Trump's Russian Collusion

[cradleandshoot]

When some people talk about lives lost in other countries I wonder how little they care when they use that as a cheap prop to try and win an argument.

What cheap prop is that? I'm guessing at some point in time you learned about the horrors of WW1 trench warfare. You ever hear about the Battle of the Somme? You know how many British soldiers died on the first day of the battle? History does repeat itself. The cost in human lives to gain a few hundred yards of real estate should make everyones blood run cold.

[cradleandshoot]

When some people talk about lives lost in other countries I wonder how little they care when they use that as a cheap prop to try and win an argument.

What cheap prop is that? I'm guessing at some point in time you learned about the horrors of WW1 trench warfare. You ever hear about the Battle of the Somme? You know how many British soldiers died on the first day of the battle? History does repeat itself. The cost in human lives to gain a few hundred yards of real estate should make everyones blood run cold. The Brits lost over 19 thousand soldiers in the first few hours. Yet both sides are stuck in the quagmire of hiding behind static defensive positions. This stupidity was proven in WW1, nothing was learned via the horrific mistakes made back then.

[Farfromgeneva]

When some people talk about lives lost in other countries I wonder how little they care when they use that as a cheap prop to try and win an argument.

What cheap prop is that? I'm guessing at some point in time you learned about the horrors of WW1 trench warfare. You ever hear about the Battle of the Somme? You know how many British soldiers died on the first day of the battle? History does repeat itself. The cost in human lives to gain a few hundred yards of real estate should make everyones blood run cold. The Brits lost over 19 thousand soldiers in the first few hours. Yet both sides are stuck in the quagmire of hiding behind static defensive positions. This stupidity was proven in WW1, nothing was learned via the horrific mistakes made back then.

I don’t get why you responded or how that addresses my comment and yes I do understand better than you. Heard of everything you’ve heard of and then a few million more things.

I’m addressing chris heuristics and you yet again see an opening to demonstrate anachronism personified.

[cradleandshoot]

When some people talk about lives lost in other countries I wonder how little they care when they use that as a cheap prop to try and win an argument.

What cheap prop is that? I'm guessing at some point in time you learned about the horrors of WW1 trench warfare. You ever hear about the Battle of the Somme? You know how many British soldiers died on the first day of the battle? History does repeat itself. The cost in human lives to gain a few hundred yards of real estate should make everyones blood run cold. The Brits lost over 19 thousand soldiers in the first few hours. Yet both sides are stuck in the quagmire of hiding behind static defensive positions. This stupidity was proven in WW1, nothing was learned via the horrific mistakes made back then.

I don’t get why you responded or how that addresses my comment and yes I do understand better than you. Heard of everything you’ve heard of and then a few million more things.

I’m addressing chris heuristics and you yet again see an opening to demonstrate anachronism personified.

You say you understand but prove your special blend of ignorance in your very next sentence. When you step outside your comfort zone of financial wizardry you prove yet one more time how ineffective your perspective is when you step outside your comfort zone.

[Farfromgeneva]

When some people talk about lives lost in other countries I wonder how little they care when they use that as a cheap prop to try and win an argument.

What cheap prop is that? I'm guessing at some point in time you learned about the horrors of WW1 trench warfare. You ever hear about the Battle of the Somme? You know how many British soldiers died on the first day of the battle? History does repeat itself. The cost in human lives to gain a few hundred yards of real estate should make everyones blood run cold. The Brits lost over 19 thousand soldiers in the first few hours. Yet both sides are stuck in the quagmire of hiding behind static defensive positions. This stupidity was proven in WW1, nothing was learned via the horrific mistakes made back then.

I don’t get why you responded or how that addresses my comment and yes I do understand better than you. Heard of everything you’ve heard of and then a few million more things.

I’m addressing chris heuristics and you yet again see an opening to demonstrate anachronism personified.

You say you understand but prove your special blend of ignorance in your very next sentence. When you step outside your comfort zone of financial wizardry you prove yet one more time how ineffective your perspective is when you step outside your comfort zone.

Keep that confidence at a “f**kin million” on a scale of one to ten. It’s definitely working well for you.

[MDlaxfan76]

Salty's been correct that France and Germany are influenced by their economic interests, gas pipeline etc. What he doesn't recognize is that Trump has pushed them very hard to no longer see their alliance with the US as dependable, thus they need to make it non-essential

Note date...

