All Things Russia & Ukraine

[MDlaxfan76]

Re Nuland and Soros...are they the only prominent people who have supported Ukraine and other former Soviet holdings turning away from authoritarianism and Russian domination towards democracy and the West?

Nope. But they're the ones the hard right wing chooses to emphasize.

The two Jewish people.

They're the ones the hard right wing "Nationalists" choose to emphasize.
Christian Nationalists propaganda.

Other than Biden (w/Blinken) & John McCain, they are the 2 most influential figures in the promotion of regime change & dismemberment of Russia, dating back to Maidan in 2014.

VP Biden (w/ his staff advisor Blinken) was the Obama admin point man on Ukraine & delivered the ultimatum that prompted the elected Ukrainian President to step down in 2014. Senators John McCain & Chris Murphy were on the stage in Maidan, in front of Nuland.

Not all Neo-Con hawks are Jewish. That's just a diversionary smear used to deflect any critique of the policies they advocate.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/neoconser ... nservative

There are plenty of gentiles in positions of power propelling us down this road to confrontation with Russia, with the ultimate goal of weakening Russia via regime change & the further dismemberment of the historic Russian nation. Nuland & Soros are 2 of the most impactful over the long run.

Yup, there are indeed plenty of gentiles who have supported democratic movements throwing off the yoke of Soviet and Russian domination.

But right wing Christian Nationalists always mention Soros and Nuland, usually by themselves, and it ain't by accident.

I'm not saying you are anti-Semitic, but pretending to be oblivious (and I have to assume it's pretending at this point in our back and forth) is willfully repeating the anti-Semitic propaganda that is rampant in right wing media and right wing pseudo intellectual circles.

If you're opposed to democracy movements in those areas because of geo-political risks, we can have that conversation, but resorting to trolling anti-Semitic tropes is unhelpful. And I have to assume you know that by now, right?

I'm not oblivious to what you're saying. Nor am I going to let it determine what I say.
Nuland & Soros are the 2 foremost influential, consistent examples, over time.
I posted examples of what they are doing to make them so.
That should make you look beyond your willful blindness to what you're doing by repeating mindless tropes.
I expect that sort of thing from TLD & ffg. I thought that you would be intellectually honest enough to rise above that.

I don't expect my feedback to "determine what you say".
You've made clear that you're unwilling to avoid the obvious anti-semitism.

Why that is, is not clear...but you're definitely making a choice.

He won’t be cowed into not utilizing anti-semitic tropes. It’s his choice.

OK. Give me your nominations for gentiles who have been as influential, over time, of fomenting revolution & regime change in Ukraine, Belarus. & Russia. We have one nomination -- Mitch McConnell. I don't see him as any more significant than other hawkish Senators like McCain, Graham, & Portman (who concentrated on Ukraine), or Dick & Liz Cheney. I maintain that none of them were as consequential, over the long haul, as Nuland & Soros have been. If you agree with them, you should acknowledge their effectiveness & applaud them, rather than diverting attention from their efforts.

The vast majority of Americans supported the concept of democracy in the former Soviet states and Russia itself. Most of the American foreign policy regime supported those movements and aspirations, as did most of the elected politicians. They continue to do so.

You choose to name two people, yes, prominent in these efforts, with very understandable personal roots.

We get it, democracy is anathema to the international Christian Nationalist authoritarian movement...and focusing on two Jews plays to the longstanding prejudices and conspiracy theory that Jews control the world and need to eliminated. Demonization is the whole point.

It's your choice to only mention them.

[a fan]

Re Nuland and Soros...are they the only prominent people who have supported Ukraine and other former Soviet holdings turning away from authoritarianism and Russian domination towards democracy and the West?

Nope. But they're the ones the hard right wing chooses to emphasize.

The two Jewish people.

They're the ones the hard right wing "Nationalists" choose to emphasize.
Christian Nationalists propaganda.

Other than Biden (w/Blinken) & John McCain, they are the 2 most influential figures in the promotion of regime change & dismemberment of Russia, dating back to Maidan in 2014.

VP Biden (w/ his staff advisor Blinken) was the Obama admin point man on Ukraine & delivered the ultimatum that prompted the elected Ukrainian President to step down in 2014. Senators John McCain & Chris Murphy were on the stage in Maidan, in front of Nuland.

Not all Neo-Con hawks are Jewish. That's just a diversionary smear used to deflect any critique of the policies they advocate.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/neoconser ... nservative

There are plenty of gentiles in positions of power propelling us down this road to confrontation with Russia, with the ultimate goal of weakening Russia via regime change & the further dismemberment of the historic Russian nation. Nuland & Soros are 2 of the most impactful over the long run.

Yup, there are indeed plenty of gentiles who have supported democratic movements throwing off the yoke of Soviet and Russian domination.

But right wing Christian Nationalists always mention Soros and Nuland, usually by themselves, and it ain't by accident.

I'm not saying you are anti-Semitic, but pretending to be oblivious (and I have to assume it's pretending at this point in our back and forth) is willfully repeating the anti-Semitic propaganda that is rampant in right wing media and right wing pseudo intellectual circles.

If you're opposed to democracy movements in those areas because of geo-political risks, we can have that conversation, but resorting to trolling anti-Semitic tropes is unhelpful. And I have to assume you know that by now, right?

I'm not oblivious to what you're saying. Nor am I going to let it determine what I say.
Nuland & Soros are the 2 foremost influential, consistent examples, over time.
I posted examples of what they are doing to make them so.
That should make you look beyond your willful blindness to what you're doing by repeating mindless tropes.
I expect that sort of thing from TLD & ffg. I thought that you would be intellectually honest enough to rise above that.

I don't expect my feedback to "determine what you say".
You've made clear that you're unwilling to avoid the obvious anti-semitism.

Why that is, is not clear...but you're definitely making a choice.

He won’t be cowed into not utilizing anti-semitic tropes. It’s his choice.

OK. Give me your nominations for gentiles who have been as influential, over time, of fomenting revolution & regime change in Ukraine, Belarus. & Russia. We have one nomination -- Mitch McConnell. I don't see him as any more significant than other hawkish Senators like McCain, Graham, & Portman (who concentrated on Ukraine), or Dick & Liz Cheney. I maintain that none of them were as consequential, over the long haul, as Nuland & Soros have been. If you agree with them, you should acknowledge their effectiveness & applaud them, rather than diverting attention from their efforts.

McConnell has power RIGHT NOW. That's why he gets my nomination.

The other obvious choices are Obama and Biden....all that work Biden did as VP over in Ukraine at Obama's behest.

[old salt]

The same arrangement we have with the tac nucs bombs we provide our NATO allies.
We provide the codes for them to use them.

