All Things Russia & Ukraine

[get it to x]

WRM describes how the Biden admin, US body politic, the Western alliance & the global community is dividing over the war in Ukraine.
FTR (if anyone cares) -- I agree with these points.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-world- ... 1675720087

Opinion/Global View

The World Rejects the Wilsonian Order

Global liberals cling to the internationalist vision, but its appeal is fading everywhere.

by Walter Russell Mead, Feb. 6, 2023

Ninety nine years ago this month, Woodrow Wilson, crippled by strokes and humiliated by the Republican landslide of 1920, lay dying in Washington. His dream of a liberal, rules-based world order survived him, however, and the Western response to Vladimir Putin’s attack on Ukraine demonstrates how powerful his legacy remains.

Liberal internationalists around the world believe that global institutions (like Wilson’s ill-fated League of Nations) can replace the anarchic, often deadly, power struggles between nations with a system of orderly management that brings the rule of law to a weary world. Institutions like the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, as well as agreements like the Paris climate accords, reflect efforts by diplomats and politicians in the U.S. and abroad to create the kind of world that Wilson sought.

For Wilson’s modern heirs, technocratic governance through rules-based international institutions represents humanity’s last, best hope to avoid cataclysmic disruptions ranging from world wars to climate change. From this perspective, Mr. Putin’s defiant international rule-breaking threatens the foundations of Wilsonian order. If a great power gets away with breaking the rules this egregiously, humanity falls back into a nuclear jungle.

Mr. Putin’s challenge to Wilsonian order is why so many liberals, especially in the U.S. and Europe, have become uber-interventionist on Ukraine. Many expected traditional national-security hawks would rally to oppose Mr. Putin’s assault on his neighbor. What was more surprising and, given the politics of the Democratic Party and the Biden administration, more consequential for American foreign policy, was the response of Wilsonian liberals to the war. Normally dovish columnists and members of Congress now cry “praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!” as they urge Western governments to step up shipments of advanced weaponry and supplies to Ukraine.

Within the Biden administration, the struggle is among three groups: liberal internationalists, who want America and the West to do what it takes to ensure that Russia loses the war; pragmatists who want to check Russia but fear Russian escalation and believe that the war will inevitably end in a compromise peace that falls short of Wilsonian hopes; and Asia-firsters who worry that U.S. support for Ukraine reduces America’s ability to face the more consequential and long-term threat from China. President Biden has tried to stay in the middle, giving Ukraine more support than the pragmatists and Asia hands prefer, but dribbling it out more slowly than the Wilsonians would like.

For Wilsonians, world politics today is less about great-power rivalries between the U.S. and rivals like China and Russia and more about the struggle between principles and selfishness, order and chaos, democracy and authoritarianism. Wilsonians hailed the recent wins of a pro-Western candidate in the Czech election and of Lula da Silva over Trump ally Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil as victories in the global struggle for liberal order.

Last week German chancellor Olaf Scholz visited Lula to celebrate his victory over Mr. Bolsonaro—and to ask Brazil to send ammunition to Ukraine. Lula accepted the congratulations but turned down the request. Brazil, like India, South Africa and much of the rest of the world, wants nothing to do with Wilsonian crusades.

Lula’s skepticism reflects decades of wariness in the Global South about the Wilsonian agenda. To the degree that Wilsonian institutions work, much of the Global South sees them as instruments of Western domination that should be feared and resisted.

But it is the failures of Wilsonian order more than its successes that have dramatically undercut its popularity outside the Euro-American bubble. Take the pandemic. Rich countries protected themselves and their citizens; poor countries scrambled for scraps. This has been largely true during Mr. Putin’s war as well. Mr. Scholz is spending freely to protect German industry and consumers from high energy prices, but he brought Lula no promises of financial aid adequate to the economic disruption that Western sanctions on Russia have brought to Brazil.

As United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said last month in Davos, Switzerland, the world’s rich countries fail to grasp just how alienated from the Western world system the Global South has become. Warning of the “gravest levels of geopolitical division and mistrust in generations,” Mr. Guterres went on to describe an immense gap between what the West is willing to do and what the South wants.

That gap won’t be closed; neither in Europe nor the U.S. is there anything like a political consensus for the kinds of economic concessions and aid that poor countries want. Meanwhile, the one massive benefit that the liberal world order brought the Global South, the opportunity to grow rich through free trade, is being steadily undermined by rising protectionism across the West.

Wilson’s world order-building efforts collapsed because he overestimated the political appeal of his principles in the U.S. and abroad. A similar blindness afflicts his 21st-century heirs. We must hope that their failure will be less consequential than his.

How are those sanctions working out? Have we brought Mother Russia to her knees yet? We have actually strengthened the BRICS alliance (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and don't be surprised if Saudi Arabia is next to join. Russia's economy is expected to grow nominally, and in the meantime sectors they dominated, like fertilizer, are causing inflation in the West. We also have a chance of the dollar being replaced as the world's reserve currency. We have met the enemy, and they is us. (h/t Walt Kelly)

Please enlighten us with your opinions on what should or should not being done.

The Wilsoninan comparisons are fine but also need to include Chamberlain and the other Europeans who attempted to appease Hitler's territorial grabs which only led to more grabs of more territory and ultimately World War.

Would not bet the ranch on the Indians and Chinese going all in with Russia on this - certainly taking advantage of buying discounted Russian oil for now. The Saudis don't need the fossil fuels and I would not expect them to make a big move here - they need us more than the Russians.