That part did not age well.

From Defense One's D brief :

One year into efforts to boost production of artillery rounds for Ukraine, the United States and Europe are seeing radically different results, Defense One’s Sam Skove reported Monday.

The gist: The U.S. has increased its output of 155mm shells far faster than it originally forecasted, and plans to increase it further. But Europe has moved more slowly than it intended to, hampered by the consensus-focused nature of regional alliances. Meanwhile NATO, whose own procurement agency is also pursuing the acquisition of more 155mm rounds, is finding that prices have quadrupled.

For one fairly dramatic illustration of the differences, consider this: In October, NATO’s senior military officer, Adm. Rob Bauer, said that the price for one 155mm shell had risen from 2,000 euros ($2,170) at the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion to 8,000 euros ($8,500). For comparison, the U.S. currently pays $3,000 for its most modern shells, according to an Army spokesperson.

Scholz spoke to lawmakers as Germany faces a dire financial crunch, which is forcing the country to take on more debt for the fourth consecutive year,

NATO’s battlefield assessment for Ukraine: “Even though the frontline has not moved so much, the Ukrainians have been able to inflict heavy losses on the Russian forces,” Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters Tuesday during a meeting of alliance foreign ministers in Brussels.

Reminder: “Most people in non-Western countries want Russia’s war on Ukraine to end as soon as possible, even if it means Kyiv ceding territory,” according to pollsters with the European Council on Foreign Relations, writing about two weeks ago.

Additional reading: “'At what cost?' Ukraine strains to bolster its army as war fatigue weighs,” Reuters reported Tuesday from Kyiv.

Yup, the NATO alliance has rebounded from Trump's attempt to break it. Good thing for the Ukrainians, good thing for western democracies.

But hey, obviously the production of artillery shells is a challenge that had not seen such a strain since WWII. Darn "regional alliances", everyone should be on their own...let Ukraine fall to Putin's aggression. Baltics? who cares? Poland? They were part of Russia weren't they?

Trump would have said "not our problem, let Putin have Ukraine, I get along with Vlad". Upside, lots of artillery shells left in the stockpile...

Tucker Carlson now arguing that he doesn't see why we shouldn't support Russia over Ukraine...
Any real doubt about where Hannity will be?

And look what Trump and MAGA are saying now...

So why didn't Putin just seize Ukraine when Trump was President ?

Artillery shells aren't the only expensive critical shortage. Reloads for air defense systems are a concern.
Our (& allied} defense industrial base can't keep up.

I've answered your question now dozens of times.

Putin thought he could achieve the incorporation of Ukraine into the Russian sphere without the huge expenditure of arms and men from his side...with Trump's help in dismantling NATO, undermining Ukraine's resistance and desires to turn westward. NATO in disarray was good for Putin domestically, especially within the hard line folks. That changed when Trump lost in 2020. Putin saw Biden reenergizing the alliance, rebuilding trust between allies, and decided that the situation would get harder for Russia, and for him personally, if he didn't act...part of that was cracking down on all dissent within Russia and the other was to show his hard liners he would act...

Yes, our industrial base is strained to keep up...so is Russia's.
What's the takeaway, Russia should just expand its borders because it's costly to stop them?

Another winter is arriving. The long hyped counter offensive (which we pushed them into) has failed. Casualties remain high on both sides. Shortages of critical munitions persist. Small tactical victories, like securing a small bridgehead on the L bank of the Dnipro or drone boat attacks, are hyped, but aren't game changers. The line of control is not changing significantly.

Political support in the west is dissipating. Continued funding is being debated in the US & EU.
Have you given any realistic thought as to how this ends & if it is worth the cost in blood & treasure ?

Over the past 20 years, we've lead the Ukrainians down a primrose path of revolutions, regime changes & finally a war as our proxies, which has destroyed much of their country & devastated their population & society. It did not have to go this way. Had Ukraine gone the way of Belarus & joined the Union State, a tremendous amount of suffering would have been averted, & long term stability would have been promoted. You neocons have your latest forever war. This time via proxy (so far). You've created a 4 nation axis against us, for an open ended Cold War. A sad send off for Henry K. https://www.ft.com/content/c43f8269-b30 ... 8a137f1dd6

So, your preferred answer to the disposition of Ukraine's people and their aspirations for democracy and prosperity would have been and remains that they be another authoritarian state under the control of Putin's Russian hegemonic ambitions?