Which do we provide them to?

https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep28847.10

It's a major factor in which model fighter aircraft participating NATO members choose to procure.
Not all options are certified by the US for delivery of the nuclear weapon provided.

Here's a lengthy WP explainer on the B-61 bomb. I''ll post the text, if anyone is interested.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... 61-russia/

Looks to me like the US maintains absolute and full control of these weapons...some "infrastructure" is provided by some of the NATO allies, but that's not the same as providing them with the weapons for their discretionary usage.

...if you consider the aircraft & crews who maintain & fly them to be "infrastructure".
The US cannot order that they be used. The US can prevent their unilateral use.
Do you think Russia has any less control over the nuclear weapons they will be providing to Belarus.
obtw -- the UK & France have their own independent nuc capability, which was developed with US assistance.

I was only responding to your own unqualified statements...which your own links show were grossly overstated.

As to Russia's arrangement with Belarus, your confidently stated claim that "it's the same as" our arrangement with NATO allies may or may not be accurate...but it's not a statement I made. That's yours to prove. I simply questioned your characterization of our arrangement with our allies in NATO.

Do Presidents of allies offer US nuclear weapons to any nation who joins NATO?

You and a fan are arguing another aspect, the likelihood of Belarus remaining an authoritarian state in Russia's control. I tend to agree that it's pretty darn likely that Belarus will eventually turn to democracy like most of their neighbors. Could be wrong.

If you read the reporting, you will see that Russia is staging, deploying & storing nuc weapons in Belarus, not they are transferring custody & operational control to Russia.

Nothing was overstated.

[old salt]

Re Nuland and Soros...are they the only prominent people who have supported Ukraine and other former Soviet holdings turning away from authoritarianism and Russian domination towards democracy and the West?

Nope. But they're the ones the hard right wing chooses to emphasize.

The two Jewish people.

They're the ones the hard right wing "Nationalists" choose to emphasize.
Christian Nationalists propaganda.

Other than Biden (w/Blinken) & John McCain, they are the 2 most influential figures in the promotion of regime change & dismemberment of Russia, dating back to Maidan in 2014.

VP Biden (w/ his staff advisor Blinken) was the Obama admin point man on Ukraine & delivered the ultimatum that prompted the elected Ukrainian President to step down in 2014. Senators John McCain & Chris Murphy were on the stage in Maidan, in front of Nuland.

Not all Neo-Con hawks are Jewish. That's just a diversionary smear used to deflect any critique of the policies they advocate.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/neoconser ... nservative

There are plenty of gentiles in positions of power propelling us down this road to confrontation with Russia, with the ultimate goal of weakening Russia via regime change & the further dismemberment of the historic Russian nation. Nuland & Soros are 2 of the most impactful over the long run.

Yup, there are indeed plenty of gentiles who have supported democratic movements throwing off the yoke of Soviet and Russian domination.

But right wing Christian Nationalists always mention Soros and Nuland, usually by themselves, and it ain't by accident.

I'm not saying you are anti-Semitic, but pretending to be oblivious (and I have to assume it's pretending at this point in our back and forth) is willfully repeating the anti-Semitic propaganda that is rampant in right wing media and right wing pseudo intellectual circles.

If you're opposed to democracy movements in those areas because of geo-political risks, we can have that conversation, but resorting to trolling anti-Semitic tropes is unhelpful. And I have to assume you know that by now, right?

I'm not oblivious to what you're saying. Nor am I going to let it determine what I say.
Nuland & Soros are the 2 foremost influential, consistent examples, over time.
I posted examples of what they are doing to make them so.
That should make you look beyond your willful blindness to what you're doing by repeating mindless tropes.
I expect that sort of thing from TLD & ffg. I thought that you would be intellectually honest enough to rise above that.

I don't expect my feedback to "determine what you say".
You've made clear that you're unwilling to avoid the obvious anti-semitism.

Why that is, is not clear...but you're definitely making a choice.

He won’t be cowed into not utilizing anti-semitic tropes. It’s his choice.

OK. Give me your nominations for gentiles who have been as influential, over time, of fomenting revolution & regime change in Ukraine, Belarus. & Russia. We have one nomination -- Mitch McConnell. I don't see him as any more significant than other hawkish Senators like McCain, Graham, & Portman (who concentrated on Ukraine), or Dick & Liz Cheney. I maintain that none of them were as consequential, over the long haul, as Nuland & Soros have been. If you agree with them, you should acknowledge their effectiveness & applaud them, rather than diverting attention from their efforts.

The vast majority of Americans supported the concept of democracy in the former Soviet states and Russia itself. Most of the American foreign policy regime supported those movements and aspirations, as did most of the elected politicians. They continue to do so.

You choose to name two people, yes, prominent in these efforts, with very understandable personal roots.

We get it, democracy is anathema to the international Christian Nationalist authoritarian movement...and focusing on two Jews plays to the longstanding prejudices and conspiracy theory that Jews control the world and need to eliminated. Demonization is the whole point.

It's your choice to only mention them.

Sure, the vast majority of Americans supported "the concept", but nobody's asked them to pick up the tab for bringing it about, or if it's worth the cost in lives lost in this war, not to mention the global economic impact. We've only been exposed to propaganda in support of Ukraine. Most Americans know little about Ukraine & the history of Russia.

Your anti-semetic canards are an intellectually dishonest diversion.

[MDlaxfan76]

The same arrangement we have with the tac nucs bombs we provide our NATO allies.
We provide the codes for them to use them.

Which do we provide them to?

https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep28847.10

It's a major factor in which model fighter aircraft participating NATO members choose to procure.
Not all options are certified by the US for delivery of the nuclear weapon provided.

Here's a lengthy WP explainer on the B-61 bomb. I''ll post the text, if anyone is interested.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... 61-russia/

Looks to me like the US maintains absolute and full control of these weapons...some "infrastructure" is provided by some of the NATO allies, but that's not the same as providing them with the weapons for their discretionary usage.

...if you consider the aircraft & crews who maintain & fly them to be "infrastructure".
The US cannot order that they be used. The US can prevent their unilateral use.
Do you think Russia has any less control over the nuclear weapons they will be providing to Belarus.
obtw -- the UK & France have their own independent nuc capability, which was developed with US assistance.

I was only responding to your own unqualified statements...which your own links show were grossly overstated.

As to Russia's arrangement with Belarus, your confidently stated claim that "it's the same as" our arrangement with NATO allies may or may not be accurate...but it's not a statement I made. That's yours to prove. I simply questioned your characterization of our arrangement with our allies in NATO.

Do Presidents of allies offer US nuclear weapons to any nation who joins NATO?

You and a fan are arguing another aspect, the likelihood of Belarus remaining an authoritarian state in Russia's control. I tend to agree that it's pretty darn likely that Belarus will eventually turn to democracy like most of their neighbors. Could be wrong.

