Author Topic: Russia/US-- Europe  (Read 146534 times)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: We are on the razor’s edge of this
« Reply #350 on: March 02, 2022, 12:33:07 PM »
https://www.theconversation.com/amp/ukraine-war-follows-after-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999

We were warned.

From Matt Bracken:


You might not agree with an adversary (Russia in this case), but to dismiss and ignore their legitimate security concerns is dangerously stupid. It is always wise to look at a war or a potential war from the other side's perspective, if only to improve the effectiveness of your own efforts.

Russia is not Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya or Serbia, easy (and safe) for America and NATO to slap around. Russia has the most powerful nuclear force on the planet. Miscalculation over Ukraine can rapidly escalate into full-blown war and a nuclear exchange. For Russia, Ukraine joining NATO is a redline worth going to war over. We ignore this at our own peril.

In 1962, we already had medium-range nuclear-armed ballistic missiles in Turkey. When the USSR obtained a client state (Cuba) 100 miles from Florida, they thought it would be fair turnabout to also have their own MRBMs in range of America. (ICBMs were not yet available.) When the missiles were discovered in Cuba, the result was that America was outraged, rightly, and we very nearly had a nuclear exchange.

It was not "JFK backed down Khrushchev!" as American media portrayed it. Diplomats and generals on both sides later wrote that we came within a hair-breadth of a full nuclear exchange. In the deal that was worked out, we also (quietly) removed our MRBMs from Turkey. Part of the agreement was that the USSR would not crow about how they forced us to move our missiles out of Turkey.

Today Russia looks at Ukraine, and they see it as the 1942 invasion route of the Nazis, which came very close to cutting off their Caspian oil, which would have caused the rapid collapse and defeat of the USSR. The idea of NATO forces prepositioned across Ukraine, directly on the Russian border, armed with tanks and MRBMs, is a redline they have repeatedly said they could not tolerate.

The Russians think: at least the Germans had to fight their way to Ukraine and and then across it. How much worse to have NATO forces already in Ukraine, poised in striking range with missiles and tanks, ready to nuke Moscow in minutes, and occupy or destroy the Caspian oil fields in days?

We teased Ukraine into believing that if they were compliant with American, EU and NATO desires, they'd eventually join both groups. Instead, Russia was provoked into removing the possibility of NATO forces ever being positioned in Ukraine by their own invasion. This was all entirely foreseeable.

Imagine Khrushchev saying to JFK: "Our Cuban allies requested these armaments to protect them from continued Yankee aggression. So screw you, our missiles will stay in Cuba." It would have meant nuclear war. This is how dire the Russians consider even the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO as a full partner.

We ignore their perspective at our own peril.



https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017/february/escalate-de-escalate

"Today the communist ideology is gone, but the Soviet threat perception remains the same—Russia considers the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) its main enemies."

   - We are such a threat to them; we might attack unprovoked at any time.  Oh wait, is it the other way around?

We have been encroaching on them since the end of the Cold War, just exactly as we promised we wouldn’t.

It doesn’t matter if we agree with their worldview, Russia sees NATO as a threat and and has made very clear for a long time where their red lines were.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18271
    • View Profile
Re: We are on the razor’s edge of this
« Reply #351 on: March 02, 2022, 03:19:11 PM »
quote author=G M

Trump deterred Putin. Stolen elections have consequences.

What should the US and/or NATO do?
----------------------
No easy or immediate solutions now.  As you say above, a certain combination of things with Trump deterred or slowed him.  Biden will be a historic case study on what not to do.  Besides sanctions and arming with 'defensive' weapons, there isn't much we can do short of full scale war.  As I and perhaps everyone on our side has said, drill baby drill, frack, build pipelines, build refineries, build exports, build a thousand nuclear plants in the US and Europe, squeeze China, and shrink his one dimensional economy until the revolt takes him down from within.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: We are on the razor’s edge of this
« Reply #352 on: March 02, 2022, 03:48:53 PM »
We had better start drilling ASAP, I am guessing we have little strategic reserves at this point. The greens here and in eurostan did a lot to empower Putin’s military adventurism. The second and third order effects from our actions are going to have seriously negative consequences globally.

If we are lucky enough to avoid WWIII and the release of canned sunshine on various cities, we may be facing the global financial collapse. Nice distraction for the corrupt western governments facing pushback for their Covidiocy-totalitarian actions.

https://mtracey.substack.com/p/escalation-alert-is-nato-fighting?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMDQ2Mzg1NSwiXyI6IjYrTUNFIiwiaWF0IjoxNjQ2MTk0MjYzLCJleHAiOjE2NDYxOTc4NjMsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0zMDMxODgiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.YY8OB9Z19E35h34e88cV_ZQKg4DwDmT0xCYyX21r4EM&s=r


quote author=G M

Trump deterred Putin. Stolen elections have consequences.

What should the US and/or NATO do?
----------------------
No easy or immediate solutions now.  As you say above, a certain combination of things with Trump deterred or slowed him.  Biden will be a historic case study on what not to do.  Besides sanctions and arming with 'defensive' weapons, there isn't much we can do short of full scale war.  As I and perhaps everyone on our side has said, drill baby drill, frack, build pipelines, build refineries, build exports, build a thousand nuclear plants in the US and Europe, squeeze China, and shrink his one dimensional economy until the revolt takes him down from within.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: We are on the razor’s edge of this-Idiots cheering on nuclear war
« Reply #353 on: March 03, 2022, 03:25:22 AM »
https://www.revolver.news/2022/03/how-american-elites-stopped-worrying-and-learned-to-love-the-bomb/

We had better start drilling ASAP, I am guessing we have little strategic reserves at this point. The greens here and in eurostan did a lot to empower Putin’s military adventurism. The second and third order effects from our actions are going to have seriously negative consequences globally.

If we are lucky enough to avoid WWIII and the release of canned sunshine on various cities, we may be facing the global financial collapse. Nice distraction for the corrupt western governments facing pushback for their Covidiocy-totalitarian actions.

https://mtracey.substack.com/p/escalation-alert-is-nato-fighting?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMDQ2Mzg1NSwiXyI6IjYrTUNFIiwiaWF0IjoxNjQ2MTk0MjYzLCJleHAiOjE2NDYxOTc4NjMsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0zMDMxODgiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.YY8OB9Z19E35h34e88cV_ZQKg4DwDmT0xCYyX21r4EM&s=r


quote author=G M

Trump deterred Putin. Stolen elections have consequences.

What should the US and/or NATO do?
----------------------
No easy or immediate solutions now.  As you say above, a certain combination of things with Trump deterred or slowed him.  Biden will be a historic case study on what not to do.  Besides sanctions and arming with 'defensive' weapons, there isn't much we can do short of full scale war.  As I and perhaps everyone on our side has said, drill baby drill, frack, build pipelines, build refineries, build exports, build a thousand nuclear plants in the US and Europe, squeeze China, and shrink his one dimensional economy until the revolt takes him down from within.