Yes, it's likely to be another long, cold winter for Ukraine...made much colder and bloodier if we lose our resolve to support their defense of their country.

BTW, though we haven't discussed it, I don't admire Kissinger nor would I ever place trust in his judgment. Too much history there.

I do respect his capacity to maintain relationships with leaders, both authoritarian and democratic, across the world over many decades. But not his judgment or personal ethics.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Salty's been correct that France and Germany are influenced by their economic interests, gas pipeline etc. What he doesn't recognize is that Trump has pushed them very hard to no longer see their alliance with the US as dependable, thus they need to make it non-essential

Note date...

That part did not age well.

From Defense One's D brief :

One year into efforts to boost production of artillery rounds for Ukraine, the United States and Europe are seeing radically different results, Defense One’s Sam Skove reported Monday.

The gist: The U.S. has increased its output of 155mm shells far faster than it originally forecasted, and plans to increase it further. But Europe has moved more slowly than it intended to, hampered by the consensus-focused nature of regional alliances. Meanwhile NATO, whose own procurement agency is also pursuing the acquisition of more 155mm rounds, is finding that prices have quadrupled.

For one fairly dramatic illustration of the differences, consider this: In October, NATO’s senior military officer, Adm. Rob Bauer, said that the price for one 155mm shell had risen from 2,000 euros ($2,170) at the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion to 8,000 euros ($8,500). For comparison, the U.S. currently pays $3,000 for its most modern shells, according to an Army spokesperson.

Scholz spoke to lawmakers as Germany faces a dire financial crunch, which is forcing the country to take on more debt for the fourth consecutive year,

NATO’s battlefield assessment for Ukraine: “Even though the frontline has not moved so much, the Ukrainians have been able to inflict heavy losses on the Russian forces,” Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters Tuesday during a meeting of alliance foreign ministers in Brussels.

Reminder: “Most people in non-Western countries want Russia’s war on Ukraine to end as soon as possible, even if it means Kyiv ceding territory,” according to pollsters with the European Council on Foreign Relations, writing about two weeks ago.

Additional reading: “'At what cost?' Ukraine strains to bolster its army as war fatigue weighs,” Reuters reported Tuesday from Kyiv.

Yup, the NATO alliance has rebounded from Trump's attempt to break it. Good thing for the Ukrainians, good thing for western democracies.

But hey, obviously the production of artillery shells is a challenge that had not seen such a strain since WWII. Darn "regional alliances", everyone should be on their own...let Ukraine fall to Putin's aggression. Baltics? who cares? Poland? They were part of Russia weren't they?

Trump would have said "not our problem, let Putin have Ukraine, I get along with Vlad". Upside, lots of artillery shells left in the stockpile...

Tucker Carlson now arguing that he doesn't see why we shouldn't support Russia over Ukraine...
Any real doubt about where Hannity will be?

And look what Trump and MAGA are saying now...

So why didn't Putin just seize Ukraine when Trump was President ?

Artillery shells aren't the only expensive critical shortage. Reloads for air defense systems are a concern.
Our (& allied} defense industrial base can't keep up.

I've answered your question now dozens of times.

Putin thought he could achieve the incorporation of Ukraine into the Russian sphere without the huge expenditure of arms and men from his side...with Trump's help in dismantling NATO, undermining Ukraine's resistance and desires to turn westward. NATO in disarray was good for Putin domestically, especially within the hard line folks. That changed when Trump lost in 2020. Putin saw Biden reenergizing the alliance, rebuilding trust between allies, and decided that the situation would get harder for Russia, and for him personally, if he didn't act...part of that was cracking down on all dissent within Russia and the other was to show his hard liners he would act...

Yes, our industrial base is strained to keep up...so is Russia's.
What's the takeaway, Russia should just expand its borders because it's costly to stop them?

Another winter is arriving. The long hyped counter offensive (which we pushed them into) has failed. Casualties remain high on both sides. Shortages of critical munitions persist. Small tactical victories, like securing a small bridgehead on the L bank of the Dnipro or drone boat attacks, are hyped, but aren't game changers. The line of control is not changing significantly.

Political support in the west is dissipating. Continued funding is being debated in the US & EU.
Have you given any realistic thought as to how this ends & if it is worth the cost in blood & treasure ?