If you read the reporting, you will see that Russia is staging, deploying & storing nuc weapons in Belarus, not they are transferring custody & operational control to Russia.

Nothing was overstated.

"...tac nucs bombs we provide our NATO allies.
We provide the codes for them to use them."

Nope.

I asked which allies, as it was a surprise to me that we'd actually be 'providing' them to any much less all of our allies. Deploying them in country, with allies' support and involvement ain't the same as giving up control. I could imagine it was possible, but a surprise to me if so...and your links make clear we have full control.

As I said, I don't know what Russia's degree of control will be (they'd be incredibly stupid to give up ANY control to Belarus), nor do you. We see what Putin has said, and we see what Lukashenko has said (more bellicose), but we really don't know. What we do know is that these a-holes talk about tac nukes as a legitimate first strike strategy in response to conventional. That, too, is very different.

But Belarus is very likely in IMO to not remain authoritarian over the long term...which is part of why Putin and his cronies are so panicked about Ukraine turning West.

[MDlaxfan76]

Re Nuland and Soros...are they the only prominent people who have supported Ukraine and other former Soviet holdings turning away from authoritarianism and Russian domination towards democracy and the West?

Nope. But they're the ones the hard right wing chooses to emphasize.

The two Jewish people.

They're the ones the hard right wing "Nationalists" choose to emphasize.
Christian Nationalists propaganda.

Other than Biden (w/Blinken) & John McCain, they are the 2 most influential figures in the promotion of regime change & dismemberment of Russia, dating back to Maidan in 2014.

VP Biden (w/ his staff advisor Blinken) was the Obama admin point man on Ukraine & delivered the ultimatum that prompted the elected Ukrainian President to step down in 2014. Senators John McCain & Chris Murphy were on the stage in Maidan, in front of Nuland.

Not all Neo-Con hawks are Jewish. That's just a diversionary smear used to deflect any critique of the policies they advocate.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/neoconser ... nservative

There are plenty of gentiles in positions of power propelling us down this road to confrontation with Russia, with the ultimate goal of weakening Russia via regime change & the further dismemberment of the historic Russian nation. Nuland & Soros are 2 of the most impactful over the long run.

Yup, there are indeed plenty of gentiles who have supported democratic movements throwing off the yoke of Soviet and Russian domination.

But right wing Christian Nationalists always mention Soros and Nuland, usually by themselves, and it ain't by accident.

I'm not saying you are anti-Semitic, but pretending to be oblivious (and I have to assume it's pretending at this point in our back and forth) is willfully repeating the anti-Semitic propaganda that is rampant in right wing media and right wing pseudo intellectual circles.

If you're opposed to democracy movements in those areas because of geo-political risks, we can have that conversation, but resorting to trolling anti-Semitic tropes is unhelpful. And I have to assume you know that by now, right?

I'm not oblivious to what you're saying. Nor am I going to let it determine what I say.
Nuland & Soros are the 2 foremost influential, consistent examples, over time.
I posted examples of what they are doing to make them so.
That should make you look beyond your willful blindness to what you're doing by repeating mindless tropes.
I expect that sort of thing from TLD & ffg. I thought that you would be intellectually honest enough to rise above that.

I don't expect my feedback to "determine what you say".
You've made clear that you're unwilling to avoid the obvious anti-semitism.

Why that is, is not clear...but you're definitely making a choice.

He won’t be cowed into not utilizing anti-semitic tropes. It’s his choice.

OK. Give me your nominations for gentiles who have been as influential, over time, of fomenting revolution & regime change in Ukraine, Belarus. & Russia. We have one nomination -- Mitch McConnell. I don't see him as any more significant than other hawkish Senators like McCain, Graham, & Portman (who concentrated on Ukraine), or Dick & Liz Cheney. I maintain that none of them were as consequential, over the long haul, as Nuland & Soros have been. If you agree with them, you should acknowledge their effectiveness & applaud them, rather than diverting attention from their efforts.

The vast majority of Americans supported the concept of democracy in the former Soviet states and Russia itself. Most of the American foreign policy regime supported those movements and aspirations, as did most of the elected politicians. They continue to do so.

You choose to name two people, yes, prominent in these efforts, with very understandable personal roots.

We get it, democracy is anathema to the international Christian Nationalist authoritarian movement...and focusing on two Jews plays to the longstanding prejudices and conspiracy theory that Jews control the world and need to eliminated. Demonization is the whole point.

It's your choice to only mention them.

Sure, the vast majority of Americans supported "the concept", but nobody's asked them to pick up the tab for bringing it about, or if it's worth the cost in lives lost in this war, not to mention the global economic impact. We've only been exposed to propaganda in support of UKraine. Most Americans know little about Ukraine & the history of Russia.

Your anti-semetic canards are an intellectually dishonest diversion.

Sorry, it was your choice to repeat Christian Nationalist conspiracy propaganda.

BTW, It's anti-Semitic. heck, my spell check won't even let me spell it the way you did.

So, it's now "propaganda" to support democracy over authoritarianism? Yikes.

But I get it, that's your worldview. Not mine, nor the majority of Americans. However, IMO there's a dangerously high percentage of Americans who now actually support pro-fascist ideologies over plural democracy, both here and abroad. They're a big part of "MAGA". Not 100%, but a big part.

Again, I think there's a legitimate discussion to be had about the wisdom of various policy decisions over the last couple of decades, given costs and geopolitical risks, but the anti-semitism really poisons such discussion.

[old salt]

The same arrangement we have with the tac nucs bombs we provide our NATO allies.
We provide the codes for them to use them.

Which do we provide them to?

https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep28847.10

It's a major factor in which model fighter aircraft participating NATO members choose to procure.
Not all options are certified by the US for delivery of the nuclear weapon provided.

Here's a lengthy WP explainer on the B-61 bomb. I''ll post the text, if anyone is interested.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... 61-russia/

Looks to me like the US maintains absolute and full control of these weapons...some "infrastructure" is provided by some of the NATO allies, but that's not the same as providing them with the weapons for their discretionary usage.

...if you consider the aircraft & crews who maintain & fly them to be "infrastructure".
The US cannot order that they be used. The US can prevent their unilateral use.
Do you think Russia has any less control over the nuclear weapons they will be providing to Belarus.
obtw -- the UK & France have their own independent nuc capability, which was developed with US assistance.

I was only responding to your own unqualified statements...which your own links show were grossly overstated.

As to Russia's arrangement with Belarus, your confidently stated claim that "it's the same as" our arrangement with NATO allies may or may not be accurate...but it's not a statement I made. That's yours to prove. I simply questioned your characterization of our arrangement with our allies in NATO.