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #356 on: March 03, 2022, 03:35:38 PM »
interesting
 but what do I care

they voted for Merkel
they stopped their nuclear power

that is their problem

our problem is the Democrat Party whose members are not letting us frack and drill

here

But Biden will grandstand and yell " the evil russians " are cause of gas spikes ...  here

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
Sweden and Finland considering NATO
« Reply #357 on: March 04, 2022, 04:30:41 AM »
March 3, 2022
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
Finland and Sweden Revive NATO Membership Debate
The Ukraine crisis has pushed both countries to consider joining the alliance.
By: Antonia Colibasanu
On March 1, Finnish lawmakers began debating whether their country should join NATO. The move came after more than 50,000 people in Finland signed a petition calling for a referendum on accession. And there are other indications that support for membership is growing: A poll conducted by Finland’s state broadcaster Yle found that 53 percent of Finns would support joining the alliance. Before making any decision, however, the country will likely consult with its close ally and fellow non-member Sweden, which is also reconsidering its status in light of the war in Ukraine.

Different Paths

The crisis has revived a debate over NATO membership in both countries. Finland’s historical refusal to join the alliance resulted from what many know as Finlandization, a term used to describe the country’s official neutrality during the Cold War. The country’s status was first established by a 1948 treaty with Moscow in which Finland agreed to remain neutral in the conflict between the West and the Soviet Union, and the Soviets agreed not to invade and turn the country into a satellite state, as happened to many Eastern European nations at the time. Finland’s imperative was to avoid conflict with its neighbor, having lost territory to the Soviets in two wars in 1939 and 1944. As part of the arrangement, Finland agreed to stay out of NATO.

Over time, it established good relations with the Soviet Union, and neutrality eventually evolved into Finland adapting its domestic and foreign policies to suit the Soviets while also maintaining ties with the West. Since the end of the Cold War, Finland has remained friendly with Russia, but it no longer adjusts it behavior to accommodate its neighbor. With a weak Russia to its east, it has much more room for maneuver.

It has also developed closer ties with Sweden, which has long had an adversarial relationship with Russia. They fought wars for centuries over control of the Baltic Sea region, and in 1809, the then-Kingdom of Sweden lost the Finnish portion of its territory to Russia. Since then, it has avoided engaging in military conflict with the Russians. It remained neutral during the two world wars, pursued a non-alignment policy and declined to join NATO. Still, it sees Russia as the main challenger to its imperative to maintain control of the Gulf of Bothnia coast, where its capital, Stockholm, is located.

Both Finland and Sweden joined the European Union in 1994 and have an interest in keeping the Baltic Sea – their main trade route to Europe and the world – open for maritime traffic. They therefore cooperate with NATO members in the region, but only in such a way that doesn’t irritate Russia.

A Step Too Far?

Also in 1994, Finland and Sweden joined NATO’s Partnership for Peace program. The initiative was essentially meant as a way for former Soviet Union countries to participate in NATO activities without acquiring membership. Those who support the program see it as a way to deepen security ties between NATO and non-NATO members, especially in unstable or conflict-prone regions. Sweden and Finland’s participation in the program was a compromise, satisfying both pro- and anti-membership camps within their countries.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, few objected to the arrangement; Russia, for one, was preoccupied with its economic problems after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But over time, Russia became a resurgent power and looked to secure its buffer zones. 2008 was a turning point: Its invasion of Georgia forced NATO to prioritize security of the Baltic states and the Baltic Sea, which had implications for Sweden and Finland. NATO concluded that the Swedish island of Gotland was essential to its defense of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, and thus temporarily deployed surface-to-air missiles on the island to secure control of the southern Baltic Sea.

Another turning point came in 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea. For Sweden, it was further evidence that it needed to bolster its defenses. That year, Sweden and Finland decided to deepen cooperation between their militaries, and in 2015, their governments acknowledged the extensive ties between their armed forces. Around this time, public support for NATO accession was relatively high. Still, both governments separately concluded that seeking membership could trigger a backlash from Russia and thus decided not to pursue it.

Sweden Should Apply for NATO Membership

(click to enlarge)

Finland Should Apply for NATO Membership

(click to enlarge)

But since 2014, their relationships with Moscow have diverged. In Sweden, reports of incursions into its waters and airspace as well as cyberattacks all apparently linked to Russia have caused tensions between Moscow and Stockholm. Most recently, in January, several reports of drones flying over sensitive areas of Swedish territory – the royal palace at Drottningholm, a water treatment center near Norsborg and nuclear power stations – were all linked to Moscow, leading to calls to consider NATO membership.

The situation is somewhat different in Finland. It hasn’t experienced the same incursions on its territory and infrastructure, so the debate around NATO has focused on questions over its political sovereignty and identity. Opponents argue that membership would weaken Finno-Russian relations, which have been carefully cultivated since the mid-1940s. It could also jeopardize trade between the two countries as well as Finland’s energy supplies, about 60 percent of which come from Russia. Sweden, on the other hand, doesn’t rely heavily on Russia for energy or trade.

Since the war in Ukraine began last week, however, the Finnish public seems to be warming to the idea of membership. Polls show record high support for NATO accession, and several protests against the Russian invasion have occurred. Current attitudes in Sweden are harder to gauge because the most recent survey on NATO membership was conducted in January, before the Russian invasion. That poll, conducted by Demoskop, found 42 percent of Swedes supported membership while 37 percent opposed it.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg reiterated NATO’s openness to Finland and Sweden joining the alliance last month during a meeting with their foreign ministers in Brussels. In fact, both countries have deepened cooperation with the alliance, including working with the Nordic Defence Cooperation initiative and participating in NATO exercises in the Baltic region.

Still, attitudes toward membership will depend on perceptions of the Russian threat. It’s a difficult balance between fear of being attacked by Russia without having the protection of NATO, and fear of triggering Russian aggression or being drawn into a conflict with Moscow by joining NATO.

Either way, Finland and Sweden’s relationships to war may lead them down separate paths. Sweden has not experienced a war on its territory in more than 200 years – which may explain why public support for NATO membership has historically been higher here than in Finland. Finns, meanwhile, are conscious of their relatively recent history of conflict with the Soviet Union and want to avoid hostilities at all costs – which may explain why many support membership now only after seeing Russia attack another neighbor. They have different reasons to remain neutral, and different reasons to reconsider their neutrality. But if forced to choose, both will stand by NATO.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
George Friedman: An armed Germany
« Reply #358 on: March 04, 2022, 06:25:09 AM »
March 1, 2022
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
The New Old Germany
2022 isn’t 1914 or 1939, but an armed Germany is significant.
By: George Friedman

It seems that Russia had two distinct but overlapping goals in invading Ukraine. The first was to take control of its western borderland, an area that gives it strategic depth and that Moscow believes to be in its sphere of influence. The second was to pit NATO members against each other, breaking off factions that opposed any form of intervention. Whatever anyone says about President Vladimir Putin’s character and temperament is irrelevant. For Russia, there’s a logic to the strategy. Defending one’s country is a ruthless task.