Over the past 20 years, we've lead the Ukrainians down a primrose path of revolutions, regime changes & finally a war as our proxies, which has destroyed much of their country & devastated their population & society. It did not have to go this way. Had Ukraine gone the way of Belarus & joined the Union State, a tremendous amount of suffering would have been averted, & long term stability would have been promoted. You neocons have your latest forever war. This time via proxy (so far). You've created a 4 nation axis against us, for an open ended Cold War. A sad send off for Henry K. https://www.ft.com/content/c43f8269-b30 ... 8a137f1dd6

Guy was 100 years old. You can’t quote his perspective on current events anymore.

[Farfromgeneva]

Salty's been correct that France and Germany are influenced by their economic interests, gas pipeline etc. What he doesn't recognize is that Trump has pushed them very hard to no longer see their alliance with the US as dependable, thus they need to make it non-essential

Note date...

That part did not age well.

From Defense One's D brief :

One year into efforts to boost production of artillery rounds for Ukraine, the United States and Europe are seeing radically different results, Defense One’s Sam Skove reported Monday.

The gist: The U.S. has increased its output of 155mm shells far faster than it originally forecasted, and plans to increase it further. But Europe has moved more slowly than it intended to, hampered by the consensus-focused nature of regional alliances. Meanwhile NATO, whose own procurement agency is also pursuing the acquisition of more 155mm rounds, is finding that prices have quadrupled.

For one fairly dramatic illustration of the differences, consider this: In October, NATO’s senior military officer, Adm. Rob Bauer, said that the price for one 155mm shell had risen from 2,000 euros ($2,170) at the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion to 8,000 euros ($8,500). For comparison, the U.S. currently pays $3,000 for its most modern shells, according to an Army spokesperson.

Scholz spoke to lawmakers as Germany faces a dire financial crunch, which is forcing the country to take on more debt for the fourth consecutive year,

NATO’s battlefield assessment for Ukraine: “Even though the frontline has not moved so much, the Ukrainians have been able to inflict heavy losses on the Russian forces,” Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters Tuesday during a meeting of alliance foreign ministers in Brussels.

Reminder: “Most people in non-Western countries want Russia’s war on Ukraine to end as soon as possible, even if it means Kyiv ceding territory,” according to pollsters with the European Council on Foreign Relations, writing about two weeks ago.

Additional reading: “'At what cost?' Ukraine strains to bolster its army as war fatigue weighs,” Reuters reported Tuesday from Kyiv.

Yup, the NATO alliance has rebounded from Trump's attempt to break it. Good thing for the Ukrainians, good thing for western democracies.

But hey, obviously the production of artillery shells is a challenge that had not seen such a strain since WWII. Darn "regional alliances", everyone should be on their own...let Ukraine fall to Putin's aggression. Baltics? who cares? Poland? They were part of Russia weren't they?

Trump would have said "not our problem, let Putin have Ukraine, I get along with Vlad". Upside, lots of artillery shells left in the stockpile...

Tucker Carlson now arguing that he doesn't see why we shouldn't support Russia over Ukraine...
Any real doubt about where Hannity will be?

And look what Trump and MAGA are saying now...

So why didn't Putin just seize Ukraine when Trump was President ?

Artillery shells aren't the only expensive critical shortage. Reloads for air defense systems are a concern.
Our (& allied} defense industrial base can't keep up.

I've answered your question now dozens of times.

Putin thought he could achieve the incorporation of Ukraine into the Russian sphere without the huge expenditure of arms and men from his side...with Trump's help in dismantling NATO, undermining Ukraine's resistance and desires to turn westward. NATO in disarray was good for Putin domestically, especially within the hard line folks. That changed when Trump lost in 2020. Putin saw Biden reenergizing the alliance, rebuilding trust between allies, and decided that the situation would get harder for Russia, and for him personally, if he didn't act...part of that was cracking down on all dissent within Russia and the other was to show his hard liners he would act...

Yes, our industrial base is strained to keep up...so is Russia's.
What's the takeaway, Russia should just expand its borders because it's costly to stop them?

Another winter is arriving. The long hyped counter offensive (which we pushed them into) has failed. Casualties remain high on both sides. Shortages of critical munitions persist. Small tactical victories, like securing a small bridgehead on the L bank of the Dnipro or drone boat attacks, are hyped, but aren't game changers. The line of control is not changing significantly.