Do Presidents of allies offer US nuclear weapons to any nation who joins NATO?

You and a fan are arguing another aspect, the likelihood of Belarus remaining an authoritarian state in Russia's control. I tend to agree that it's pretty darn likely that Belarus will eventually turn to democracy like most of their neighbors. Could be wrong.

If you read the reporting, you will see that Russia is staging, deploying & storing nuc weapons in Belarus, not they are transferring custody & operational control to Russia.

Nothing was overstated.

"...tac nucs bombs we provide our NATO allies.
We provide the codes for them to use them."

Nope. Nope what ?

I asked which allies, I provided you .a link which names them as it was a surprise to me that we'd actually be 'providing' them to any much less all of our allies. I never said all. That's your ridiculous assumption driven misreading Deploying them in country, with allies' support and involvement ain't the same as giving up control. Where did I say we gave up operational control ? I could imagine it was possible, but a surprise to me if so...and your links make clear we have full control. No we don't. We both have to agree to their use & we have the means to prevent their use without our approval. We can't order their use.

As I said, I don't know what Russia's degree of control will be (they'd be incredibly stupid to give up ANY control to Belarus), nor do you.
I never said Russia gave up control. We see what Putin has said, and we see what Lukashenko has said (more bellicose), but we really don't know. What we do know is that these a-holes talk about tac nukes as a legitimate first strike strategy in response to conventional. That, too, is very different.

But Belarus is very likely in IMO to not remain authoritarian over the long term...which is part of why Putin and his cronies are so panicked about Ukraine turning West.

[old salt]

Re Nuland and Soros...are they the only prominent people who have supported Ukraine and other former Soviet holdings turning away from authoritarianism and Russian domination towards democracy and the West?

Nope. But they're the ones the hard right wing chooses to emphasize.

The two Jewish people.

They're the ones the hard right wing "Nationalists" choose to emphasize.
Christian Nationalists propaganda.

Other than Biden (w/Blinken) & John McCain, they are the 2 most influential figures in the promotion of regime change & dismemberment of Russia, dating back to Maidan in 2014.

VP Biden (w/ his staff advisor Blinken) was the Obama admin point man on Ukraine & delivered the ultimatum that prompted the elected Ukrainian President to step down in 2014. Senators John McCain & Chris Murphy were on the stage in Maidan, in front of Nuland.

Not all Neo-Con hawks are Jewish. That's just a diversionary smear used to deflect any critique of the policies they advocate.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/neoconser ... nservative

There are plenty of gentiles in positions of power propelling us down this road to confrontation with Russia, with the ultimate goal of weakening Russia via regime change & the further dismemberment of the historic Russian nation. Nuland & Soros are 2 of the most impactful over the long run.

Yup, there are indeed plenty of gentiles who have supported democratic movements throwing off the yoke of Soviet and Russian domination.

But right wing Christian Nationalists always mention Soros and Nuland, usually by themselves, and it ain't by accident.

I'm not saying you are anti-Semitic, but pretending to be oblivious (and I have to assume it's pretending at this point in our back and forth) is willfully repeating the anti-Semitic propaganda that is rampant in right wing media and right wing pseudo intellectual circles.

If you're opposed to democracy movements in those areas because of geo-political risks, we can have that conversation, but resorting to trolling anti-Semitic tropes is unhelpful. And I have to assume you know that by now, right?

I'm not oblivious to what you're saying. Nor am I going to let it determine what I say.
Nuland & Soros are the 2 foremost influential, consistent examples, over time.
I posted examples of what they are doing to make them so.
That should make you look beyond your willful blindness to what you're doing by repeating mindless tropes.
I expect that sort of thing from TLD & ffg. I thought that you would be intellectually honest enough to rise above that.

I don't expect my feedback to "determine what you say".
You've made clear that you're unwilling to avoid the obvious anti-semitism.

Why that is, is not clear...but you're definitely making a choice.

He won’t be cowed into not utilizing anti-semitic tropes. It’s his choice.

OK. Give me your nominations for gentiles who have been as influential, over time, of fomenting revolution & regime change in Ukraine, Belarus. & Russia. We have one nomination -- Mitch McConnell. I don't see him as any more significant than other hawkish Senators like McCain, Graham, & Portman (who concentrated on Ukraine), or Dick & Liz Cheney. I maintain that none of them were as consequential, over the long haul, as Nuland & Soros have been. If you agree with them, you should acknowledge their effectiveness & applaud them, rather than diverting attention from their efforts.

The vast majority of Americans supported the concept of democracy in the former Soviet states and Russia itself. Most of the American foreign policy regime supported those movements and aspirations, as did most of the elected politicians. They continue to do so.

You choose to name two people, yes, prominent in these efforts, with very understandable personal roots.

We get it, democracy is anathema to the international Christian Nationalist authoritarian movement...and focusing on two Jews plays to the longstanding prejudices and conspiracy theory that Jews control the world and need to eliminated. Demonization is the whole point.

It's your choice to only mention them.

Sure, the vast majority of Americans supported "the concept", but nobody's asked them to pick up the tab for bringing it about, or if it's worth the cost in lives lost in this war, not to mention the global economic impact. We've only been exposed to propaganda in support of UKraine. Most Americans know little about Ukraine & the history of Russia.

Your anti-semetic canards are an intellectually dishonest diversion.

Sorry, it was your choice to repeat Christian Nationalist conspiracy propaganda.

BTW, It's anti-Semitic. heck, my spell check won't even let me spell it the way you did.

So, it's now "propaganda" to support democracy over authoritarianism? Yikes.

But I get it, that's your worldview. Not mine, nor the majority of Americans. However, IMO there's a dangerously high percentage of Americans who now actually support pro-fascist ideologies over plural democracy, both here and abroad. They're a big part of "MAGA". Not 100%, but a big part.

Again, I think there's a legitimate discussion to be had about the wisdom of various policy decisions over the last couple of decades, given costs and geopolitical risks, but the anti-semitism really poisons such discussion.

So stop making the accusation & polluting an honest, open discussion.
The anti-semitic trope is yours.
It's a bigoted charge, from intolerant close minds, seeking to evade serious discussion>.

[MDlaxfan76]

Re Nuland and Soros...are they the only prominent people who have supported Ukraine and other former Soviet holdings turning away from authoritarianism and Russian domination towards democracy and the West?

Nope. But they're the ones the hard right wing chooses to emphasize.

The two Jewish people.

They're the ones the hard right wing "Nationalists" choose to emphasize.
Christian Nationalists propaganda.

Other than Biden (w/Blinken) & John McCain, they are the 2 most influential figures in the promotion of regime change & dismemberment of Russia, dating back to Maidan in 2014.