From Russia’s perspective, Ukraine shouldn’t matter to any country unless that country wants to strangle Russia – something that wouldn’t happen if NATO didn’t exist. If Europe wasn’t a base of operations for the United States, Russia’s primary adversary, the United States wouldn’t be a threat.

Central to all calculations on European power is Germany. It’s been a military nonentity for some time, and since 1991 its primary focus has been economic growth. It has a massive, export-oriented economy that requires a ton of energy, and much of that energy comes from Russia. (More will come if and when the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline comes online.) The Russians planned this crisis with this in mind.

Like virtually all countries, Germany was hurting from the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic when the war in Ukraine started. The loss of Russian energy would only make things worse. Since Germany and Russia tend to cooperate on economic matters, and Germany has avoided both military rearmament and confrontations with Russia, Moscow assumed that whatever it did in Ukraine was of no consequence to Berlin.

The first few days of the invasion seemed to validate Russia’s thinking. At first, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz emphatically said that he would not permit the supply of weapons to Ukraine from Germany. In another case, a British aircraft delivering anti-tank missiles to Ukraine routed itself around Germany rather than ask for overflight rights. Meanwhile, Putin met with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban to arrange a natural gas agreement, but Orban said he was not prepared to take a hostile stance toward Germany. This raised hopes in the Kremlin that the alliance could be split. If even a minor country like Hungary, a former Soviet satellite, was prepared to pull away from NATO, then the foundation of American power on the European Peninsula was dissolving, or so the thinking went.

But Putin failed to understand Germany’s own anxieties toward Russia. Russia and Germany could work closely under the NATO framework, but if that framework melted, and Ukraine fell, then the only thing standing between Germany and Russia would be Poland. This may sound paranoid, but the fact that Russia essentially took over Belarus last year in a bloodless coup and is trying to take over Ukraine now suggests the paranoia had some merit.

The German strategic position was collapsing. Berlin was at odds with its fellow EU and NATO members, France was emerging as the primary European interlocutor, and the United States, the foundation of German national security, was growing impatient if not hostile. The government hoped that for all the grumbling about Ukraine, business with Russia could continue unabated as the U.S. would handle any serious military confrontation.

But it was not to be. Washington hasn’t taken military action, of course, but it has placed massive economic burdens on Russia that will halt the flow of energy to Europe. The dream of having strong commercial ties with Russia while being part of NATO was over. Russia made that impossible. Berlin was forced to do what it didn’t want to do: choose. But then it really was no choice at all. Russian gas notwithstanding, Germany said it would arm Ukraine, and more significantly, it would rearm under a significantly enhanced defense budget.

Aside from the revitalization of NATO, this may well be the most important consequence of Russia’s invasion. Recall that a powerful, militarized Germany has historically been a destabilizing force in Europe. When Germany unified in 1871, it rapidly emerged as a major but insecure economic power, worried about simultaneous attacks from Russia and France. Things are different now, of course. 2022 is a different world from 1914 and 1939. But even so, the saving grace in the eyes of many European countries is current military weakness. In geopolitics, solutions to one problem can breed new ones.

Russia has put itself in a bad position. The fragmentation of Europe is no longer possible. Even if it defeats Ukraine, it will be that much closer to a hostile Europe, led by a newly remilitarized Germany.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
GPF: Daily Memo
« Reply #359 on: March 04, 2022, 06:31:11 AM »
   
Daily Memo: Russia-Ukraine Talks End, Western Sanctions Hit Global Business
Negotiations in Belarus apparently ended with no signs of capitulation.
By: Geopolitical Futures

Update on talks. After negotiations between Russia and Ukraine ended on Monday, representatives of both countries left Belarus for their respective capitals to consult with officials before the second round of talks. In a video message posted Monday evening, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said Ukraine did not get what it wanted but did receive “some signals.” Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Moscow's special military operation in Ukraine would continue until its goals were achieved.

Impact of sanctions. Western sanctions on Russia are beginning to have an impact on businesses worldwide. Global shipping leader Maersk told customers it may stop bookings to and from Russia. This follows German shipping firm Hapag-Lloyd suspending orders for Ukrainian cargo and temporarily blocking bookings involving Russia. Major credit card companies Visa and Mastercard confirmed they have blocked Russian organizations from their payment networks. Oil firms BP, Equinor and Shell have independently decided to cut ties with Russian partners despite the wiggle room for energy transactions under the sanctions. Finnish corporations such as K Group, S Group, Neste and Alko announced they would no longer buy Russian products or export to Russia. And Finnish citizens are boycotting gas stations that are subsidiaries of Russia’s Lukoil.

Hungary's stance. Hungary’s foreign minister said on Monday that Budapest would not allow the transit of lethal weapons to Kyiv through Hungarian territory. Budapest did, however, vote in favor of EU financing for the purchase and delivery of weapons to Kyiv. The foreign minister said the stance was aimed at guaranteeing the security of Hungarian communities in Transcarpathia (western Ukraine). He also said that Hungary will provide humanitarian aid such as food and water.

Ankara's warning. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said that, per the provisions of the Montreux Convention, Turkey has warned all countries that they should not sail warships through the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits. The exception is if the warship is returning to its base in the Black Sea. Cavusoglu noted that since the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Ankara has not received any requests for the passage of military vessels through the straits.

Italian support. The Italian government approved on Monday a decree giving the green light to transfers of vehicles, materials and equipment to the Ukrainian military. The decree also addresses energy supplies and mentions the possibility of future gas rationing. During a visit to Algeria on Monday, Italy’s foreign minister also spoke about energy diversification as part of Rome’s efforts to reduce its dependence on Russian supplies, which now account for 40 percent of Italy’s natural gas imports.

EU candidacy. The European Parliament is expected to approve Ukraine’s bid for EU candidate status on Tuesday. On Monday, eight members of the bloc – Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia – urged the EU to grant Kyiv official candidate status.

Stabilizing the ruble. Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a series of measures to help stabilize the value of the ruble. They include obligating exporters to sell 80 percent of their foreign exchange earnings, a ban on certain types of foreign exchange transactions and a ban on Russian residents transferring foreign currency to accounts outside Russia.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #361 on: March 04, 2022, 10:09:16 AM »
Thoughts on the contents of my Reply 358?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #362 on: March 04, 2022, 10:12:26 AM »
Thoughts on the contents of my Reply 358?