The correct Kelly POGO quote is - “We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us” - would never fly today and does your incorrectly substituted word make you WOKE??

Alarmists have been talking the reserve currency shtick for YEARS. Obviously a potential concern but the chicken littles of the world likely should relax a bit.

Not hung up on silly stuff like pronouns. Why don't you call the Indians South Asians? And I'm not the one shouting "The sky is falling!!!". That's the progressive side. We've had at least five rounds of "The world will end in ten years if we don't....." in the last 50 years. Population, acid rain, ice age, global warming and climate change.

You do realize that if we had been firm on never allowing Ukraine to join NATO this may not have happened? They were the buffer, or fence if you like. Fences make good neighbors. Blame Putin all you want, but our hands are not clean either. As to the Saudis needing us, how did that work out when Biden asked them to pump more oil? Will they need us when your plans to eliminate fossil fuel consumption in the US come to fruition? The rest of the world will be humming along while we motor around in our government manufactured, environmentally friendly version of the Trabant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No1-4GsQa-g

[Kismet]

WRM describes how the Biden admin, US body politic, the Western alliance & the global community is dividing over the war in Ukraine.
FTR (if anyone cares) -- I agree with these points.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-world- ... 1675720087

Opinion/Global View

The World Rejects the Wilsonian Order

Global liberals cling to the internationalist vision, but its appeal is fading everywhere.

by Walter Russell Mead, Feb. 6, 2023

Ninety nine years ago this month, Woodrow Wilson, crippled by strokes and humiliated by the Republican landslide of 1920, lay dying in Washington. His dream of a liberal, rules-based world order survived him, however, and the Western response to Vladimir Putin’s attack on Ukraine demonstrates how powerful his legacy remains.

Liberal internationalists around the world believe that global institutions (like Wilson’s ill-fated League of Nations) can replace the anarchic, often deadly, power struggles between nations with a system of orderly management that brings the rule of law to a weary world. Institutions like the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, as well as agreements like the Paris climate accords, reflect efforts by diplomats and politicians in the U.S. and abroad to create the kind of world that Wilson sought.

For Wilson’s modern heirs, technocratic governance through rules-based international institutions represents humanity’s last, best hope to avoid cataclysmic disruptions ranging from world wars to climate change. From this perspective, Mr. Putin’s defiant international rule-breaking threatens the foundations of Wilsonian order. If a great power gets away with breaking the rules this egregiously, humanity falls back into a nuclear jungle.

Mr. Putin’s challenge to Wilsonian order is why so many liberals, especially in the U.S. and Europe, have become uber-interventionist on Ukraine. Many expected traditional national-security hawks would rally to oppose Mr. Putin’s assault on his neighbor. What was more surprising and, given the politics of the Democratic Party and the Biden administration, more consequential for American foreign policy, was the response of Wilsonian liberals to the war. Normally dovish columnists and members of Congress now cry “praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!” as they urge Western governments to step up shipments of advanced weaponry and supplies to Ukraine.

Within the Biden administration, the struggle is among three groups: liberal internationalists, who want America and the West to do what it takes to ensure that Russia loses the war; pragmatists who want to check Russia but fear Russian escalation and believe that the war will inevitably end in a compromise peace that falls short of Wilsonian hopes; and Asia-firsters who worry that U.S. support for Ukraine reduces America’s ability to face the more consequential and long-term threat from China. President Biden has tried to stay in the middle, giving Ukraine more support than the pragmatists and Asia hands prefer, but dribbling it out more slowly than the Wilsonians would like.

For Wilsonians, world politics today is less about great-power rivalries between the U.S. and rivals like China and Russia and more about the struggle between principles and selfishness, order and chaos, democracy and authoritarianism. Wilsonians hailed the recent wins of a pro-Western candidate in the Czech election and of Lula da Silva over Trump ally Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil as victories in the global struggle for liberal order.

Last week German chancellor Olaf Scholz visited Lula to celebrate his victory over Mr. Bolsonaro—and to ask Brazil to send ammunition to Ukraine. Lula accepted the congratulations but turned down the request. Brazil, like India, South Africa and much of the rest of the world, wants nothing to do with Wilsonian crusades.

Lula’s skepticism reflects decades of wariness in the Global South about the Wilsonian agenda. To the degree that Wilsonian institutions work, much of the Global South sees them as instruments of Western domination that should be feared and resisted.

But it is the failures of Wilsonian order more than its successes that have dramatically undercut its popularity outside the Euro-American bubble. Take the pandemic. Rich countries protected themselves and their citizens; poor countries scrambled for scraps. This has been largely true during Mr. Putin’s war as well. Mr. Scholz is spending freely to protect German industry and consumers from high energy prices, but he brought Lula no promises of financial aid adequate to the economic disruption that Western sanctions on Russia have brought to Brazil.

As United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said last month in Davos, Switzerland, the world’s rich countries fail to grasp just how alienated from the Western world system the Global South has become. Warning of the “gravest levels of geopolitical division and mistrust in generations,” Mr. Guterres went on to describe an immense gap between what the West is willing to do and what the South wants.

That gap won’t be closed; neither in Europe nor the U.S. is there anything like a political consensus for the kinds of economic concessions and aid that poor countries want. Meanwhile, the one massive benefit that the liberal world order brought the Global South, the opportunity to grow rich through free trade, is being steadily undermined by rising protectionism across the West.