VP Biden (w/ his staff advisor Blinken) was the Obama admin point man on Ukraine & delivered the ultimatum that prompted the elected Ukrainian President to step down in 2014. Senators John McCain & Chris Murphy were on the stage in Maidan, in front of Nuland.

Not all Neo-Con hawks are Jewish. That's just a diversionary smear used to deflect any critique of the policies they advocate.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/neoconser ... nservative

There are plenty of gentiles in positions of power propelling us down this road to confrontation with Russia, with the ultimate goal of weakening Russia via regime change & the further dismemberment of the historic Russian nation. Nuland & Soros are 2 of the most impactful over the long run.

Yup, there are indeed plenty of gentiles who have supported democratic movements throwing off the yoke of Soviet and Russian domination.

But right wing Christian Nationalists always mention Soros and Nuland, usually by themselves, and it ain't by accident.

I'm not saying you are anti-Semitic, but pretending to be oblivious (and I have to assume it's pretending at this point in our back and forth) is willfully repeating the anti-Semitic propaganda that is rampant in right wing media and right wing pseudo intellectual circles.

If you're opposed to democracy movements in those areas because of geo-political risks, we can have that conversation, but resorting to trolling anti-Semitic tropes is unhelpful. And I have to assume you know that by now, right?

I'm not oblivious to what you're saying. Nor am I going to let it determine what I say.
Nuland & Soros are the 2 foremost influential, consistent examples, over time.
I posted examples of what they are doing to make them so.
That should make you look beyond your willful blindness to what you're doing by repeating mindless tropes.
I expect that sort of thing from TLD & ffg. I thought that you would be intellectually honest enough to rise above that.

I don't expect my feedback to "determine what you say".
You've made clear that you're unwilling to avoid the obvious anti-semitism.

Why that is, is not clear...but you're definitely making a choice.

He won’t be cowed into not utilizing anti-semitic tropes. It’s his choice.

OK. Give me your nominations for gentiles who have been as influential, over time, of fomenting revolution & regime change in Ukraine, Belarus. & Russia. We have one nomination -- Mitch McConnell. I don't see him as any more significant than other hawkish Senators like McCain, Graham, & Portman (who concentrated on Ukraine), or Dick & Liz Cheney. I maintain that none of them were as consequential, over the long haul, as Nuland & Soros have been. If you agree with them, you should acknowledge their effectiveness & applaud them, rather than diverting attention from their efforts.

The vast majority of Americans supported the concept of democracy in the former Soviet states and Russia itself. Most of the American foreign policy regime supported those movements and aspirations, as did most of the elected politicians. They continue to do so.

You choose to name two people, yes, prominent in these efforts, with very understandable personal roots.

We get it, democracy is anathema to the international Christian Nationalist authoritarian movement...and focusing on two Jews plays to the longstanding prejudices and conspiracy theory that Jews control the world and need to eliminated. Demonization is the whole point.

It's your choice to only mention them.

Sure, the vast majority of Americans supported "the concept", but nobody's asked them to pick up the tab for bringing it about, or if it's worth the cost in lives lost in this war, not to mention the global economic impact. We've only been exposed to propaganda in support of UKraine. Most Americans know little about Ukraine & the history of Russia.

Your anti-semetic canards are an intellectually dishonest diversion.

Sorry, it was your choice to repeat Christian Nationalist conspiracy propaganda.

BTW, It's anti-Semitic. heck, my spell check won't even let me spell it the way you did.

So, it's now "propaganda" to support democracy over authoritarianism? Yikes.

But I get it, that's your worldview. Not mine, nor the majority of Americans. However, IMO there's a dangerously high percentage of Americans who now actually support pro-fascist ideologies over plural democracy, both here and abroad. They're a big part of "MAGA". Not 100%, but a big part.

Again, I think there's a legitimate discussion to be had about the wisdom of various policy decisions over the last couple of decades, given costs and geopolitical risks, but the anti-semitism really poisons such discussion.

So stop making the accusation & polluting an honest, open discussion.
The anti-semitic trope is yours.
It's a bigoted charge, from intolerant close minds, seeking to evade serious discussion>.

BS, your refusal to avoid concentrating on these two Jewish individuals, with the full knowledge of the anti-semitic propaganda endemic to Christian Nationalism is what speaks volumes. And it poisons any further discourse...that's 100% on you.

What, I'm bigoted against bigots? ok...but hoo boy...

[MDlaxfan76]

The same arrangement we have with the tac nucs bombs we provide our NATO allies.
We provide the codes for them to use them.

Which do we provide them to?

https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep28847.10

It's a major factor in which model fighter aircraft participating NATO members choose to procure.
Not all options are certified by the US for delivery of the nuclear weapon provided.

Here's a lengthy WP explainer on the B-61 bomb. I''ll post the text, if anyone is interested.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... 61-russia/

Looks to me like the US maintains absolute and full control of these weapons...some "infrastructure" is provided by some of the NATO allies, but that's not the same as providing them with the weapons for their discretionary usage.

...if you consider the aircraft & crews who maintain & fly them to be "infrastructure".
The US cannot order that they be used. The US can prevent their unilateral use.
Do you think Russia has any less control over the nuclear weapons they will be providing to Belarus.
obtw -- the UK & France have their own independent nuc capability, which was developed with US assistance.

I was only responding to your own unqualified statements...which your own links show were grossly overstated.

As to Russia's arrangement with Belarus, your confidently stated claim that "it's the same as" our arrangement with NATO allies may or may not be accurate...but it's not a statement I made. That's yours to prove. I simply questioned your characterization of our arrangement with our allies in NATO.

Do Presidents of allies offer US nuclear weapons to any nation who joins NATO?

You and a fan are arguing another aspect, the likelihood of Belarus remaining an authoritarian state in Russia's control. I tend to agree that it's pretty darn likely that Belarus will eventually turn to democracy like most of their neighbors. Could be wrong.

If you read the reporting, you will see that Russia is staging, deploying & storing nuc weapons in Belarus, not they are transferring custody & operational control to Russia.

Nothing was overstated.

"...tac nucs bombs we provide our NATO allies.
We provide the codes for them to use them."

Nope. Nope what ?

I asked which allies, I provided you .a link which names them as it was a surprise to me that we'd actually be 'providing' them to any much less all of our allies. I never said all. That's your ridiculous assumption driven misreading Deploying them in country, with allies' support and involvement ain't the same as giving up control. Where did I say we gave up operational control ? I could imagine it was possible, but a surprise to me if so...and your links make clear we have full control. No we don't. We both have to agree to their use & we have the means to prevent their use without our approval. We can't order their use.