We are long past the point where we should be spending a single penny on Germany’s defense.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #363 on: March 04, 2022, 10:21:35 AM »
True that! 

Next step in the thought process:

What happens if Ukraine does not become a quagmire and China decides to go after Taiwan?  What do we do then?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #364 on: March 04, 2022, 10:28:01 AM »
True that! 

Next step in the thought process:

What happens if Ukraine does not become a quagmire and China decides to go after Taiwan?  What do we do then?

We should cut and run, which is what we will do after the PLA kills a carrier group or two. China’s generals openly discuss that they will trade 100,000 troops to kill 10,000 Americans, and that the American public will not tolerate those losses and give up on Taiwan.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #365 on: March 04, 2022, 10:30:24 AM »
Can't say that is poorly reasoned but a follow up question: 

What happens after we cut and run?


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #366 on: March 04, 2022, 10:36:24 AM »
Can't say that is poorly reasoned but a follow up question: 

What happens after we cut and run?

Every nation will need to make hard choices based on their own self interests. Our country is in dire need of unfcuking it’s self.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #367 on: March 04, 2022, 10:53:50 AM »
"We are seeing the collapse of post Cold War triumphalism, “end of history”, “unilateralism” and all the rest of it. Reality is biting, and biting hard. All you have to do is watch CNN’s parade of talking heads and “experts” speculating about how crazy Putin is: they don’t understand, therefore he must be nuts. For the West, as it has been, it’s over. The confusion, the bullshit, the boasting, the hysteria, the bans: the West has nothing left in the locker. Pour Russian vodka down the toilet, fire a singer and director, change the name of a drink or a salad, ban cats or trees, sanction a Russian plutocrat and steal his yacht, wear a blue and yellow t-shirt. Pathetic. And don’t, under any circumstances, allow a Russian outlet to tempt the sheeple with “disinformation”. Just like the USSR but stupider. And who thought stupider was even possible?"

now everyone seeing death and destruction on cable are so outraged screaming to do more
yes we could have sent weapons in sooner
but it would not have made much difference except more death and destruction

it is not too late to beef up NATO countries (how about they  do it for once)
now
and simply sit tight ;

all the while CCP sits and smiles biding their time........

whether this would have happened with T in office , I dunno,

but it is all moot now

I just hope we stay out of it
and do not escalate to nukes

and stop the liberal madness crushing us
in '22 and '24

I am not a Trump fan as noted ad nauseum but if he is the nominee
 he gets my vote !






Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #368 on: March 04, 2022, 01:27:07 PM »
"Our country is in dire need of unfcuking it’s self"

TRUE THIS.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
BBC: Out of Russia to Finland
« Reply #369 on: March 05, 2022, 01:23:51 AM »



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18271
    • View Profile
Sen Joseph R Biden 2007 disagrees with Prof. Mearsheimer
« Reply #374 on: March 05, 2022, 12:34:09 PM »
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine?fbclid=IwAR18NiLcAsF3mbj2bHCD1bhnygsA-oqqvyE_ULutttu5tqAGVfIpR1A6wtg

Prof. Mearsheimer, from the article:   "I think all the trouble in this case really started in April, 2008, at the NATO Summit in Bucharest, where afterward NATO issued a statement that said Ukraine and Georgia would become part of NATO."

*****************************************************************************************
One person who strongly disagreed with that is Sen Joe Biden in 2007 who said Russia had slipped into "authoritarianism, corruption, and manufactured belligerence" and was "bully[ing] its neighbors".
https://irp.fas.org/congress/2007_hr/russia.pdf
*****************************************************************************************

   - Blame the rape victim for carrying mace or blame Ukraine for wanting defensive weapons and agreements to protect itself against a "belligerent", " bullying" neighbor who happens to be a major nuclear power, I don't buy the idea that the desire to protect your country from an aggressor is justification for the aggressor to come in and crush you.

Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, as I understand it, gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees they did not receive.

Didn't everyone who studied Russia's behavior under Putin know their intent was and is to reconstitute the Soviet Union and the intent of the Soviet empire was to expand outward and threaten the west?  Wasn't there adequate evidence of that at the time?  Unless Sen Biden was lying in Congressional testimony in 2007, this did not start in Bucharest 2008.  NATO and Ukraine were responding to the existential threat posed by Putin / Russia.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2022, 12:42:37 PM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Sen Joseph R Biden 2007 disagrees with Prof. Mearsheimer
« Reply #375 on: March 05, 2022, 12:59:38 PM »
Now do the Monroe Doctrine.


https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine?fbclid=IwAR18NiLcAsF3mbj2bHCD1bhnygsA-oqqvyE_ULutttu5tqAGVfIpR1A6wtg

Prof. Mearsheimer, from the article:   "I think all the trouble in this case really started in April, 2008, at the NATO Summit in Bucharest, where afterward NATO issued a statement that said Ukraine and Georgia would become part of NATO."

*****************************************************************************************
One person who strongly disagreed with that is Sen Joe Biden in 2007 who said Russia had slipped into "authoritarianism, corruption, and manufactured belligerence" and was "bully[ing] its neighbors".
https://irp.fas.org/congress/2007_hr/russia.pdf
*****************************************************************************************

   - Blame the rape victim for carrying mace or blame Ukraine for wanting defensive weapons and agreements to protect itself against a "belligerent", " bullying" neighbor who happens to be a major nuclear power, I don't buy the idea that the desire to protect your country from an aggressor is justification for the aggressor to come in and crush you.

Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, as I understand it, gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees they did not receive.

Didn't everyone who studied Russia's behavior under Putin know their intent was and is to reconstitute the Soviet Union and the intent of the Soviet empire was to expand outward and threaten the west?  Wasn't there adequate evidence of that at the time?  Unless Sen Biden was lying in Congressional testimony in 2007, this did not start in Bucharest 2008.  NATO and Ukraine were responding to the existential threat posed by Putin / Russia.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18271
    • View Profile
Re: Sen Joseph R Biden 2007 disagrees with Prof. Mearsheimer
« Reply #376 on: March 05, 2022, 04:21:45 PM »
quote author=G M
"Now do the Monroe Doctrine"

Fair point but I don't think our immediate neighbors feel similarly, recently, threatened by us.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Sen Joseph R Biden 2007 disagrees with Prof. Mearsheimer
« Reply #377 on: March 05, 2022, 09:45:34 PM »
quote author=G M
"Now do the Monroe Doctrine"

Fair point but I don't think our immediate neighbors feel similarly, recently, threatened by us.

