Sea of great importance.

---

Russia's "warm water" port in the Black Sea is of less value to them than it appears. Look at the Ukraine War. Under the terms of the Montreaux Convention, Turkey closes the Bosphorus to ships of war during conflict in the Black Sea area. That traps the Black Sea Fleet in a very small body of water where, as we have seen, it is hardly an asset. Russia has effectively lost its BSF to a nation WITHOUT A NAVY.

The "warm water port" is only a value to them in peacetime......

The hammer here is not that Russia would ever agree to it in peer-to-peer negotiations. The risk is that if they are not a "peer" at the peace talks, they could have things forced upon them. That construction adds incentive for them to think about cutting losses before things get a LOT worse for them.

Russia is losing 1200 soldiers per day.
They cannot maintain that for another two years.
They are near their peak mobilization. They are already at the point where their military manpower needs are zero sum with private sector needs. And now, Ukraine is allowed to attrit Russian infrastructure INSIDE Russia, which will only hasten the ebbing of their efforts.

Nato is just now starting to get geared up, and is barely scratching the surface.
Time is not on the Russian side. They should be thinking about cutting losses.

Look at it this way. With modest additional efforts, Ukraine could sink the rest of the BSF by the end of the year. And as long as hostilities continue in Ukraine, Russia could not reposition naval assets from elsewhere (thanks to the Montreaux Convention). They'd have to try to build them in Novorossiysk.....under bombardment from Ukrainian drones.

Once we get to that point, Russia will be de facto demilitarized in the Black Sea, while Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania still retain naval assets. They only way they can rebuild the BSF would be to wait for peace in Ukraine. And as long as Ukraine keeps fighting, Russia will have no navy in the BS. Russia commercial shipping will be at the mercy of Nato. Ships could be seized to compensate for Ukraine war losses. Is that likely to happen? No, but it could and Russia would have no way to stop it. That's pressure on Russia. All my proposal does is threaten to make it permanent.

So. Mr. Putin. Would you like to have a Black Sea Fleet again in the future?
Fine.
Withdraw your troops from Crimea and we'll let you have one.

Smoke can be seen rising from near the U.S. Consulate in Tel Aviv, following reports of a Loud Explosion. pic.twitter.com/5j2e8WEiKg

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) July 19, 2024

Dear God. Anyone that is listening to the King's Speech tonight will find he likely falls far off script from text and goes full MAGA Trump on Iran.

⚠️BREAKING: Israel just opened the gates of hell on the Houthis. pic.twitter.com/y7ew8Gv9t6

— Vivid.🇮🇱 (@VividProwess) July 20, 2024

BREAKING:

Pakistan has decided to officially recognise Israeli PM Netanyahu as a terrorist. pic.twitter.com/vFjU9EQd8u

— Globe Eye News (@GlobeEyeNews) July 20, 2024

I don't recall. Is this the same Pakistani govt that harbored Osaka bin Laden for an extended time period? Their judgment on who is a terrorist rings hollow.

Approximately 80% of the warfare materials that Iran supplies to the Houthis are delivered through this port. According to Israeli estimates, it will take the Houthis between 6 to 12 months to restore the port and repair the damage. https://t.co/bOZt5K7NZe

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) July 20, 2024

Some would say, "It's about time!"

It's a shame that Israel is providing international leadership when our own government is not. The corrupt & perverted Biden administration is more interested in killing babies, mutilating children, stealing our money, and apparently trying to get Trump murdered.

Speaker Johnson says anyone who disrupts Netanyahu's speech next week will be arrested:

https://washingtondigest.com/house-speaker-johnson-plans-to-arrest-disrupters-during-netanyahus-speech/

Any of the fascist members of Congress could potentially cause problems, but the ones mostly to do something are the members of the Squad and some of them already have promised to boycott. They are Leftists, so we cannot rely on such promises.

historian said:

---

Some would say, "It's about time!"

It's a shame that Israel is providing international leadership when our own government is not. The corrupt & perverted Biden administration is more interested in killing babies, mutilating children, stealing our money, and apparently trying to get Trump murdered.

---

How can they be "leaders" when Israel is a giant welfare baby constantly stealing from every American tax payer to fund their wars?

historian said:

---

Speaker Johnson says anyone who disrupts Netanyahu's speech next week will be arrested:

https://washingtondigest.com/house-speaker-johnson-plans-to-arrest-disrupters-during-netanyahus-speech/

Any of the fascist members of Congress could potentially cause problems, but the ones mostly to do something are the members of the Squad and some of them already have promised to boycott. They are Leftists, so we cannot rely on such promises.

---

Will they take them out back and put and put a bullet in the back of their head?

Nothing surprises me with Israel and Netanyahu... I am disgusted that my country is a vassal state to them.