Political support in the west is dissipating. Continued funding is being debated in the US & EU.
Have you given any realistic thought as to how this ends & if it is worth the cost in blood & treasure ?

Over the past 20 years, we've lead the Ukrainians down a primrose path of revolutions, regime changes & finally a war as our proxies, which has destroyed much of their country & devastated their population & society. It did not have to go this way. Had Ukraine gone the way of Belarus & joined the Union State, a tremendous amount of suffering would have been averted, & long term stability would have been promoted. You neocons have your latest forever war. This time via proxy (so far). You've created a 4 nation axis against us, for an open ended Cold War. A sad send off for Henry K. https://www.ft.com/content/c43f8269-b30 ... 8a137f1dd6

Guy was 100 years old. You can’t quote his perspective on current events anymore.

He sure can because it reflects that perspective quite nicely. Backwards and unaware of the modern world.

[Farfromgeneva]

Salty's been correct that France and Germany are influenced by their economic interests, gas pipeline etc. What he doesn't recognize is that Trump has pushed them very hard to no longer see their alliance with the US as dependable, thus they need to make it non-essential

Note date...

That part did not age well.

From Defense One's D brief :

One year into efforts to boost production of artillery rounds for Ukraine, the United States and Europe are seeing radically different results, Defense One’s Sam Skove reported Monday.

The gist: The U.S. has increased its output of 155mm shells far faster than it originally forecasted, and plans to increase it further. But Europe has moved more slowly than it intended to, hampered by the consensus-focused nature of regional alliances. Meanwhile NATO, whose own procurement agency is also pursuing the acquisition of more 155mm rounds, is finding that prices have quadrupled.

For one fairly dramatic illustration of the differences, consider this: In October, NATO’s senior military officer, Adm. Rob Bauer, said that the price for one 155mm shell had risen from 2,000 euros ($2,170) at the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion to 8,000 euros ($8,500). For comparison, the U.S. currently pays $3,000 for its most modern shells, according to an Army spokesperson.

Scholz spoke to lawmakers as Germany faces a dire financial crunch, which is forcing the country to take on more debt for the fourth consecutive year,

NATO’s battlefield assessment for Ukraine: “Even though the frontline has not moved so much, the Ukrainians have been able to inflict heavy losses on the Russian forces,” Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters Tuesday during a meeting of alliance foreign ministers in Brussels.

Reminder: “Most people in non-Western countries want Russia’s war on Ukraine to end as soon as possible, even if it means Kyiv ceding territory,” according to pollsters with the European Council on Foreign Relations, writing about two weeks ago.

Additional reading: “'At what cost?' Ukraine strains to bolster its army as war fatigue weighs,” Reuters reported Tuesday from Kyiv.

Yup, the NATO alliance has rebounded from Trump's attempt to break it. Good thing for the Ukrainians, good thing for western democracies.

But hey, obviously the production of artillery shells is a challenge that had not seen such a strain since WWII. Darn "regional alliances", everyone should be on their own...let Ukraine fall to Putin's aggression. Baltics? who cares? Poland? They were part of Russia weren't they?

Trump would have said "not our problem, let Putin have Ukraine, I get along with Vlad". Upside, lots of artillery shells left in the stockpile...

Tucker Carlson now arguing that he doesn't see why we shouldn't support Russia over Ukraine...
Any real doubt about where Hannity will be?

And look what Trump and MAGA are saying now...

So why didn't Putin just seize Ukraine when Trump was President ?

Artillery shells aren't the only expensive critical shortage. Reloads for air defense systems are a concern.
Our (& allied} defense industrial base can't keep up.

I've answered your question now dozens of times.

Putin thought he could achieve the incorporation of Ukraine into the Russian sphere without the huge expenditure of arms and men from his side...with Trump's help in dismantling NATO, undermining Ukraine's resistance and desires to turn westward. NATO in disarray was good for Putin domestically, especially within the hard line folks. That changed when Trump lost in 2020. Putin saw Biden reenergizing the alliance, rebuilding trust between allies, and decided that the situation would get harder for Russia, and for him personally, if he didn't act...part of that was cracking down on all dissent within Russia and the other was to show his hard liners he would act...