No matter if we agree with him or not, Putin sees NATO as a dagger pointed at Russia's throat. He and many western experts have made it clear for years. Our geniuses keep moving forward until creating this crisis.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
GPF: Can Russia withstand Western Sanctions?
« Reply #378 on: March 06, 2022, 03:56:18 AM »
March 6, 2022
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
Can Russia Withstand Western Sanctions?
Moscow is willing to accept short-term pain for long-term gain.
By: Ekaterina Zolotova
In response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Western countries have introduced a series of measures to try to force the Russian economy into meltdown. Many Western governments have imposed strict sanctions on Russian banks, elites and exports, and major international companies have suspended their Russian operations. The European Union, Switzerland, Canada and others closed their airspace to Russian airlines. The Kremlin says its economy is strong enough to withstand the pressure. This may be true in the long term, but in the short, there's little question average Russian citizens will feel an impact.

Countries Banning Russia from Their Airspace

(click to enlarge)

Mitigating Factors

It’s already clear that the sanctions imposed on Moscow are having a much greater effect than previous anti-Russian sanctions. Since they were introduced, the value of the ruble has plummeted (from 81 rubles to the dollar on Feb. 23, the day before the operation was announced, to 106 rubles to the dollar on March 3), Moscow has imposed restrictions on foreign exchange, trading on the Russian stock market was closed for several days, and the share value of major Russian companies has crashed. The sanctions are also taking a toll on Russian banks, including the largest bank, Sber, which accounts for about 90 percent of transfers and about 70 percent of card payments in the country. VTB, Otkritie, Promsvyazbank, Sovcombank, Rossiya Bank, Novikombank and the state development bank VEB were all disconnected from the SWIFT banking system, which severely limits their ability to do business outside of Russia. The decision of the EU, U.S., Britain and Canada to freeze Russia’s central bank reserves will also have a big impact.

Russian Household's Investment in Currency

(click to enlarge)

Bad for Consumers

But it's unlikely that these will bring about the total collapse of the Russian economy. For one, the banks included in the sanctions list already operate mainly within Russia, where they receive most of their profits and where most of their clients are located. In addition, not all Russian banks were included in the SWIFT ban, meaning some transactions between Russian businesses and foreign clients can still go through as normal. Even the banks that were included can use one of several alternative systems available to them. Moreover, Russians’ historical distrust of the banking system will provide some cushion for the financial sector. More than 90 percent of the Russian population keeps at least some of their savings in cash – especially those who have savings in foreign currency – and roughly 40 percent of trading operations in the country are carried out in cash.

Thus the panic caused by the sanctions may be greater than the impact itself. For the financial sector, the blow will be mitigated by several factors. First, the West is reportedly considering excluding energy payments from the SWIFT ban. There are also no signs of a major sell-off of shares in Russian companies, including by non-residents – which makes sense since they’ve lost so much of their value over the past week. In fact, some Western institutional investors such as JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs are actually buying up bonds from firms like Gazprom and Russian Railways. Russia’s central bank has introduced several measures to soften the blow. For example, even before trading opened on the first business day after the initial sanctions were announced, it raised the key interest rate sharply – from 9.5 percent to 20 percent – to prevent the financial fallout from spreading. And the Ministry of Finance announced that exporting companies will be obligated to sell at least 80 percent of their foreign exchange earnings domestically, which will force them to buy rubles and create more demand for the currency.

But despite these efforts, the average Russian citizen will likely feel some pain from the sanctions. This wasn’t the case with the previous sanctions regime imposed in 2014 (and then renewed and expanded yearly) by the EU and U.S. after Russia annexed Crimea. (Though Russians did feel the impact of Moscow’s retaliatory ban on food imports from the EU, U.S., Canada, Japan and Australia.) Small and medium-sized businesses and large state-owned companies were able to find loopholes and continue to conduct business mostly as usual. In some cases, foreign goods were delivered to third countries before arriving in Russia to skirt the sanctions. Average Russians continued to travel and pay for purchases abroad with cards from state-owned banks, and shops remained fully stocked with foreign products – sometimes with quality substitutes from friendlier nations.

When it comes to the current crisis, the burden on average consumers will come not just from the sanctions themselves but also from major companies' withdrawal from the market. In the first days after the Russian campaign began, many companies announced that they would leave the Russian market or suspend their operations there, either because the sanctions and other restrictive measures made it too difficult to do business in Russia, or because they didn’t want to be seen as profiting from a country that invaded its neighbor. Some of the firms that announced at least partial suspensions of their Russian operations include Boeing and Airbus, Apple, Nike, H&M, and automakers Daimler, Volvo, Jaguar and Land Rover, Ford, BMW and Mercedes. Many other companies that supply products for processing are considering leaving.

These withdrawals will affect the range of products available to consumers as well as corporate profits and jobs. Until now, the range of foreign goods available to consumers in Russia had expanded every year. In 2021, Russia depended on imports for 40 percent of consumer goods and 53 percent of non-food products. Imports accounted for 32 percent of Russia’s milk powder and cream, 30 percent of cheese and 28 percent of beef. They also accounted for 39 percent of cars, 58 percent of machinery and equipment, 60 percent of medicines and medical devices, 82 percent of clothing, 87 percent of computers and electronics, 88 percent of shoes, and 95 percent of auto parts. Notably, more than 70 percent of microchips in Russia come from foreign suppliers, while domestic chips are used mainly in the military-industrial sector and space. All of this means consumer prices will likely rise both because of the lack of confidence in the market and the depreciation of the ruble. The extent will depend on how quickly Russian companies can find substitutes.

Russian Financial Liabilities, October 2021

(click to enlarge)

Short-Term Pain

Assuming more severe sanctions aren’t introduced, Russia’s economy will weather the storm in the long run. It still has plenty of money in its National Wealth Fund, low public debt and large gold reserves. It’s also counting on two additional factors to soften the blow. First, it believes its budget funds are protected because existing contracts to supply oil and natural gas remain intact. The high price of energy and depreciating ruble will make these contracts even more valuable to the Russian budget. Second, Moscow expects reduced competition from multinational firms will increase profits for small and medium-sized Russian businesses. Previous sanctions had a positive impact on domestic production and helped Russia achieve self-sufficiency in a number of goods. It’s relying on allied countries, particularly those in the Eurasian Economic Union, to supply products for which there is currently no quality domestic substitute. It’s also hoping to coax countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America to continue or expand trade, even in a different currency, and that more countries will join its System for Transfer of Financial Messages – its alternative to SWIFT – and its Mir payment system – similar to VISA or Mastercard.

