All Things Russia & Ukraine

[old salt]

We should care because they are like us.

https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status ... 9156275200

Who ruled the Ukraine in 1619 ?

[Typical Lax Dad]

We should care because they are like us.

https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status ... 9156275200

Who ruled the Ukraine in 1619 ?

Another angry black lady….

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/ ... ts-future/

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... han-trump/

“I’m not a praying man, but if I were, I would be on my hands and knees thanking the Almighty that during the worst crisis in Europe since 1945, the United States is led by Joe Biden, not Donald Trump.

Biden has been as masterful in his handling of the Ukraine war as he was ham-handed in his handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal. For months he has been warning that Russia would invade and predicting that this would trigger a “swift and severe” response. He even laid out details of Russian plans to stage false flag operations and to install a puppet regime in Kyiv.

There was much skepticism on all counts, with Russia and its apologists denying until the last moment that the invasion would occur. But Biden was dead right. This is the opposite of the Iraq War, when U.S. intelligence and leadership was discredited. American credibility has been enhanced by Biden’s deft handling of this crisis. Today it is Moscow, not Washington, that is acting based on bad intelligence: Russian dictator Vladimir Putin massively underestimated Ukrainian resistance.

While publicly calling out Putin, Biden and his aides were working furiously behind the scenes to unite the West behind an agenda meant to support Ukraine, punish the Kremlin — and, implicitly, to deter China from an attack on Taiwan. Their efforts were more successful than anyone could have imagined a few weeks ago, with Western countries uniting to evict some Russian banks from the SWIFT system of inter-bank transfers, to impose sanctions on the Russian central bank and to rush arms to Ukraine.

Admittedly, part of this mobilization is due to factors beyond Biden’s control: Putin’s reckless aggression has shocked the world, while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s stout resistance has inspired it. But there would not have been this degree of unity absent strong American leadership.
As my Post colleagues reported, the Biden administration mounted “a months-long campaign … to share intelligence briefings, pressure powerful countries that they might need to make sacrifices, and coordinate among a disparate group of 27 E.U. member states.” Some of those countries, e.g. Hungary, have been friendly to Russia, while others, e.g. Italy and Germany, have been fearful of breaking business ties. But ultimately, they went along with the kind of draconian sanctions that previously have been applied only to rogue regimes such as Venezuela, Syria, Iran.

Biden has hardly been flawless. He should have sent more military equipment earlier to Ukraine, particularly Stinger missiles, without worrying about provoking Putin. But he has generally been sure-handed in this crisis, knowing just how far he can go — and no further. The White House, for example, has rightly rejected calls for a no-fly zone that would bring the United States into direct conflict with another nuclear-armed state. And, in the face of Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling, Biden has wisely de-escalated by not increasing U.S. alert levels. It is a great comfort in this dangerous time to know that, while Russia might be led by an unhinged egomaniac, the United States no longer is.

The one thing missing from Biden’s response has been a prime-time address to explain the stakes to the American people. Biden’s central flaw is that still thinks like the senator he was for so many decades, preferring behind-the-scenes persuasion to stirring oratory. But the State of the Union address on Tuesday night fills that gap.

Undoubtedly, Trump could read similar words from a teleprompter, but they would have no credibility because, despite his incessant lying, he has always been transparent about his true feelings. Even if he were still president, he undoubtedly would have called the Russian invasion an act of “genius” and rhapsodized about how much he likes Putin.

Imagine what that would have done for Western unity. The Europeans are willing to stand up to Russia, notwithstanding their reliance on Russian energy and their fear of Russian military power, because they know that Washington has their backs. Without staunch U.S. support, the unprecedented Western resolve we now see would melt as quickly as the last snow of spring.
The Ukraine crisis further raises the stakes for 2024, when Trump is likely to attempt a comeback to assuage his bruised ego. If Trump returns to the White House — no doubt with Russian help, as in 2016 — Putin could yet find a lifeline to rescue him from the dire straits into which he has plunged his country and the world. If, however, Biden can win another term — or even if he is defeated by an anti-Putin Republican — then this could be a turning point. The misbegotten Ukraine war could well mark the beginning of the end of Putin’s monstrous regime, and also, more generally, a reversal of fortune for the democratic world after 16 years of authoritarian expansion. If this is the beginning of an unexpected democratic resurgence, one can only regret the terrible price paid by the Ukrainian people.“

And never considering Russia would not even be invading if Trump were in office. TWP leading from the backseat as usual.