The_barBEARian said:

---

historian said:

---

Speaker Johnson says anyone who disrupts Netanyahu's speech next week will be arrested:

https://washingtondigest.com/house-speaker-johnson-plans-to-arrest-disrupters-during-netanyahus-speech/

Any of the fascist members of Congress could potentially cause problems, but the ones mostly to do something are the members of the Squad and some of them already have promised to boycott. They are Leftists, so we cannot rely on such promises.

---

Will they take them out back and put and put a bullet in the back of their head?

Nothing surprises me with Israel and Netanyahu... I am disgusted that my country is a vassal state to them.

---

no, just not gonna let them have the hecklers veto.

Just like shooting clay pigeons

NEW

The Israeli Air Force confirmed today that, after testing, they are now equipping themselves with M61 Vulcan cannons to repel Hezbollah drones @avischarf pic.twitter.com/Ne64EeDfdh

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) July 21, 2024

Netanyahu arrives in D.C. today for his first visit in almost four years — and will land right into an unprecedented storm in American politics. https://t.co/K1BS6TtVRJ

— Axios (@axios) July 22, 2024

According to Israeli Sources, a Meeting at the White House which was Scheduled to take place tomorrow between U.S. President Joe Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during his ongoing Visit to the United States, has now been Canceled.

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) July 22, 2024

Probably have to entertain the thought that he [Biden] might not be well enough to hold meetings.

nein51 said:

---

Probably have to entertain the thought that he [Biden] might not be well enough to hold meetings.

---

They are saying he's doing better...but maybe he's still recovering

President Biden’s COVID symptoms have almost resolved completely, and he continues to perform all of his presidential duties. An update from Dr. Kevin O’Connor, Physician to the President. pic.twitter.com/EfPUgLh3Dx

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) July 22, 2024

nein51 said:

---

Probably have to entertain the thought that he [Biden] might not be well enough to hold meetings.

---

That has been the case for at least 4 years. In terms of mental ability it's been true for Joe's entire political career.

boognish_bear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Probably have to entertain the thought that he [Biden] might not be well enough to hold meetings.

---

They are saying he's doing better...but maybe he's still recovering

President Biden’s COVID symptoms have almost resolved completely, and he continues to perform all of his presidential duties. An update from Dr. Kevin O’Connor, Physician to the President. pic.twitter.com/EfPUgLh3Dx

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) July 22, 2024

---

boognish_bear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Probably have to entertain the thought that he [Biden] might not be well enough to hold meetings.

---

They are saying he's doing better...but maybe he's still recovering

President Biden’s COVID symptoms have almost resolved completely, and he continues to perform all of his presidential duties. An update from Dr. Kevin O’Connor, Physician to the President. pic.twitter.com/EfPUgLh3Dx

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) July 22, 2024

---

If he has COVID at his age he shouldn't be taking guests. I've had it a couple times. 2 very mild. 2 not so much.

I don't like the guy but it's perfectly reasonable to not want visitors when you're sick. Even if you're feeling slightly better.

BREAKING 🚨

The American-British coalition is conducting airstrikes against Houthi militias in Yemen's Dhammar Governorate. pic.twitter.com/j8p20qcqbt

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) July 22, 2024

Target practice. Gotta keep updating.

They've been asking for it for months. It's about time someone gives it to them.

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

whiterock said:

---

You're going to have to deal with these facts:

We did not provoke this war.

---

It has been thoroughly explained to the Russia! Russia! Russia! crowd how we did in fact provoke this war.
LOL. The problem with listening to your own propaganda is that you might start to believe it. And you definitely have. In fairness, you are not alone in that.

Quote:

---

Ukraine is willing to fight to the last man to win it.

---

Barring an open attack by NATO militaries on the Russians, they aren't going to win it. That fact has already been decided on the battlefield...and if our military establishment is foolish enough to go down that road, the nukes fly and we all lose.
Russia is not going to nuke Nato over Ukraine, no matter how badly you want them to do so.

As far as fighting to the last man, Ukraine will have that opportunity as long as they persist in this insanity.

---

When did you fall in love with Russia?
Why is an autocratic regime 1/10th the size of Nato entitled to have anything it wants?
Why does NATO have to tiptoe around Russia, rather than the other way around?
We have nukes, too, right? Does not Russia have any imperative to worry about what we will do with nukes?

Here's an idea. Why don't we make the Black Sea a demilitarized zone. NO warships allowed. Fair proposal? That would render Russian basing requirements in the Crimea irrelevant, would it not?

---

A long list of respected foreign policy thinkers opposed NATO expansion. Most people understood that they weren't in love with Russia. They were simply realists who understood the chaos that would result. But that was the 1990s, before neocon/neolib groupthink completely took over the mainstream parties. Fortunately there are some signs that conservatism is making a comeback with the younger generations.