The problem is that these contingencies will come to fruition only in the long term. In the short term, the people and the state are bound to suffer. Factory shutdowns, layoffs and closure of retail stores and businesses will require the government to spend more to support the population. Moreover, logistical problems, the anemic ruble, the weak position of Russian companies, and mere speculation will increase the cost of goods and contribute to rising inflation. Add to this a shortage of specialized workers, especially in the IT sector, as people search for employment in other countries with fewer restrictions due to sanctions.

Moscow is betting big on its long-term prospects at the expense of its short-term economic health. It’s also betting that the West won’t be willing to impose more severe punishments, such as refusing to buy Russian oil and gas or a total SWIFT ban. Time will tell if these bets pay off.




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18271
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe, Monroe Doctrine
« Reply #382 on: March 06, 2022, 01:22:52 PM »
Does anyone know what the Monroe Doctrine does not say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

It does not say the US can invade Canada, wage war there, destroy its airbases, bomb its civilians, capture land and people, overthrow its government.

[Monroe Doctrine] "held that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers was a potentially hostile act against the U.S."

We didn't invade Ukraine.  THEY did.
------------------------------------------------
Monroe Doctrine did not say Hitler's Germany could annex and invade all it's neighbors, right?

No direct answer here to my points regarding hindsight lessons learned [or not] coming out of WWII "stop evil sooner".  Russia today is not as dangerous to the world as Hitler was in what year?  1938 after they "annexed" Austria? 1939 after they took Poland?  What about Spring 1940 after they took Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and France?  C'mon Doug.  That's just Europe.  We still did not get in.  That's not anymore countries than those who are deathly afraid of Putin Russia today.

No rebuttal to my point that the best foreign policy analysts of 2007 characterized Putin's Russia as "belligerent and bullying to its neighbors" prior to when we alleged caused all this in 2008 by talking to countries who wanted to defend themselves against the Russian aggressor.

Blame America First, but we did not cause this.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe, Monroe Doctrine
« Reply #383 on: March 06, 2022, 01:32:26 PM »
From the wiki article cited by Doug:

The Venezuelan crisis of 1895 became "one of the most momentous episodes in the history of Anglo-American relations in general and of Anglo-American rivalries in Latin America in particular."[29] Venezuela sought to involve the U.S. in a territorial dispute with Britain over Guayana Esequiba, and hired former US ambassador William L. Scruggs to argue that British behaviour over the issue violated the Monroe Doctrine. President Grover Cleveland through his Secretary of State, Richard Olney, cited the Doctrine in 1895, threatening strong action against Great Britain if the British failed to arbitrate their dispute with Venezuela. In a July 20, 1895 note to Britain, Olney stated, "The United States is practically sovereign on this continent, and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its interposition."[11]: 307  British Prime Minister Lord Salisbury took strong exception to the American language. The U.S. objected to a British proposal for a joint meeting to clarify the scope of the Monroe Doctrine. Historian George Herring wrote that by failing to pursue the issue further the British "tacitly conceded the U.S. definition of the Monroe Doctrine and its hegemony in the hemisphere.

Does anyone know what the Monroe Doctrine does not say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

It does not say the US can invade Canada, wage war there, destroy its airbases, bomb its civilians, capture land and people, overthrow its government.

[Monroe Doctrine] "held that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers was a potentially hostile act against the U.S."

We didn't invade Ukraine.  THEY did.
------------------------------------------------
Monroe Doctrine did not say Hitler's Germany could annex and invade all it's neighbors, right?

No direct answer here to my points regarding hindsight lessons learned [or not] coming out of WWII "stop evil sooner".  Russia today is not as dangerous to the world as Hitler was in what year?  1938 after they "annexed" Austria? 1939 after they took Poland?  What about Spring 1940 after they took Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and France?  C'mon Doug.  That's just Europe.  We still did not get in.  That's not anymore countries than those who are deathly afraid of Putin Russia today.

No rebuttal to my point that the best foreign policy analysts of 2007 characterized Putin's Russia as "belligerent and bullying to its neighbors" prior to when we alleged caused all this in 2008 by talking to countries who wanted to defend themselves against the Russian aggressor.

Blame America First, but we did not cause this.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18271
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe, Monroe Doctrine
« Reply #384 on: March 06, 2022, 01:44:38 PM »
"From the wiki article cited by Doug..."

Interesting but unresponsive to my points.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe, Monroe Doctrine
« Reply #385 on: March 06, 2022, 01:57:56 PM »
"From the wiki article cited by Doug..."

Interesting but unresponsive to my points.

So, not Canada. Do the "Banana Wars" ring a bell?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #386 on: March 06, 2022, 02:07:27 PM »
Well-reasoned Doug. 

I mostly agree.  The starting point should not be what Stalin conquered as part of WW2 (a.k.a. NATO moving east from Germany) but IMHO there does come a point at which military alliance on Russian borders does trigger legit Russian Monroe concerns.  You are right we cannot invade Canada under the Monroe Doctrine nor invade Mexico , , , ahem , , , again, but were Mexico to forming a mutual defense treaty with China or Russia I'm thinking we would and should have forceful response, see e.g. the Cuban Missile Crisis.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18271
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #387 on: March 06, 2022, 03:46:34 PM »
Well-reasoned Doug. 

I mostly agree.  The starting point should not be what Stalin conquered as part of WW2 (a.k.a. NATO moving east from Germany) but IMHO there does come a point at which military alliance on Russian borders does trigger legit Russian Monroe concerns.  You are right we cannot invade Canada under the Monroe Doctrine nor invade Mexico , , , ahem , , , again, but were Mexico to forming a mutual defense treaty with China or Russia I'm thinking we would and should have forceful response, see e.g. the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Thank you Crafty.  I would clarify, we stopped the missile placements in Cuba, but we didn't take over Cuba.  The focus was on offensive weapons.  We didn't send assassination teams in for Castro.  Cuba wasn't in danger of being invaded by the US prior to the crisis, or since.  They were acting as a pawn in a superpower contest.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #388 on: March 06, 2022, 03:51:32 PM »
Well-reasoned Doug. 

I mostly agree.  The starting point should not be what Stalin conquered as part of WW2 (a.k.a. NATO moving east from Germany) but IMHO there does come a point at which military alliance on Russian borders does trigger legit Russian Monroe concerns.  You are right we cannot invade Canada under the Monroe Doctrine nor invade Mexico , , , ahem , , , again, but were Mexico to forming a mutual defense treaty with China or Russia I'm thinking we would and should have forceful response, see e.g. the Cuban Missile Crisis.

And we quietly removed our missiles from Turkey at the same time, as was agreed upon.


Thank you Crafty.  I would clarify, we stopped the missile placements in Cuba, but we didn't take over Cuba.  The focus was on offensive weapons.  We didn't send assassination teams in for Castro.  Cuba wasn't in danger of being invaded by the US prior to the crisis, or since.  They were acting as a pawn in a superpower contest.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18271
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe, Monroe Doctrine
« Reply #389 on: March 06, 2022, 04:00:11 PM »
"From the wiki article cited by Doug..."