[Brooklyn]

Uh, have any pro war types from the forum enlisted and marched off?

Asking for a friend ...

[youthathletics]

Uh, have any pro war types from the forum enlisted and marched off?

Asking for a friend ...

Who is pro war?

[Farfromgeneva]

Well everyone who doesn’t think like and completely agree with him of course.

[Brooklyn]

Who is pro war?

That's actually a good question and I'm gonna answer it with a question:


WHO HERE IS PRO WAR? That is, who wants Biden to intervene militarily in that border dispute? Who wants to send troops as well as war materiél? Money? Engage in an international boycott, embargo, suspension of Russia from international competition, freezing of assets, and other acts of war?

I oppose all of this. After all nothing like this happened to the USA during Bush's two wars of imperialistic terrorism. In fact part of the UN (though not a majority, I understand) endorsed his wars even though the traitor clearly lied and engaged in these wars to create profits for his puppet masters in the military industrial complex. So I say take a consistent position - the world looked the other way during those two wars, it needs to look the other way now just to be consistent in the application of principle.

[old salt]

This a.m. Morning Joe was asking why the convoy had not been attacked yet with EU loaner Migs.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/2 ... s-00012560

[Brooklyn]

This a.m. Morning Joe was asking why the convoy had not been attacked yet with EU loaner Migs.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/2 ... s-00012560

If I'm reading that correctly what they're saying is, they won't donate aircraft, they would sell it along with more war materiél. It stands to reason because, as always, there is plenty of profit to be made in war. Lending equipment yields nothing. Selling it means huge profits. As always, when it comes to war, the profit motive is the best motive.

[MDlaxfan76]

This a.m. Morning Joe was asking why the convoy had not been attacked yet with EU loaner Migs.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/2 ... s-00012560

Yes, a bummer that's it's not happening, whether a balk or whatever. They could badly use that capability.

Both EU and Ukraine had announced the deal, someone didn't have it nailed down or someone got spooked, or perhaps is was an information campaign tactic, though I don't see the point of the last.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Economist - 2/20/22

ANYWHERE YOU turn in Moscow, it's easy to find members of the Russian elite who wonder why the West thinks that war in Ukraine is the Kremlin’s preferred course of action. Even if the Russian army managed to force Kyiv into a swift and humiliating defeat without too many casualties, the damage to Russia’s national interests would surely outweigh any potential military gains.

The problem is that the same logic was just as true eight years ago when the fateful decisions were made to annex Crimea and to stir conflict in Ukraine’s Donbas region. The fact that Russia has been able to endure the international fallout for all these years helps to explain why the region finds itself again on the brink of war.

When it comes to Ukraine, people in Moscow and the West can be forgiven for assuming that the Kremlin’s policy is informed by a dispassionate strategy derived from endless hours of interagency debate and the weighing of pros and cons. What actually drives the Kremlin are the tough ideas and interests of a small group of longtime lieutenants to President Vladimir Putin, as well as those of the Russian leader himself. Emboldened by perceptions of the West’s terminal decline, no one in this group loses much sleep about the prospect of an open-ended confrontation with America and Europe. In fact, the core members of this group would all be among the main beneficiaries of a deeper schism.

Consider Mr Putin’s war cabinet, which is the locus of most decision-making. It consists of Nikolai Patrushev, the head of the Security Council; Alexander Bortnikov, the head of the FSB (the main successor agency of the KGB intelligence service); Sergei Naryshkin, the head of Russian Foreign Intelligence Service; and Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu. Their average age is 68 years old and they have a lot in common. The collapse of the Soviet Union, which Mr Putin famously described as the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century, was the defining episode of their adult lives. Four out of five have a KGB background, with three, including the president himself, coming from the ranks of counterintelligence. It is these hardened men, not polished diplomats like Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who run the country’s foreign policy.