Yes, our industrial base is strained to keep up...so is Russia's.
What's the takeaway, Russia should just expand its borders because it's costly to stop them?

Another winter is arriving. The long hyped counter offensive (which we pushed them into) has failed. Casualties remain high on both sides. Shortages of critical munitions persist. Small tactical victories, like securing a small bridgehead on the L bank of the Dnipro or drone boat attacks, are hyped, but aren't game changers. The line of control is not changing significantly.

Political support in the west is dissipating. Continued funding is being debated in the US & EU.
Have you given any realistic thought as to how this ends & if it is worth the cost in blood & treasure ?

Over the past 20 years, we've lead the Ukrainians down a primrose path of revolutions, regime changes & finally a war as our proxies, which has destroyed much of their country & devastated their population & society. It did not have to go this way. Had Ukraine gone the way of Belarus & joined the Union State, a tremendous amount of suffering would have been averted, & long term stability would have been promoted. You neocons have your latest forever war. This time via proxy (so far). You've created a 4 nation axis against us, for an open ended Cold War. A sad send off for Henry K. https://www.ft.com/content/c43f8269-b30 ... 8a137f1dd6

So, your preferred answer to the disposition of Ukraine's people and their aspirations for democracy and prosperity would have been and remains that they be another authoritarian state under the control of Putin's Russian hegemonic ambitions?

Yes, it's likely to be another long, cold winter for Ukraine...made much colder and bloodier if we lose our resolve to support their defense of their country.

BTW, though we haven't discussed it, I don't admire Kissinger nor would I ever place trust in his judgment. Too much history there.

I do respect his capacity to maintain relationships with leaders, both authoritarian and democratic, across the world over many decades. But not his judgment or personal ethics.

Really a sentence construction problem.

If he has put “with all due respect to the Ukrainian people…” then it would be ok.

Because it’s in the Geneva convention and and all.

[old salt]

Over the past 20 years, we've lead the Ukrainians down a primrose path of revolutions, regime changes & finally a war as our proxies, which has destroyed much of their country & devastated their population & society. It did not have to go this way. Had Ukraine gone the way of Belarus & joined the Union State, a tremendous amount of suffering would have been averted, & long term stability would have been promoted. You neocons have your latest forever war. This time via proxy (so far). You've created a 4 nation axis against us, for an open ended Cold War. A sad send off for Henry K. https://www.ft.com/content/c43f8269-b30 ... 8a137f1dd6

Guy was 100 years old. You can’t quote his perspective on current events anymore.

He sure can because it reflects that perspective quite nicely. Backwards and unaware of the modern world.

The arrogance of not having experienced the Cold War as an adult.
We should have heeded Henry's advice as recently as 2014.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

How the Ukraine crisis ends
By Henry A. Kissinger, March 5, 2014

Public discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation. But do we know where we are going? In my life, I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins.

Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them.

Russia must accept that to try to force Ukraine into a satellite status, and thereby move Russia’s borders again, would doom Moscow to repeat its history of self-fulfilling cycles of reciprocal pressures with Europe and the United States.

The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then. Some of the most important battles for Russian freedom, starting with the Battle of Poltava in 1709 , were fought on Ukrainian soil. The Black Sea Fleet — Russia's means of projecting power in the Mediterranean — is based by long-term lease in Sevastopol, in Crimea. Even such famed dissidents as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Joseph Brodsky insisted that Ukraine was an integral part of Russian history and, indeed, of Russia.

The European Union must recognize that its bureaucratic dilatoriness and subordination of the strategic element to domestic politics in negotiating Ukraine’s relationship to Europe contributed to turning a negotiation into a crisis. Foreign policy is the art of establishing priorities.

The Ukrainians are the decisive element. They live in a country with a complex history and a polyglot composition. The Western part was incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1939 , when Stalin and Hitler divided up the spoils. Crimea, 60 percent of whose population is Russian , became part of Ukraine only in 1954 , when Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian by birth, awarded it as part of the 300th-year celebration of a Russian agreement with the Cossacks. The west is largely Catholic; the east largely Russian Orthodox. The west speaks Ukrainian; the east speaks mostly Russian. Any attempt by one wing of Ukraine to dominate the other — as has been the pattern — would lead eventually to civil war or break up. To treat Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring Russia and the West — especially Russia and Europe — into a cooperative international system.