Interesting but unresponsive to my points.

So, not Canada. Do the "Banana Wars" ring a bell?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars

If the US has some bad history in Latin America (in the 1800s), from my point of view, that doesn't change right from wrong committed by Putin.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #390 on: March 06, 2022, 04:02:31 PM »
Ummm , , , does "Bay of Pigs" trigger any memories? 

Or, going back further just how was the Spanish American War triggered?  Leading to the Platt Amendment?

Guantanamo Bay?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe, Monroe Doctrine
« Reply #391 on: March 06, 2022, 04:10:32 PM »
"From the wiki article cited by Doug..."

Interesting but unresponsive to my points.

So, not Canada. Do the "Banana Wars" ring a bell?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars

If the US has some bad history in Latin America (in the 1800s), from my point of view, that doesn't change right from wrong committed by Putin.

Putin is acting is what he sees as in his nation's best interest. Our leadership doesn't. Perhaps that is why it is so jarring (Well, aside from the endless propaganda being flooded towards us).

https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/cuban-missile-crisis

Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev had gambled on sending the missiles to Cuba with the specific goal of increasing his nation’s nuclear strike capability. The Soviets had long felt uneasy about the number of nuclear weapons that were targeted at them from sites in Western Europe and Turkey, and they saw the deployment of missiles in Cuba as a way to level the playing field. Another key factor in the Soviet missile scheme was the hostile relationship between the U.S. and Cuba. The Kennedy administration had already launched one attack on the island–the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961–and Castro and Khrushchev saw the missiles as a means of deterring further U.S. aggression.
 
SNIP

Despite the enormous tension, Soviet and American leaders found a way out of the impasse. During the crisis, the Americans and Soviets had exchanged letters and other communications, and on October 26, Khrushchev sent a message to Kennedy in which he offered to remove the Cuban missiles in exchange for a promise by U.S. leaders not to invade Cuba. The following day, the Soviet leader sent a letter proposing that the USSR would dismantle its missiles in Cuba if the Americans removed their missile installations in Turkey.

Officially, the Kennedy administration decided to accept the terms of the first message and ignore the second Khrushchev letter entirely. Privately, however, American officials also agreed to withdraw their nation’s missiles from Turkey. U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy (1925-68) personally delivered the message to the Soviet ambassador in Washington, and on October 28, the crisis drew to a close.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Good thing we'd never have bioweapon labs in Ukraine!
« Reply #392 on: March 06, 2022, 05:25:14 PM »
https://www.minotdailynews.com/opinion/national-columnists/2022/03/what-do-ukraine-and-wuhan-have-in-common/

What do Ukraine and Wuhan have in common?
NATIONAL COLUMNISTS
MAR 4, 2022

LAURA HOLLIS

 
Campaigning politicians have always inflated their own importance and the benefits of the policies they espouse — and exaggerated the perils of electing the other guy. It used to be the case that these self-aggrandizing stump speeches were tempered by a (mostly) diligent press that went out of its way to poke holes in those exaggerations and deflate egos with some sharply pointed facts. And Americans have historically trusted their elected leaders to tell the truth in matters of grave national importance.

No more. We are swimming in a cesspool of lies so fetid that it’s almost impossible to know what’s true anymore. This is a consequence of two political parties whose most visible and powerful members lie with impunity, and a national press that abandoned the pursuit of truth years ago in favor of pushing left-wing political propaganda.

Let’s take the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Is this nothing more than naked aggression by a larger country (Russia) run by an ex-KGB agent (President Vladimir Putin) who’s made no bones about wanting some (if not all) of the old Soviet territories back?

That’s the position being pushed by the Biden administration.

Putin, on the other hand, claims not only that parts (if not all) of Ukraine belong to Russia; he has intimated that the United States has been funding the development of possible biowarfare agents at laboratories in Ukraine, and that these pathogens could be used as weapons against Russia.

Until recently, most of us would have tended to believe the statements of our own government over the inflammatory accusations of a former Soviet strongman. But two-plus years of the COVID-19 pandemic has proven that our own government lies to us continuously and repeatedly.

In fact, the similarities between the “Ukraine biolabs” story and the theory that SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) emerged from the Wuhan Institute of Virology are remarkable.

When COVID-19 began spreading throughout China and the rest of the world, the “official” story was that the virus had jumped species (from bat to human, perhaps with an intermediary host) in a wet market in Wuhan. Very quickly, some writers pointed out that the city of Wuhan had an international virology institute. And that bat viruses were being studied at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And that scientists who worked at WIV had published papers in which they described genetically manipulating those viruses to see if they could be made to “jump species” (so-called gain of function research).

Immediately, these statements and the questions they raised were dismissed as “misinformation” or Chinese government propaganda. Broadcast and print media journalists refused to investigate the claims. Those who continued to ask questions were denounced as kooks or “conspiracy theorists.” Social media megacorporations Twitter, Facebook and YouTube removed content and shut down the accounts of anyone who tried to publish information about the “lab leak” theory. America’s COVID czar Dr. Anthony Fauci was consistently among the most vocal detractors of that theory.

But information continued to seep out. State Department memoranda from 2018 were discovered, warning that research into zoonotic bat viruses being conducted at the WIV lacked adequate safety protocols. Those memoranda mentioned funding by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, the organization run by Fauci. Fauci was called before Congress and insisted that the NIAID had never funded “gain of function” research. An October 2021 letter from the NIH proved that this was untrue; the NIAID and the NIH had funded gain of function research in Wuhan. Other documents — including Fauci’s own emails — obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests revealed that Fauci and other scientists were seriously evaluating the possibility that COVID-19 leaked from a Wuhan laboratory, even as they lied to the public and denied it.

What does any of this have to do with Ukraine?

A Washington Post article from 2005 opens with this statement: “The United States and Ukraine agreed yesterday to work jointly to prevent the spread of biological weapons, signing a pact that clears the way for Ukraine’s government to receive U.S. aid to improve security at facilities where dangerous microbes are kept.” The two U.S. senators spearheading that initiative were Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, and Barack Obama, then a Democratic senator from Illinois.

So, “dangerous microbes” are at these Ukrainian laboratories, and the United States government has been providing funding. For what, exactly? To “improve security.”

This hardly inspires confidence.

Right on cue, here come the “official” statements. An article published last week in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists quotes Robert Pope, director of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, a “30-year-old Defense Department program that has helped secure the former Soviet Union’s weapons of mass destruction and redirect former bioweapons facilities and scientists toward peaceful endeavors.”