In recent years members of this group have become very vocal. Messrs Patrushev and Naryshkin frequently give lengthy interviews articulating their views on global developments and Russia’s international role. According to them, the American-led order is in deep crisis thanks to the failure of Western democracy and internal conflicts spurred by the promotion of tolerance, multiculturalism and respect for the rights of minorities. A new multipolar order is taking shape that reflects an unstoppable shift in power to authoritarian regimes that support traditional values. A feisty, resurgent Russia is a pioneering force behind the arrival of this new order, along with a rising China. Given the state of affairs in Western countries, the pair contend, it's only natural that they seek to contain Russia and to install pro-Western regimes in former Soviet republics. The West’s ultimate goal of a colour revolution in Russia itself would lead to the country’s conclusive collapse.

Washington sees unfinished business in Russia’s persistence and success, according to Mr Putin’s entourage. As America’s power wanes, its methods are becoming more aggressive. This is why the West cannot be trusted. The best way to ensure the safety of Russia’s existing political regime and to advance its national interests is to keep America off balance.

Seen this way, Ukraine is the central battleground of the struggle. The stakes could not be higher. Should Moscow allow that country to be fully absorbed into a western sphere of influence, Russia’s endurance as a great power will itself be under threat. On a personal level, the world view of the hard men is an odd amalgam of Soviet nostalgia, great-power chauvinism and the trappings of the Russian Orthodox faith. The fact that the new elite in Kyiv glorifies the Ukrainian nationalists of the 20th century and thumb their noses at Moscow is a huge personal affront.

Why then are the people around Putin not scared about possible fallout from a new round of far-reaching economic sanctions? In their eyes, the sanctions that the West imposed to punish Russia for the annexation of Crimea and the war in Donbas were intended largely to check Russia’s rise. America and its allies would have found a way to introduce them one way or another, they were just looking for an excuse. Since 2014 such views have solidified. Messrs Patrushev, Bortnikov and Naryshkin all find themselves on the US Treasury’s blacklist already, along with many other members of Mr Putin’s inner circle. There is no way back for them to the West’s creature comforts. They are destined to end their lives in Fortress Russia, with their assets and their relatives alongside them.

As for sanctions by sector, including those that President Joe Biden’s team plans to impose should Russia invade Ukraine, these may end up largely strengthening the hard men’s grip on the national economy. Import substitution efforts have generated large flows of budget funds that are controlled by the coterie and their proxies, including through Rostec. The massive state conglomerate is run by a friend of Mr Putin’s from his KGB days in East Germany, Sergey Chemezov. In a similar vein, a ban on food imports from countries that have sanctioned Russia has led to spectacular growth in Russian agribusiness. The sector is overseen by Mr Patrushev’s elder son Dmitry, who is Mr Putin’s agriculture minister.

Similarly much-touted financial sanctions have led to a bigger role for state-owned banks which, unsurprisingly enough, are also filled with KGB veterans. If anything, further sanctions wouldn’t just fail to hurt Mr Putin’s war cabinet, they would secure its members' place as the top beneficiaries of Russia’s deepening economic autarky. The same logic is true of domestic politics: as the country descends into a near-permanent state of siege, the security services will be the most important pillar of the regime. That further cements the hard men’s grip on the country.

After two years of covid-induced self-isolation for Kremlin bosses, there is a clear tendency toward tunnel vision and a dearth of checks and balances. Russia’s interests are increasingly becoming conflated with the personal interests of the people at the very top of the system.

Alexander Gabuev is a senior fellow and chair of the Russia in the Asia-Pacific Programme at the Carnegie Moscow Centre.

[Essexfenwick]

Uh, have any pro war types from the forum enlisted and marched off?

Asking for a friend ...

Who is pro war?

The whole swamp.

Trump gets it

[Typical Lax Dad]

[Typical Lax Dad]

[Typical Lax Dad]

[Essexfenwick]

I’m sick and tired

Clinton sets us straight on high quantity white liberal mental illness diagnosis


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0

[Typical Lax Dad]

"The Ukraine"

[Typical Lax Dad]

[Typical Lax Dad]

The Former President of The United States of America folks....

[MDlaxfan76]

Irrelevant to topic, just trolling again Essex.
Disgusting.

Have an actual, reasoned disagreement, point of view, then explain what it is in a rational, civil way.

Otherwise, go away, this is very much not the time and place for the childishness intended only to inflame others.