Wilson’s world order-building efforts collapsed because he overestimated the political appeal of his principles in the U.S. and abroad. A similar blindness afflicts his 21st-century heirs. We must hope that their failure will be less consequential than his.

How are those sanctions working out? Have we brought Mother Russia to her knees yet? We have actually strengthened the BRICS alliance (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and don't be surprised if Saudi Arabia is next to join. Russia's economy is expected to grow nominally, and in the meantime sectors they dominated, like fertilizer, are causing inflation in the West. We also have a chance of the dollar being replaced as the world's reserve currency. We have met the enemy, and they is us. (h/t Walt Kelly)

Please enlighten us with your opinions on what should or should not being done.

The Wilsoninan comparisons are fine but also need to include Chamberlain and the other Europeans who attempted to appease Hitler's territorial grabs which only led to more grabs of more territory and ultimately World War.

Would not bet the ranch on the Indians and Chinese going all in with Russia on this - certainly taking advantage of buying discounted Russian oil for now. The Saudis don't need the fossil fuels and I would not expect them to make a big move here - they need us more than the Russians.

The correct Kelly POGO quote is - “We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us” - would never fly today and does your incorrectly substituted word make you WOKE??

Alarmists have been talking the reserve currency shtick for YEARS. Obviously a potential concern but the chicken littles of the world likely should relax a bit.

Not hung up on silly stuff like pronouns. Why don't you call the Indians South Asians? And I'm not the one shouting "The sky is falling!!!". That's the progressive side. We've had at least five rounds of "The world will end in ten years if we don't....." in the last 50 years. Population, acid rain, ice age, global warming and climate change.

You do realize that if we had been firm on never allowing Ukraine to join NATO this may not have happened? They were the buffer, or fence if you like. Fences make good neighbors. Blame Putin all you want, but our hands are not clean either. As to the Saudis needing us, how did that work out when Biden asked them to pump more oil? Will they need us when your plans to eliminate fossil fuel consumption in the US come to fruition? The rest of the world will be humming along while we motor around in our government manufactured, environmentally friendly version of the Trabant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No1-4GsQa-g

The "Peace in our time" crowd thought the same thing back in the 1930s. How'd that turn out?

[get it to x]

WRM describes how the Biden admin, US body politic, the Western alliance & the global community is dividing over the war in Ukraine.
FTR (if anyone cares) -- I agree with these points.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-world- ... 1675720087

Opinion/Global View

The World Rejects the Wilsonian Order

Global liberals cling to the internationalist vision, but its appeal is fading everywhere.

by Walter Russell Mead, Feb. 6, 2023

Ninety nine years ago this month, Woodrow Wilson, crippled by strokes and humiliated by the Republican landslide of 1920, lay dying in Washington. His dream of a liberal, rules-based world order survived him, however, and the Western response to Vladimir Putin’s attack on Ukraine demonstrates how powerful his legacy remains.

Liberal internationalists around the world believe that global institutions (like Wilson’s ill-fated League of Nations) can replace the anarchic, often deadly, power struggles between nations with a system of orderly management that brings the rule of law to a weary world. Institutions like the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, as well as agreements like the Paris climate accords, reflect efforts by diplomats and politicians in the U.S. and abroad to create the kind of world that Wilson sought.

For Wilson’s modern heirs, technocratic governance through rules-based international institutions represents humanity’s last, best hope to avoid cataclysmic disruptions ranging from world wars to climate change. From this perspective, Mr. Putin’s defiant international rule-breaking threatens the foundations of Wilsonian order. If a great power gets away with breaking the rules this egregiously, humanity falls back into a nuclear jungle.

Mr. Putin’s challenge to Wilsonian order is why so many liberals, especially in the U.S. and Europe, have become uber-interventionist on Ukraine. Many expected traditional national-security hawks would rally to oppose Mr. Putin’s assault on his neighbor. What was more surprising and, given the politics of the Democratic Party and the Biden administration, more consequential for American foreign policy, was the response of Wilsonian liberals to the war. Normally dovish columnists and members of Congress now cry “praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!” as they urge Western governments to step up shipments of advanced weaponry and supplies to Ukraine.

Within the Biden administration, the struggle is among three groups: liberal internationalists, who want America and the West to do what it takes to ensure that Russia loses the war; pragmatists who want to check Russia but fear Russian escalation and believe that the war will inevitably end in a compromise peace that falls short of Wilsonian hopes; and Asia-firsters who worry that U.S. support for Ukraine reduces America’s ability to face the more consequential and long-term threat from China. President Biden has tried to stay in the middle, giving Ukraine more support than the pragmatists and Asia hands prefer, but dribbling it out more slowly than the Wilsonians would like.

For Wilsonians, world politics today is less about great-power rivalries between the U.S. and rivals like China and Russia and more about the struggle between principles and selfishness, order and chaos, democracy and authoritarianism. Wilsonians hailed the recent wins of a pro-Western candidate in the Czech election and of Lula da Silva over Trump ally Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil as victories in the global struggle for liberal order.

Last week German chancellor Olaf Scholz visited Lula to celebrate his victory over Mr. Bolsonaro—and to ask Brazil to send ammunition to Ukraine. Lula accepted the congratulations but turned down the request. Brazil, like India, South Africa and much of the rest of the world, wants nothing to do with Wilsonian crusades.