As I said, I don't know what Russia's degree of control will be (they'd be incredibly stupid to give up ANY control to Belarus), nor do you.
I never said Russia gave up control. We see what Putin has said, and we see what Lukashenko has said (more bellicose), but we really don't know. What we do know is that these a-holes talk about tac nukes as a legitimate first strike strategy in response to conventional. That, too, is very different.

But Belarus is very likely in IMO to not remain authoritarian over the long term...which is part of why Putin and his cronies are so panicked about Ukraine turning West.

We DO NOT PROVIDE them the bombs. They remain in our control. They don't "use" them.

No, you said definitively that Russia is doing the same as the US...you don't know that to be the case, nor do I. Apparently you're taking Putin's word?

But that wasn't my question, I was simply surprised by your statement that we provide our tactical nukes for our allies to use. Might have been accurate, I didn't know, but turns out your claim implied much more than reality.

All of this is a distraction to your ongoing support for Christian Nationalism and authoritarianism over democracy...you and a fan can argue over whether Putin's a genius in putting tactical nukes in Belarus...seems to me that it may well be a problem, whether because Belarus and Russia actually think tactical nukes should be used, of because they become footballs if there's a turning West...which I think is inevitable, unlike you.

[old salt]

The same arrangement we have with the tac nucs bombs we provide our NATO allies.
We provide the codes for them to use them.

Which do we provide them to?

https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep28847.10

It's a major factor in which model fighter aircraft participating NATO members choose to procure.
Not all options are certified by the US for delivery of the nuclear weapon provided.

Here's a lengthy WP explainer on the B-61 bomb. I''ll post the text, if anyone is interested.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... 61-russia/

Looks to me like the US maintains absolute and full control of these weapons...some "infrastructure" is provided by some of the NATO allies, but that's not the same as providing them with the weapons for their discretionary usage.

...if you consider the aircraft & crews who maintain & fly them to be "infrastructure".
The US cannot order that they be used. The US can prevent their unilateral use.
Do you think Russia has any less control over the nuclear weapons they will be providing to Belarus.
obtw -- the UK & France have their own independent nuc capability, which was developed with US assistance.

I was only responding to your own unqualified statements...which your own links show were grossly overstated.

As to Russia's arrangement with Belarus, your confidently stated claim that "it's the same as" our arrangement with NATO allies may or may not be accurate...but it's not a statement I made. That's yours to prove. I simply questioned your characterization of our arrangement with our allies in NATO.

Do Presidents of allies offer US nuclear weapons to any nation who joins NATO?

You and a fan are arguing another aspect, the likelihood of Belarus remaining an authoritarian state in Russia's control. I tend to agree that it's pretty darn likely that Belarus will eventually turn to democracy like most of their neighbors. Could be wrong.

If you read the reporting, you will see that Russia is staging, deploying & storing nuc weapons in Belarus, not they are transferring custody & operational control to Russia.

Nothing was overstated.

"...tac nucs bombs we provide our NATO allies.
We provide the codes for them to use them."

Nope. Nope what ?

I asked which allies, I provided you .a link which names them as it was a surprise to me that we'd actually be 'providing' them to any much less all of our allies. I never said all. That's your ridiculous assumption driven misreading Deploying them in country, with allies' support and involvement ain't the same as giving up control. Where did I say we gave up operational control ? I could imagine it was possible, but a surprise to me if so...and your links make clear we have full control. No we don't. We both have to agree to their use & we have the means to prevent their use without our approval. We can't order their use.

As I said, I don't know what Russia's degree of control will be (they'd be incredibly stupid to give up ANY control to Belarus), nor do you.
I never said Russia gave up control. We see what Putin has said, and we see what Lukashenko has said (more bellicose), but we really don't know. What we do know is that these a-holes talk about tac nukes as a legitimate first strike strategy in response to conventional. That, too, is very different.

But Belarus is very likely in IMO to not remain authoritarian over the long term...which is part of why Putin and his cronies are so panicked about Ukraine turning West.

We DO NOT PROVIDE them the bombs. They remain in our control. They don't "use" them.

No, you said definitively that Russia is doing the same as the US...you don't know that to be the case, nor do I. Apparently you're taking Putin's word?

But that wasn't my question, I was simply surprised by your statement that we provide our tactical nukes for our allies to use. Might have been accurate, I didn't know, but turns out your claim implied much more than reality.

All of this is a distraction to your ongoing support for Christian Nationalism and authoritarianism over democracy...you and a fan can argue over whether Putin's a genius in putting tactical nukes in Belarus...seems to me that it may well be a problem, whether because Belarus and Russia actually think tactical nukes should be used, of because they become footballs if there's a turning West...which I think is inevitable, unlike you.

...you made an assumption, based on something of which you have no knowledge, looking for an argument.

We PROVIDE selected NATO allies the weapons which allow them to say that they are nuclear capable & have a nuclear deterrent.
If employed, it will be via their aircraft, their flight & maint crews, launched from their air bases.
There is propaganda & deterrent value & liability in that.

I provided the lInks which explain the complexities of the issue, hoping you'd read them before going off half cocked & reflexively deflecting to a White Christian Nationalist rant, which you predictably did.

Based on what I've seen reported to date, Russia's deployment & storage of tac nucs in Belarus is analogous to our similar arrangement with selected NATO allies. We just don't know all the operational details yet.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/nucl ... -rcna86640

Meanwhile, defense ministers of the two countries, Sergei Shoigu and Viktor Khrenin, signed documents in Minsk last week, defining the procedure for keeping Russian nuclear weapons in Belarusian territory, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

Moscow has already handed over to Minsk the “Iskander” missile system, which can carry nuclear weapons, Shoigu said, and has assisted in converting some Belarusian aircraft for the possible nuclear weapon use.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-belar ... 9909bf9a81

Belarusian air force crews have completed their training for using tactical nuclear weapons as part of Russia’s plan to deploy the weapons to its ally Belarus amid the fighting in neighboring Ukraine, the Russian Defense Ministry said Friday.

The ministry released a video in which a Belarusian pilot said that the training course in Russia had given the crews of the Belarusian air force’s Su-25 ground attack jets the necessary skills for using the weapons.

Russian President Vladimir Putin declared last month that Moscow planned to put some of its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus. It was another attempt by the Kremlin leader to dangle the nuclear threat to discourage the West from supporting Ukraine.

Russia has a union agreement with Belarus that envisions close political, economic and military ties. Russian troops used Belarusian territory to roll into Ukraine from the north in February 2022 and have maintained a presence in Belarus.

The deployment of Russian tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus would put them closer to potential targets in Ukraine and NATO members in Eastern and Central Europe. Belarus shares a 1,250-kilometer (778-mile) border with NATO members Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.

Putin said that construction of storage facilities for tactical nuclear weapons would be completed in Belarus by July 1. Russia also has helped modernize Belarusian warplanes to adapt them to carrying nuclear weapons and provided the country with Iskander short-range missiles that could be fitted with a nuclear warhead.