Ukraine has been independent for only 23 years; it had previously been under some kind of foreign rule since the 14th century. Not surprisingly, its leaders have not learned the art of compromise, even less of historical perspective. The politics of post-independence Ukraine clearly demonstrates that the root of the problem lies in efforts by Ukrainian politicians to impose their will on recalcitrant parts of the country, first by one faction, then by the other. That is the essence of the conflict between Viktor Yanu­kovych and his principal political rival, Yulia Tymo­shenko. They represent the two wings of Ukraine and have not been willing to share power. A wise U.S. policy toward Ukraine would seek a way for the two parts of the country to cooperate with each other. We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction.

Russia and the West, and least of all the various factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this principle. Each has made the situation worse. Russia would not be able to impose a military solution without isolating itself at a time when many of its borders are already precarious. For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.

Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist — on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers.

Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing. Here is my notion of an outcome compatible with the values and security interests of all sides:

1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.

2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.

3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.

4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.

These are principles, not prescriptions. People familiar with the region will know that not all of them will be palatable to all parties. The test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction. If some solution based on these or comparable elements is not achieved, the drift toward confrontation will accelerate. The time for that will come soon enough.

[old salt]

When some people talk about lives lost in other countries I wonder how little they care when they use that as a cheap prop to try and win an argument.

How many Memorial Services for lost friends have you participated in, sport ?....& I don't mean OD's.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Over the past 20 years, we've lead the Ukrainians down a primrose path of revolutions, regime changes & finally a war as our proxies, which has destroyed much of their country & devastated their population & society. It did not have to go this way. Had Ukraine gone the way of Belarus & joined the Union State, a tremendous amount of suffering would have been averted, & long term stability would have been promoted. You neocons have your latest forever war. This time via proxy (so far). You've created a 4 nation axis against us, for an open ended Cold War. A sad send off for Henry K. https://www.ft.com/content/c43f8269-b30 ... 8a137f1dd6

Guy was 100 years old. You can’t quote his perspective on current events anymore.

He sure can because it reflects that perspective quite nicely. Backwards and unaware of the modern world.

The arrogance of not having experienced the Cold War as an adult.
We should have heeded Henry's advice as recently as 2014.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

How the Ukraine crisis ends
By Henry A. Kissinger, March 5, 2014

Public discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation. But do we know where we are going? In my life, I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins.

Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them.

Russia must accept that to try to force Ukraine into a satellite status, and thereby move Russia’s borders again, would doom Moscow to repeat its history of self-fulfilling cycles of reciprocal pressures with Europe and the United States.

The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then. Some of the most important battles for Russian freedom, starting with the Battle of Poltava in 1709 , were fought on Ukrainian soil. The Black Sea Fleet — Russia's means of projecting power in the Mediterranean — is based by long-term lease in Sevastopol, in Crimea. Even such famed dissidents as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Joseph Brodsky insisted that Ukraine was an integral part of Russian history and, indeed, of Russia.

The European Union must recognize that its bureaucratic dilatoriness and subordination of the strategic element to domestic politics in negotiating Ukraine’s relationship to Europe contributed to turning a negotiation into a crisis. Foreign policy is the art of establishing priorities.

The Ukrainians are the decisive element. They live in a country with a complex history and a polyglot composition. The Western part was incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1939 , when Stalin and Hitler divided up the spoils. Crimea, 60 percent of whose population is Russian , became part of Ukraine only in 1954 , when Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian by birth, awarded it as part of the 300th-year celebration of a Russian agreement with the Cossacks. The west is largely Catholic; the east largely Russian Orthodox. The west speaks Ukrainian; the east speaks mostly Russian. Any attempt by one wing of Ukraine to dominate the other — as has been the pattern — would lead eventually to civil war or break up. To treat Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring Russia and the West — especially Russia and Europe — into a cooperative international system.

Ukraine has been independent for only 23 years; it had previously been under some kind of foreign rule since the 14th century. Not surprisingly, its leaders have not learned the art of compromise, even less of historical perspective. The politics of post-independence Ukraine clearly demonstrates that the root of the problem lies in efforts by Ukrainian politicians to impose their will on recalcitrant parts of the country, first by one faction, then by the other. That is the essence of the conflict between Viktor Yanu­kovych and his principal political rival, Yulia Tymo­shenko. They represent the two wings of Ukraine and have not been willing to share power. A wise U.S. policy toward Ukraine would seek a way for the two parts of the country to cooperate with each other. We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction.