Lula’s skepticism reflects decades of wariness in the Global South about the Wilsonian agenda. To the degree that Wilsonian institutions work, much of the Global South sees them as instruments of Western domination that should be feared and resisted.

But it is the failures of Wilsonian order more than its successes that have dramatically undercut its popularity outside the Euro-American bubble. Take the pandemic. Rich countries protected themselves and their citizens; poor countries scrambled for scraps. This has been largely true during Mr. Putin’s war as well. Mr. Scholz is spending freely to protect German industry and consumers from high energy prices, but he brought Lula no promises of financial aid adequate to the economic disruption that Western sanctions on Russia have brought to Brazil.

As United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said last month in Davos, Switzerland, the world’s rich countries fail to grasp just how alienated from the Western world system the Global South has become. Warning of the “gravest levels of geopolitical division and mistrust in generations,” Mr. Guterres went on to describe an immense gap between what the West is willing to do and what the South wants.

That gap won’t be closed; neither in Europe nor the U.S. is there anything like a political consensus for the kinds of economic concessions and aid that poor countries want. Meanwhile, the one massive benefit that the liberal world order brought the Global South, the opportunity to grow rich through free trade, is being steadily undermined by rising protectionism across the West.

Wilson’s world order-building efforts collapsed because he overestimated the political appeal of his principles in the U.S. and abroad. A similar blindness afflicts his 21st-century heirs. We must hope that their failure will be less consequential than his.

How are those sanctions working out? Have we brought Mother Russia to her knees yet? We have actually strengthened the BRICS alliance (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and don't be surprised if Saudi Arabia is next to join. Russia's economy is expected to grow nominally, and in the meantime sectors they dominated, like fertilizer, are causing inflation in the West. We also have a chance of the dollar being replaced as the world's reserve currency. We have met the enemy, and they is us. (h/t Walt Kelly)

Please enlighten us with your opinions on what should or should not being done.

The Wilsoninan comparisons are fine but also need to include Chamberlain and the other Europeans who attempted to appease Hitler's territorial grabs which only led to more grabs of more territory and ultimately World War.

Would not bet the ranch on the Indians and Chinese going all in with Russia on this - certainly taking advantage of buying discounted Russian oil for now. The Saudis don't need the fossil fuels and I would not expect them to make a big move here - they need us more than the Russians.

The correct Kelly POGO quote is - “We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us” - would never fly today and does your incorrectly substituted word make you WOKE??

Alarmists have been talking the reserve currency shtick for YEARS. Obviously a potential concern but the chicken littles of the world likely should relax a bit.

Not hung up on silly stuff like pronouns. Why don't you call the Indians South Asians? And I'm not the one shouting "The sky is falling!!!". That's the progressive side. We've had at least five rounds of "The world will end in ten years if we don't....." in the last 50 years. Population, acid rain, ice age, global warming and climate change.

You do realize that if we had been firm on never allowing Ukraine to join NATO this may not have happened? They were the buffer, or fence if you like. Fences make good neighbors. Blame Putin all you want, but our hands are not clean either. As to the Saudis needing us, how did that work out when Biden asked them to pump more oil? Will they need us when your plans to eliminate fossil fuel consumption in the US come to fruition? The rest of the world will be humming along while we motor around in our government manufactured, environmentally friendly version of the Trabant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No1-4GsQa-g

The "Peace in our time" crowd thought the same thing back in the 1930s. How'd that turn out?

Did I say appeasement? Did I say trust Putin? Of course not. Chamberlain made a deal with the Devil himself. Putin was willing to forego expansion in exchange for the buffer between NATO and Russia and '43 and the rest of the Neocons refused to agree.

[Kismet]

Did I say appeasement? Did I say trust Putin? Of course not. Chamberlain made a deal with the Devil himself. Putin was willing to forego expansion in exchange for the buffer between NATO and Russia and '43 and the rest of the Neocons refused to agree.

Do cite a link or other confirmation that Vlad offered this deal.

He has pulled this territorial land grab before in both Georgia and Crimea. Why would anyone think this time was different?

[njbill]

I guess expansion is a synonym for invasion.

[get it to x]

Did I say appeasement? Did I say trust Putin? Of course not. Chamberlain made a deal with the Devil himself. Putin was willing to forego expansion in exchange for the buffer between NATO and Russia and '43 and the rest of the Neocons refused to agree.

Do cite a link or other confirmation that Vlad offered this deal.

He has pulled this territorial land grab before in both Georgia and Crimea. Why would anyone think this time was different?

https://afsa.org/did-nato-expansion-rea ... s-invasion

"Twenty-three years later, President Putin has made Ukraine’s preliminary steps to joining NATO the principal grounds for the Russian invasion of Feb. 24, 2022. The alliance’s leaders have always made clear that it is up to each European country to make its own decision about membership. But the eastward expansion of NATO particularly inflamed Putin, who has claimed that Secretary of State James Baker and other Western leaders assured Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990, at the time a unified Germany joined NATO, that the alliance would expand “not one inch eastward.”

George Kennan would surely have understood Putin’s reaction. The architect of the “containment” policy toward the Soviet Union wrote in 1997 that “expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post–Cold War era.” Kennan continued: “Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the Cold War to East-West relations; and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.”