Putin has emphasized that Russia would retain control over any nuclear weapons deployed to Belarus, just as the U.S. controls its tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of its NATO allies.

The authoritarian president of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, has suggested that some of Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons might also be deployed to Belarus along with part of Moscow’s tactical nuclear arsenal.

Belarusian Defense Minister Viktor Khrenin again mentioned the possibility Friday, saying “it could be the next step,” if the West continued what he described as its hostile course.

[MDlaxfan76]

Nope, you overstated, and you don't know it's the same. Yes, that's what they're saying...

The other conversation, we were having prior and in parallel. Bleeds over.

[old salt]

Nope, you overstated, and you don't know it's the same. Yes, that's what they're saying...

The other conversation, we were having prior and in parallel. Bleeds over.

I overstated nothing. I was precise in my language & my assertion, as I have further documented with the links above from NBC & AP, which make the same analogy.

You made a faulty assumption based on your political bias. Negative confirmation bias.

[a fan]

Putin has emphasized that Russia would retain control over any nuclear weapons deployed to Belarus, just as the U.S. controls its tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of its NATO allies.

What's the FIRST thing you're gonna go after if your rebel against the fascists there?

[old salt]

The Russia=>Belarus nuc weapons deal is still more blowback from the failed attempted color revolution in Belarus.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/wh ... red-172938

in the summer of 2019, the Trump administration acknowledged that Washington’s long-held policy of values-driven confrontation with Minsk had borne little fruit; decades of targeted U.S. sanctions against Belarusian politicians and companies have elicited no observable changes in Belarusian domestic policy, whether on election integrity or human rights. The White House and State Department conceived an altogether different path forward: instead of airing unresolvable moral differences, Washington should engage Minsk in the context of a broader Eurasian grand strategy. The Trump administration reasoned that a diplomatic reset with Minsk would check the westward spread of Chinese economic influence in Europe. Furthermore, making inroads with a key Russian partner like Minsk could prove to be a source of leverage in future negotiations with the Kremlin. Resetting relations with Belarus, which has long acted as a hub for the secondhand transportation of commercial goods, would also go far in tightening the U.S. sanctions regimes against such actors as Iran.

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton first met with Lukashenko in the summer of 2019. In the following year, the United States signed an unprecedented oil export contract with Belarus. In what is a refreshingly realpolitik approach, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo demanded neither domestic reforms nor concrete foreign policy concessions from Lukashenko as a precondition for normalizing relations.

The stage was set for a diplomatic breakthrough in U.S.-Belarusian relations and, with it, a reinvigorated U.S. geopolitical presence in Eurasia. Then came the 2020 Belarusian presidential election. Lukashenko prevailed over the opposition candidate Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya with a reported 80 percent of the vote; thousands of Belarusians marched in protest amid widespread allegations of fraud, and a wide swathe of Western states refused to accept the legitimacy of the election. The Western world agreed that Lukashenko had to be punished for transgressing against democracy and human rights, and so began the color revolution in Belarus. Less than a week following the election, dozens of Western diplomats gathered in Minsk to protest Lukashenko’s government by laying flowers at the site where a protester was killed by Belarusian police. After declaring herself the winner of the election, Tsikhanouskaya established a “Coordination Council” that was later recognized as the legitimate interim representation of Belarus by the European Parliament. Even as the large-scale protests continued, waves of orchestrated labor walkouts—partly coordinated by an opposition news network headquartered in Warsaw—tried to grind the Belarusian economy to a halt. Over the coming months, Washington and Brussels coordinated to implement a massive sanctions package against Lukashenko.

The U.S. State Department not only retreated from its fledgling attempts at normalization, but took U.S.-Belarusian relations back to square one: "The United States cannot consider Aleksandr Lukashenko the legitimately elected leader of Belarus. The path forward should be a national dialogue leading to the Belarusian people enjoying their right to choose their leaders in a free and fair election under independent observation,” a State Department spokesperson told Axios.

Lukashenko, predictably, was forced to abandon his long-standing “multi-vector policy” of fostering relations with the West as a counterweight to what would otherwise be his one-sided dependence on Moscow. In the months following the election, Lukashenko reluctantly doubled down on his commitment to Russia, taking a $1.5 billion loan from the Kremlin to offset the economic pain from ongoing western sanctions and labor walkouts, and even reviving long-abandoned talks for Russian-Belarusian unification.

The color revolution in Belarus sputtered, partly, because Lukashenko successfully mobilized his police forces to prevent a Maidan-style outcome in which the state security apparatus crumbled under the weight of organized protests. He then took unprecedented steps to marshal his own rural base of support and to create a pro-government culture of mass political participation, holding numerous rallies and even organizing a women's forum.

Despite the continued recognition of Tsikhanouskaya and the Coordination Council as the legitimate representatives of Belarus by several Western states and institutions, it is abundantly clear that Lukashenko isn’t going anywhere—nor will he be quick to forget the role of Washington and Brussels in facilitating the abortive revolution against him. Not only is Lukashenko now more isolated from the West than ever, but he has spent the past few months consolidating his internal popularity and further reinforcing his levers of domestic control. Any future efforts at a reset with Minsk will now face an uphill struggle of the West’s own making.

The experience of Belarus is the latest in a long line of bipartisan policy failures everywhere from Syria to Kyrgyzstan. Policymakers and analysts sometimes ask why a particular color revolution failed, and what Western institutions can do to help the next one succeed. But the record is abundantly clear: color revolution is itself a failed policy, driven by a misguided focus on enforcing liberal-democratic values rather than pursuing concrete strategic ends.

[a fan]

The Russia=>Belarus nuc weapons deal is still more blowback from the failed attempted color revolution in Belarus.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/wh ... red-172938

in the summer of 2019, the Trump administration acknowledged that Washington’s long-held policy of values-driven confrontation with Minsk had borne little fruit; decades of targeted U.S. sanctions against Belarusian politicians and companies have elicited no observable changes in Belarusian domestic policy, whether on election integrity or human rights. The White House and State Department conceived an altogether different path forward: instead of airing unresolvable moral differences, Washington should engage Minsk in the context of a broader Eurasian grand strategy. The Trump administration reasoned that a diplomatic reset with Minsk would check the westward spread of Chinese economic influence in Europe. Furthermore, making inroads with a key Russian partner like Minsk could prove to be a source of leverage in future negotiations with the Kremlin. Resetting relations with Belarus, which has long acted as a hub for the secondhand transportation of commercial goods, would also go far in tightening the U.S. sanctions regimes against such actors as Iran.