According to Pope, “the labs in Ukraine are not bioweapons facilities … (T)hey are public and animal health labs” that “conduct peaceful scientific research and disease surveillance.” Pope further insisted that all pathogens present at the Ukrainian laboratories were safe as long as they were kept frozen, but power outages caused by damage to the buildings (from warfare, for example) could pose a problem. Furthermore, the safety protocols of the Ukraine labs are not without concern. “They have more pathogens in more places than we recommend,” Pope said, in what sounds like a serious understatement.

Predictably, any suspicions about the work conducted in Ukrainian laboratories and funded by the U.S. government are now being dismissed as “disinformation.” Foreign Policy published an article yesterday insisting that the “Ukrainian lab bioweapons” claims are just “conspiracy theories” being advanced by (of course) the Russian and Chinese governments and (wait for it) QAnon supporters who are spreading misinformation on social media as part of the “dogma for the right wing of the Republican Party.”

Sound familiar?

So, what’s really going on in the Ukrainian laboratories? Who do you believe?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18271
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #393 on: March 07, 2022, 06:49:09 AM »
Ummm , , , does "Bay of Pigs" trigger any memories? 

Or, going back further just how was the Spanish American War triggered?  Leading to the Platt Amendment?

Guantanamo Bay?

I need help connecting this to the current discussion.  Covert op 60 years ago, Bay of Pigs, why was it covert if 'backyard' invasions are justified? It certainly wasn't a full scale, tanks on the streets, missiles in the air invasion. Why not and why not since then?  (Sovereignty?)

I would add, isn't it a political loser for the right to be taking Putin's side, justifying his carnage? 

No one responded to the 2007 report posted.

I am on the side of Ukraine's right to defend itself and to ask for help in doing so. Also on the side of containing Russia's expansionism to the extent we can. 

No one wants US ground troops deployed there.  No one wants nuclear war or any escalating or widening of the conflict.

Ukraine is not a threat to Russian borders.  A secure Ukraine only threatens Putin's expansion plans.

Strong sanctions have other consequences, but wouldn't we also criticize if Biden and Europe responded with weak sanctions?

In negotiations now, a non-NATO model for Ukraine:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-open-discussing-non-nato-models-negotiator-tells-fox-news-2022-03-06/

The invasion needs to fail for Putin,
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia-ukraine-latest-news-2022-03-07/card/ruble-sinks-to-fresh-lows-with-russian-market-shut-HDeRc7VEmBa1aaz90kOB

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10585145/Ukraine-war-Zelensky-declares-god-not-forgive-Russians-target-civilians.html

then give him some face saving for his exit. End this before the Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

Financial attacks on the Russian people risk turning them against us instead of against him.

The world gets more complicated and dangerous when the US chooses weakness instead of strength with restraint.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2022, 07:00:45 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #394 on: March 07, 2022, 07:17:58 AM »
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/100/275/598/original/497a3c7ec9c79531.png



Ummm , , , does "Bay of Pigs" trigger any memories? 

Or, going back further just how was the Spanish American War triggered?  Leading to the Platt Amendment?

Guantanamo Bay?

I need help connecting this to the current discussion.  Covert op 60 years ago, Bay of Pigs, why was it covert if 'backyard' invasions are justified? It certainly wasn't a full scale, tanks on the streets, missiles in the air invasion. Why not and why not since then?  (Sovereignty?)

I would add, isn't it a political loser for the right to be taking Putin's side, justifying his carnage? 

No one responded to the 2007 report posted.

I am on the side of Ukraine's right to defend itself and to ask for help in doing so. Also on the side of containing Russia's expansionism to the extent we can. 

No one wants US ground troops deployed there.  No one wants nuclear war or any escalating or widening of the conflict.

Ukraine is not a threat to Russian borders.  A secure Ukraine only threatens Putin's expansion plans.

Strong sanctions have other consequences, but wouldn't we also criticize if Biden and Europe responded with weak sanctions?

In negotiations now, a non-NATO model for Ukraine:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-open-discussing-non-nato-models-negotiator-tells-fox-news-2022-03-06/

The invasion needs to fail for Putin,
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia-ukraine-latest-news-2022-03-07/card/ruble-sinks-to-fresh-lows-with-russian-market-shut-HDeRc7VEmBa1aaz90kOB

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10585145/Ukraine-war-Zelensky-declares-god-not-forgive-Russians-target-civilians.html

then give him some face saving for his exit. End this before the Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

Financial attacks on the Russian people risk turning them against us instead of against him.

The world gets more complicated and dangerous when the US chooses weakness instead of strength with restraint.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Look at the carnage Putin did!
« Reply #397 on: March 07, 2022, 08:04:48 AM »


Oh, sorry, that's Minneapolis.

Your enemies are much closer.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18271
    • View Profile
Re: Look at the carnage Putin did!
« Reply #398 on: March 07, 2022, 10:38:21 AM »
Oh, sorry, that's Minneapolis.

Your enemies are much closer.

Sorry G M but this is not an either-or situation.  There is no logic to me that because Mpls is screwed up, Putin gets a pass.  And China is a bigger threat. 

I came far closer to dying (not being born) because of a ground war in Europe than to these thugs at home.

Speaking of the thugs at home, how did not fighting back go for us?

Twin Cities metro (pop. 3 million) has median household income of 80k, for my congressional district that is 100k, for my city that is 120k, median, not the rich.  We can vote the assholes out and we can rebuild burnt buildings where we have the will.   What's Ukraine going to do?

Silence on the WWII analogies but does anyone here think that had the US not intervened, had Hitler won in Europe, had Japan won in Asia, that we were going to be just fine in the 49 states that were not (yet) attacked?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Look at the carnage Putin did!
« Reply #399 on: March 07, 2022, 10:46:23 AM »
Hitler had something like 18 million troops. Putin has less than a million, much of which is already bogged down in Ukraine. He also has an economy the size of Italy's. He is europe's problem, not ours.

Ain't no Russian ever called me a deplorable.



Oh, sorry, that's Minneapolis.

Your enemies are much closer.

Sorry G M but this is not an either-or situation.  There is no logic to me that because Mpls is screwed up, Putin gets a pass.  And China is a bigger threat. 

I came far closer to dying (not being born) because of a ground war in Europe than to these thugs at home.

Speaking of the thugs at home, how did not fighting back go for us?

Twin Cities metro (pop. 3 million) has median household income of 80k, for my congressional district that is 100k, for my city that is 120k, median, not the rich.  We can vote the assholes out and we can rebuild burnt buildings where we have the will.   What's Ukraine going to do?

Silence on the WWII analogies but does anyone here think that had the US not intervened, had Hitler won in Europe, had Japan won in Asia, that we were going to be just fine in the 49 states that were not (yet) attacked?