[PizzaSnake]

Weird analysis. Is this a fcuking popularity contest? Hypothetically, if I broke into your house, burned it down, beat you, raped your wife, sold your children into human trafficking, would my or your popularity have any bearing? Would you care what your neighbors on the other side of town thought? No, I'm pretty dog-damned sure you wouldn't.

'Cause that is, in effect, what Russia has done to Ukraine.

... I'd give Ukraine some nukes and see what, precisely he did about it. I don't live in fear. Fcuk that noise! That is the cowardly, appeaser's way

...

What the US did to Afghanistan and Iraq was far worse. But instead of coming to the aid of those victims of Bush's colonialist Nazism, the world appeased and defended murderer Bush. Aren't we all glad the world did not give those victims nukes? Things would really be screwy stateside if they had done so.

And? Things aren't really "screwy stateside" now? Taken a look around you recently?

[Brooklyn]

And? Things aren't really "screwy stateside" now? Taken a look around you recently?

mia culpa!

I should have said "screwier" than they already are thanks to the Repukeblicons.


First mistake I ever made in my life!

[old salt]

As to the technical aspect of your post, "listening as well as looking", that the same thing...if you ain't specifically seeking to detect a particular capability, at the right time, you're very likely not to pick it up...regardless of detection methodology. We simply don't see, hear, detect everything, all the time, everywhere.

In several critical areas (hint, hint), we listen & record continuously for real time acoustic data, for tracking, classification & post-analysis, when needed.

yes, if one is 'looking' (which in some instances we may very well be, given known possibilities)... though not perfect; But yes, when something is 'heard' and recorded, it can enable forensic analysis. However, identification of a particular sound as a specific, let's say, 'vehicle' can only potentially be dispositive as to the vehicle, not who is controlling it. For instance, in a throwback example, in Red October the identification of the Russian sub type is possible, but not who is in control and what the intentions are. Technologies are more sophisticated, but we still have the difficulty of determining who the humans actually are and what their intentions may be.

Again, a smart 'spook' would not make this easy by using the vehicle type exclusively available to a particular country, indeed, the smart spook would use a vehicle identifiable as more likely to be their adversary's. But no guarantee either way.

You can classify the source. You can plot positions & movements at specific times. The acoustic data is retained.
Using your smart spook theory. Even if the acoustics indicate western equipment, you would claim smart Rooskie spooks stole it & employed it.
The ez way for the Russians to do it would be to use a bomb in a pig. Damage pattern on the pipeline should determine internal or external explosion.
Lack of definitive proof that the Russians did it focuses logical suspicion on which nations have the capability & the strongest incentive.

[get it to x]

As to the technical aspect of your post, "listening as well as looking", that the same thing...if you ain't specifically seeking to detect a particular capability, at the right time, you're very likely not to pick it up...regardless of detection methodology. We simply don't see, hear, detect everything, all the time, everywhere.

In several critical areas (hint, hint), we listen & record continuously for real time acoustic data, for tracking, classification & post-analysis, when needed.

yes, if one is 'looking' (which in some instances we may very well be, given known possibilities)... though not perfect; But yes, when something is 'heard' and recorded, it can enable forensic analysis. However, identification of a particular sound as a specific, let's say, 'vehicle' can only potentially be dispositive as to the vehicle, not who is controlling it. For instance, in a throwback example, in Red October the identification of the Russian sub type is possible, but not who is in control and what the intentions are. Technologies are more sophisticated, but we still have the difficulty of determining who the humans actually are and what their intentions may be.

Again, a smart 'spook' would not make this easy by using the vehicle type exclusively available to a particular country, indeed, the smart spook would use a vehicle identifiable as more likely to be their adversary's. But no guarantee either way.

You can classify the source. You can plot positions & movements at specific times. The acoustic data is retained.
Using your smart spook theory. Even if the acoustics indicate western equipment, you would claim smart Rooskie spooks stole it & employed it.

He looks under the bed for them every night.

Thanks for your service.

[a fan]

You do realize that if we had been firm on never allowing Ukraine to join NATO this may not have happened? They were the buffer, or fence if you like. Fences make good neighbors. Blame Putin all you want, but our hands are not clean either.

You (and Old Salt) say that you're not "trusting" or siding with Putin. You're wrong. You're taking this absurd claim at face value. You're trusting that this utterly invented reason makes even a lick of sense.

If the "reason" for Putin's actions are that they want a "buffer" from NATO.....in what world does taking over Ukraine "fix" that problem.

If Putin takes over Ukraine? He's now forced Russia to defend the borders to Poland, Slovakia, Romania, and Hungary.

So how the F does this fix Putin's complaint?

It doesn't. What does that tell you? It tells you that the brain dead foreign policy wonks that are helping to sell this invented excuse to the world are freaking idiots....and that they have never once bothered to look at a map of NATO members.

I don't buy this for one second, and neither would anyone who has taken 6th grade geography.

Putin is making sh(t up. It's what he does. Why folks buy what he is selling is beyond my comprehension.

I pointed this out to OS months ago...he, too, is buying what Putin is selling.

It's right up there with the rest of the lies Putin told the Russian people.

Putin want's to restore Soviet glory. That's it. That's all this is. And Putin knows he can't tell either the people, or the world in general.....so he makes up a bunch of stupid stuff.

Notice he didn't make the same claim about Crimea....which also puts him closer to NATO nations than before. Whoops. Logic fail.

The rest of the world will be humming along while we motor around in our government manufactured, environmentally friendly version of the Trabant.