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton first met with Lukashenko in the summer of 2019. In the following year, the United States signed an unprecedented oil export contract with Belarus. In what is a refreshingly realpolitik approach, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo demanded neither domestic reforms nor concrete foreign policy concessions from Lukashenko as a precondition for normalizing relations.

The stage was set for a diplomatic breakthrough in U.S.-Belarusian relations and, with it, a reinvigorated U.S. geopolitical presence in Eurasia. Then came the 2020 Belarusian presidential election. Lukashenko prevailed over the opposition candidate Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya with a reported 80 percent of the vote; thousands of Belarusians marched in protest amid widespread allegations of fraud, and a wide swathe of Western states refused to accept the legitimacy of the election. The Western world agreed that Lukashenko had to be punished for transgressing against democracy and human rights, and so began the color revolution in Belarus. Less than a week following the election, dozens of Western diplomats gathered in Minsk to protest Lukashenko’s government by laying flowers at the site where a protester was killed by Belarusian police. After declaring herself the winner of the election, Tsikhanouskaya established a “Coordination Council” that was later recognized as the legitimate interim representation of Belarus by the European Parliament. Even as the large-scale protests continued, waves of orchestrated labor walkouts—partly coordinated by an opposition news network headquartered in Warsaw—tried to grind the Belarusian economy to a halt. Over the coming months, Washington and Brussels coordinated to implement a massive sanctions package against Lukashenko.

The U.S. State Department not only retreated from its fledgling attempts at normalization, but took U.S.-Belarusian relations back to square one: "The United States cannot consider Aleksandr Lukashenko the legitimately elected leader of Belarus. The path forward should be a national dialogue leading to the Belarusian people enjoying their right to choose their leaders in a free and fair election under independent observation,” a State Department spokesperson told Axios.

Lukashenko, predictably, was forced to abandon his long-standing “multi-vector policy” of fostering relations with the West as a counterweight to what would otherwise be his one-sided dependence on Moscow. In the months following the election, Lukashenko reluctantly doubled down on his commitment to Russia, taking a $1.5 billion loan from the Kremlin to offset the economic pain from ongoing western sanctions and labor walkouts, and even reviving long-abandoned talks for Russian-Belarusian unification.

The color revolution in Belarus sputtered, partly, because Lukashenko successfully mobilized his police forces to prevent a Maidan-style outcome in which the state security apparatus crumbled under the weight of organized protests. He then took unprecedented steps to marshal his own rural base of support and to create a pro-government culture of mass political participation, holding numerous rallies and even organizing a women's forum.

Despite the continued recognition of Tsikhanouskaya and the Coordination Council as the legitimate representatives of Belarus by several Western states and institutions, it is abundantly clear that Lukashenko isn’t going anywhere—nor will he be quick to forget the role of Washington and Brussels in facilitating the abortive revolution against him. Not only is Lukashenko now more isolated from the West than ever, but he has spent the past few months consolidating his internal popularity and further reinforcing his levers of domestic control. Any future efforts at a reset with Minsk will now face an uphill struggle of the West’s own making.

The experience of Belarus is the latest in a long line of bipartisan policy failures everywhere from Syria to Kyrgyzstan. Policymakers and analysts sometimes ask why a particular color revolution failed, and what Western institutions can do to help the next one succeed. But the record is abundantly clear: color revolution is itself a failed policy, driven by a misguided focus on enforcing liberal-democratic values rather than pursuing concrete strategic ends.

I thought to myself: that's a really weird take on this stuff. Then I looked up the author...Mark Episkopos. PhD candidate and TA at American.

And from the liberal nutjobs at the WSJ.....

Headline: Putin's American Cheerleaders

Jan 6, 2023 — How Jeffrey Sachs, Mark Episkopos and Dimitri Simes contribute to the Russian propaganda effort.


He leaves out a whole mess of stuff. Things like: we tried the "Realpolitik" MO that he's championing with Putin from Hillary through Trump. That didn't work out so hot, either.

Then there's the places where the "color revolution", like it or not, worked just fine: Ukraine comes to mind. There goes his claim.

This is a bad piece of thinking, OS, that doesn't make any sense. My opinion, of course.

[MDlaxfan76]

Nope, you overstated, and you don't know it's the same. Yes, that's what they're saying...

The other conversation, we were having prior and in parallel. Bleeds over.

I overstated nothing. I was precise in my language & my assertion, as I have further documented with the links above from NBC & AP, which make the same analogy.

You made a faulty assumption based on your political bias. Negative confirmation bias.

As the WAPO says the US "keeps" these weapons in allied countries, we do not "provide" them the weapons. And while there is role sharing, they cannot use them without our direct control.

Typical; you get caught in an overstatement and fall back to claiming others misunderstand you, that you've been "precise" (yet implying the overstatement) and it's other readers who have "confirmation bias"; taking zero responsibility for your end of the communication...exactly like your focus on Nuland and Soros, only, then claim it has nothing to do with your longstanding embrace of Christian Nationalism, nothing to do with anti-semitic propaganda, despite knowing, from prior conversations that this is exactly what such exclusive focus means to others.

First you argue that are lots of "gentiles" who support democracy and oppose authoritarianism in the former Soviet bloc, so not anti-semitic, then when pointed out that you only mentioned the two prominent Jewish such... claim we're misreading you...and indeed, we're the ones who are "bigoted"

It's a phony line of argumentation.

It's too bad, because there's real meat for discussion that you poison.

[cradleandshoot]

It is possible, to make matters worse, things in Kosovo are heating up again.

[old salt]

Typical; you get caught in an overstatement and fall back to claiming others misunderstand you, that you've been "precise" (yet implying the overstatement) and it's other readers who have "confirmation bias"; taking zero responsibility for your end of the communication...

It was not an overstatement. It is completely accurate. You make assumptions & read too much into it before informing yourself on the details.

Our participating NATO allies who have this capability base their aircraft acquisitions on this capability.
They bought F-16's & are replacing them with F-35's, rather than Eurofighters.

[old salt]

...taking zero responsibility for your end of the communication...exactly like your focus on Nuland and Soros, only, then claim it has nothing to do with your longstanding embrace of Christian Nationalism, nothing to do with anti-semitic propaganda, despite knowing, from prior conversations that this is exactly what such exclusive focus means to others.

First you argue that are lots of "gentiles" who support democracy and oppose authoritarianism in the former Soviet bloc, so not anti-semitic, then when pointed out that you only mentioned the two prominent Jewish such... claim we're misreading you...and indeed, we're the ones who are "bigoted"

It's a phony line of argumentation.

It's too bad, because there's real meat for discussion that you poison.

You're poisoning it with your bogus accusations of anti-semitism.

I'm still waiting for your nominations for the gentiles who have been as impactful in this movement as Nuland as Soros.