Every other 1st world nation pays more for gas, and it's not even a close call. We're good.

[a fan]

How are those sanctions working out? Have we brought Mother Russia to her knees yet?

They worked out so well that Putin's army...that needs money....was such a sh(tshow that they couldn't even take over an 8th rate power. Russia ran out of ammo and is short on pretty much everything. And is sending prisoners and old men to fight.

But I have to ask: if you're upset about the Obama-era sanctions, and also upset that we're helping Ukraine....what is it that you're advocating here?

[old salt]

If the "reason" for Putin's actions are that they want a "buffer" from NATO.....in what world does taking over Ukraine "fix" that problem.

As I keep trying to point out, Crimea & the Sea of Azov are the key. If Putin controls them, the Black Sea remains a Russian lake.
If Ukraine controls them & joins NATO, the Black Sea becomes a NATO lake. The Sea of Azov is a choke point because it controls the inland sea lane to the Caspian Sea, which allows movement of warships to & from Russia's formidable Caspian Sea Fleet (launch vehicles for several cruise missile strikes on Syria & Ukraine), as well as commercial shipping in/out of the Caspian Sea.

The post-2014 status quo would likely have held had Ukraine not threatened joining NATO, after cutting off the flow of fresh water to Crimea by closing the canal to the Dniper river & restricting road access from Russia to Crimea via the coastal roads through the land bridge territory that Russia has taken & still holds.

Bringing the ethnic Russians in the Donbas home to Mother Russia is how Putin justifies his war for Crimea on the homefront, now that he failed to topple Zelensky & install a puppet who'd give him Crimea & what he needs to sustain it.

[get it to x]

You do realize that if we had been firm on never allowing Ukraine to join NATO this may not have happened? They were the buffer, or fence if you like. Fences make good neighbors. Blame Putin all you want, but our hands are not clean either.

You (and Old Salt) say that you're not "trusting" or siding with Putin. You're wrong. You're taking this absurd claim at face value. You're trusting that this utterly invented reason makes even a lick of sense.

If the "reason" for Putin's actions are that they want a "buffer" from NATO.....in what world does taking over Ukraine "fix" that problem.

If Putin takes over Ukraine? He's now forced Russia to defend the borders to Poland, Slovakia, Romania, and Hungary.

So how the F does this fix Putin's complaint?

It doesn't. What does that tell you? It tells you that the brain dead foreign policy wonks that are helping to sell this invented excuse to the world are freaking idiots....and that they have never once bothered to look at a map of NATO members.

I don't buy this for one second, and neither would anyone who has taken 6th grade geography.

Putin is making sh(t up. It's what he does. Why folks buy what he is selling is beyond my comprehension.

I pointed this out to OS months ago...he, too, is buying what Putin is selling.

It's right up there with the rest of the lies Putin told the Russian people.

Putin want's to restore Soviet glory. That's it. That's all this is. And Putin knows he can't tell either the people, or the world in general.....so he makes up a bunch of stupid stuff.

Notice he didn't make the same claim about Crimea....which also puts him closer to NATO nations than before. Whoops. Logic fail.

The rest of the world will be humming along while we motor around in our government manufactured, environmentally friendly version of the Trabant.

Every other 1st world nation pays more for gas, and it's not even a close call. We're good.

Putin would be more than happy with redrawn lines to include the areas that are largely ethnic Russian. Am I condoning his aggression? Of course not, but here we are. He did the same thing with Crimea, which was largely a Russian state since the mid 1700's. Crimea also doesn't border a NATO country. Would that be logic fail, fail? That move was all about naval influence in the region.

Do the European refineries pay more for their crude? I don't know, but I do know the gasoline tax in England was $2.88 per gallon last year. Enjoy the electric Trabant, though.

[Kismet]

If the "reason" for Putin's actions are that they want a "buffer" from NATO.....in what world does taking over Ukraine "fix" that problem.

As I keep trying to point out, Crimea & the Sea of Azov are the key. If Putin controls them, the Black Sea remains a Russian lake.
If Ukraine controls them & joins NATO, the Black Sea becomes a NATO lake. The Sea of Azov is a choke point because it controls the inland sea lane to the Caspian Sea, which allows movement of warships to & from Russia's formidable Caspian Sea Fleet (launch vehicles for several cruise missile strikes on Syria & Ukraine), as well as commercial shipping in/out of the Caspian Sea.

The post-2014 status quo would likely have held had Ukraine not threatened joining NATO, after cutting off the flow of fresh water to Crimea by closing the canal to the Dniper river & restricting road access from Russia to Crimea via the coastal roads through the land bridge territory that Russia has taken & still holds.

Where is the inland sea lane from the Caspian to the Sea of Azov? It certainly does not appear to transit Russian territory and the Google Map below does not appear to show any water access through Georgia either

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mi ... 216344&z=7

Cutting off fresh water to land illegally annexed by the Russians seems like a sovereignty issue, no? The Ukrainians had a treaty with the Russians for use of naval bases which they had not made any changes to, right?

[a fan]

If the "reason" for Putin's actions are that they want a "buffer" from NATO.....in what world does taking over Ukraine "fix" that problem.

As I keep trying to point out, Crimea & the Sea of Azov are the key. If Putin controls them, the Black Sea remains a Russian lake.
If Ukraine controls them & joins NATO, the Black Sea becomes a NATO lake. The Sea of Azov is a choke point because it controls the inland sea lane to the Caspian Sea, which allows movement of warships to & from Russia's formidable Caspian Sea Fleet (launch vehicles for several cruise missile strikes on Syria & Ukraine), as well as commercial shipping in/out of the Caspian Sea.

That's great, but if violates one of Putin's claims...that he wants a buffer between Russia and NATO. Crimea is now "vulnerable" to an attack from Turkey. And if that sounds stupid...that's because it IS stupid, and Putin could give a sh(t about a (snicker) NATO invasion. He's not THAT stupid.

He's full of Sh9t. There's no logical explanation for his acts. Russian ships...including warships..... went in and out of the Black Sea with no trouble whatsoever. And as we discussed before, Russia has leases to Ukrainian ports....not to mention military contracts with Turkey.

Turkey is a member of NATO. CLEARLY Turkey holds the keys to the Black Sea. And yet.......that's supposedly fine with Putin?

Putin's full of sh(t. Period. You can't use logic to explain this. What Putin is doing is illogical.

The post-2014 status quo would likely have held had Ukraine not threatened joining NATO, after cutting off the flow of fresh water to Crimea by closing the canal to the Dniper river & restricting road access from Russia to Crimea via the coastal roads through the land bridge territory that Russia has taken & still holds.

Bringing the ethnic Russians in the Donbas home to Mother Russia is how Putin justifies his war for Crimea on the homefront, now that he failed to topple Zelensky & install a puppet who'd give him Crimea & what he needs to sustain it.

I get all that. It's all invented, BS reasoning. It's desperately trying to inject logic...where there is none.

If Putin were logical? He would have JUMPED at the chance to be US's number one trading partner when Hillary offered it.....the Russian people would be MILES ahead by now. Instead? The Russian economy is a sh(tshow....when just a year ago, they had the EU economy paying top dollar for Russian energy. No one wants to do business in Russia, because who wants to risk that capital? Putin is an idiot who wants something he can't get.....like a five year old child with parents that can't afford to buy the biggest toy.



And again: I'm 100% for doing nothing but sitting on sanctions. Let Putin take Crimea. Let Putin take Ukraine. Let China "take" Taiwan.

Let them drown in their own stupidity. Sit back, and LET our supposed enemy make these stupid mistakes. Levy sanctions, and let Putin sell his oil to 3rd rate bidders for bargain prices. Let China kill the golden goose, and set off a brain drain.

Putin coulda been a contender. He's F'ed himself and the Russian people for at least a generation. And with each passing day, he digs that hole more deeply.

[a fan]

The Ukrainians had a treaty with the Russians for use of naval bases which they had not made any changes to, right?

Yep. And it was working flawlessly.

If someone...anyone....is worried about Black Sea access.......It's 100% about Turkey.

As I said: these are invented, illogical, made-up claims.

[old salt]

If the "reason" for Putin's actions are that they want a "buffer" from NATO.....in what world does taking over Ukraine "fix" that problem.

As I keep trying to point out, Crimea & the Sea of Azov are the key. If Putin controls them, the Black Sea remains a Russian lake.
If Ukraine controls them & joins NATO, the Black Sea becomes a NATO lake. The Sea of Azov is a choke point because it controls the inland sea lane to the Caspian Sea, which allows movement of warships to & from Russia's formidable Caspian Sea Fleet (launch vehicles for several cruise missile strikes on Syria & Ukraine), as well as commercial shipping in/out of the Caspian Sea.

The post-2014 status quo would likely have held had Ukraine not threatened joining NATO, after cutting off the flow of fresh water to Crimea by closing the canal to the Dniper river & restricting road access from Russia to Crimea via the coastal roads through the land bridge territory that Russia has taken & still holds.

Where is the inland sea lane from the Caspian to the Sea of Azov? It certainly does not appear to transit Russian territory and the Google Map below does not appear to show any water access through Georgia either

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... -don-canal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga%E2%80%93Don_Canal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_F ... note-:0-18
https://tass.com/defense/1284877

[a fan]

If the "reason" for Putin's actions are that they want a "buffer" from NATO.....in what world does taking over Ukraine "fix" that problem.

As I keep trying to point out, Crimea & the Sea of Azov are the key. If Putin controls them, the Black Sea remains a Russian lake.
If Ukraine controls them & joins NATO, the Black Sea becomes a NATO lake. The Sea of Azov is a choke point because it controls the inland sea lane to the Caspian Sea, which allows movement of warships to & from Russia's formidable Caspian Sea Fleet (launch vehicles for several cruise missile strikes on Syria & Ukraine), as well as commercial shipping in/out of the Caspian Sea.

That's great, but if violates one of Putin's claims...that he wants a buffer between Russia and NATO. Crimea is now "vulnerable" to an attack from Turkey. And if that sounds stupid...that's because it IS stupid, and Putin could give a sh(t about a (snicker) NATO invasion. He's not THAT stupid.

He's full of Sh9t. There's no logical explanation for his acts. Russian ships...including warships..... went in and out of the Black Sea with no trouble whatsoever. And as we discussed before, Russia has leases to Ukrainian ports....not to mention military contracts with Turkey.

Turkey is a member of NATO. CLEARLY Turkey holds the keys to the Black Sea. And yet.......that's supposedly fine with Putin?

Putin's full of sh(t. Period. You can't use logic to explain this. What Putin is doing is illogical.

The post-2014 status quo would likely have held had Ukraine not threatened joining NATO, after cutting off the flow of fresh water to Crimea by closing the canal to the Dniper river & restricting road access from Russia to Crimea via the coastal roads through the land bridge territory that Russia has taken & still holds.

Bringing the ethnic Russians in the Donbas home to Mother Russia is how Putin justifies his war for Crimea on the homefront, now that he failed to topple Zelensky & install a puppet who'd give him Crimea & what he needs to sustain it.

I get all that. It's all invented, BS reasoning. It's desperately trying to inject logic...where there is none.

If Putin were logical? He would have JUMPED at the chance to be US's number one trading partner when Hillary offered it.....the Russian people would be MILES ahead by now. Instead? The Russian economy is a sh(tshow....when just a year ago, they had the EU economy paying top dollar for Russian energy. No one wants to do business in Russia, because who wants to risk that capital? Putin is an idiot who wants something he can't get.....like a five year old child with parents that can't afford to buy the biggest toy.



And again: I'm 100% for doing nothing but sitting on sanctions. Let Putin take Crimea. Let Putin take Ukraine. Let China "take" Taiwan.

Let them drown in their own stupidity. Sit back, and LET our supposed enemy make these stupid mistakes. Levy sanctions, and let Putin sell his oil to 3rd rate bidders for bargain prices. Let China kill the golden goose, and set off a brain drain.

Putin coulda been a contender. He's F'ed himself and the Russian people for at least a generation. And with each passing day, he digs that hole more deeply.

And to to your opinion, and your citations of others, Old Salt........THAT I agree with. That Putin wants to restore Soviet glory. That's what this is about. Because THAT explains why he told Hillary and Obama to get lost.

The rest of the "reasons" given for Putin's moves are utter nonsense. I agree with YOU.

[old salt]

If the "reason" for Putin's actions are that they want a "buffer" from NATO.....in what world does taking over Ukraine "fix" that problem.

As I keep trying to point out, Crimea & the Sea of Azov are the key. If Putin controls them, the Black Sea remains a Russian lake.
If Ukraine controls them & joins NATO, the Black Sea becomes a NATO lake. The Sea of Azov is a choke point because it controls the inland sea lane to the Caspian Sea, which allows movement of warships to & from Russia's formidable Caspian Sea Fleet (launch vehicles for several cruise missile strikes on Syria & Ukraine), as well as commercial shipping in/out of the Caspian Sea.

That's great, but if violates one of Putin's claims...that he wants a buffer between Russia and NATO. Crimea is now "vulnerable" to an attack from Turkey. And if that sounds stupid...that's because it IS stupid, and Putin could give a sh(t about a (snicker) NATO invasion. He's not THAT stupid.

He's full of Sh9t. There's no logical explanation for his acts. Russian ships...including warships..... went in and out of the Black Sea with no trouble whatsoever. And as we discussed before, Russia has leases to Ukrainian ports....not to mention military contracts with Turkey.

Turkey is a member of NATO. CLEARLY Turkey holds the keys to the Black Sea. And yet.......that's supposedly fine with Putin?

Putin's full of sh(t. Period. You can't use logic to explain this. What Putin is doing is illogical.

The post-2014 status quo would likely have held had Ukraine not threatened joining NATO, after cutting off the flow of fresh water to Crimea by closing the canal to the Dniper river & restricting road access from Russia to Crimea via the coastal roads through the land bridge territory that Russia has taken & still holds.

Bringing the ethnic Russians in the Donbas home to Mother Russia is how Putin justifies his war for Crimea on the homefront, now that he failed to topple Zelensky & install a puppet who'd give him Crimea & what he needs to sustain it.

I get all that. It's all invented, BS reasoning. It's desperately trying to inject logic...where there is none.

If Putin were logical? He would have JUMPED at the chance to be US's number one trading partner when Hillary offered it.....the Russian people would be MILES ahead by now. Instead? The Russian economy is a sh(tshow....when just a year ago, they had the EU economy paying top dollar for Russian energy. No one wants to do business in Russia, because who wants to risk that capital? Putin is an idiot who wants something he can't get.....like a five year old child with parents that can't afford to buy the biggest toy.



And again: I'm 100% for doing nothing but sitting on sanctions. Let Putin take Crimea. Let Putin take Ukraine. Let China "take" Taiwan.

Let them drown in their own stupidity. Sit back, and LET our supposed enemy make these stupid mistakes. Levy sanctions, and let Putin sell his oil to 3rd rate bidders for bargain prices. Let China kill the golden goose, and set off a brain drain.

Putin coulda been a contender. He's F'ed himself and the Russian people for at least a generation. And with each passing day, he digs that hole more deeply.

Since 2014, we've been giving Ukraine warships suited for the Black Sea. Coast Guard cutters which can be up-armed with missiles.
We offered them our new Littoral Combat Ships, which we are retiring because we can't keep 'em at sea for extended periods, but they'd be perfect for Ukraine. They would not be at sea as much & their engineering flaws have finally been fixed. We're sacrificing them because of budget constraints so we can keep more destroyers at sea. We offered Ukraine 4 retiring LCS's but (so far) they've turned them down.
https://news.usni.org/2022/06/14/house- ... missioning

If Ukraine goes NATO, Crimea would become a major NATO naval base, hosting visits to a stream of as many NATO warships as the Montreux Convention allows.