Russia and the West, and least of all the various factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this principle. Each has made the situation worse. Russia would not be able to impose a military solution without isolating itself at a time when many of its borders are already precarious. For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.

Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist — on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers.

Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing. Here is my notion of an outcome compatible with the values and security interests of all sides:

1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.

2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.

3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.

4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.

These are principles, not prescriptions. People familiar with the region will know that not all of them will be palatable to all parties. The test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction. If some solution based on these or comparable elements is not achieved, the drift toward confrontation will accelerate. The time for that will come soon enough.

“Henry Was Right”

1923-2023

[MDlaxfan76]

When some people talk about lives lost in other countries I wonder how little they care when they use that as a cheap prop to try and win an argument.

How many Memorial Services for lost friends have you participated in, sport ?....& I don't mean OD's.

Serious question: Assuming you mean memorial services for those who lost their lives fighting one or another authoritarians, were their sacrifices "stupid"? Were they "losers"?

Or were those sacrifices important to America and to the freedoms and prosperity we have enjoyed for 70+ years and today?

[old salt]

When some people talk about lives lost in other countries I wonder how little they care when they use that as a cheap prop to try and win an argument.

How many Memorial Services for lost friends have you participated in, sport ?....& I don't mean OD's.

Serious question: Assuming you mean memorial services for those who lost their lives fighting one or another authoritarians, were their sacrifices "stupid"? Were they "losers"?

Or were those sacrifices important to America and to the freedoms and prosperity we have enjoyed for 70+ years and today?

I'm referring to lives lost in the line of duty, performing service for the safety & protection of others.

[Farfromgeneva]

When some people talk about lives lost in other countries I wonder how little they care when they use that as a cheap prop to try and win an argument.

How many Memorial Services for lost friends have you participated in, sport ?....& I don't mean OD's.

So this is a competition now MR you definitely stated on the record your order dogs to people and are absolutely lying now? Unambiguously.

And plenty you fuxk face price of turd. Complete trash.

[Farfromgeneva]

When some people talk about lives lost in other countries I wonder how little they care when they use that as a cheap prop to try and win an argument.

How many Memorial Services for lost friends have you participated in, sport ?....& I don't mean OD's.

Serious question: Assuming you mean memorial services for those who lost their lives fighting one or another authoritarians, were their sacrifices "stupid"? Were they "losers"?

Or were those sacrifices important to America and to the freedoms and prosperity we have enjoyed for 70+ years and today?

He doesn’t mean anything of positive value to the human species. Just a piece of turd .

[Farfromgeneva]

When some people talk about lives lost in other countries I wonder how little they care when they use that as a cheap prop to try and win an argument.

How many Memorial Services for lost friends have you participated in, sport ?....& I don't mean OD's.

Serious question: Assuming you mean memorial services for those who lost their lives fighting one or another authoritarians, were their sacrifices "stupid"? Were they "losers"?

Or were those sacrifices important to America and to the freedoms and prosperity we have enjoyed for 70+ years and today?

I'm referring to lives lost in the line of duty, performing service for the safety & protection of others.

And that’s one silo of service that doesn’t represent the world and not what you wrote so I can only go by your original post jerk.

Narrow minded imbecile.

[old salt]

When some people talk about lives lost in other countries I wonder how little they care when they use that as a cheap prop to try and win an argument.

How many Memorial Services for lost friends have you participated in, sport ?....& I don't mean OD's.

So this is a competition now MR you definitely stated on the record your order dogs to people and are absolutely lying now? Unambiguously.

And plenty you fuxk face price of turd. Complete trash.

You purposely don't get it. I am able to rescue dogs & cats, myself. Not so with people. I do what I can.

[Farfromgeneva]

When some people talk about lives lost in other countries I wonder how little they care when they use that as a cheap prop to try and win an argument.

How many Memorial Services for lost friends have you participated in, sport ?....& I don't mean OD's.

So this is a competition now MR you definitely stated on the record your order dogs to people and are absolutely lying now? Unambiguously.

And plenty you fuxk face price of turd. Complete trash.

You purposely don't get it. I am able to rescue dogs & cats, myself. Not so with people. I do what I can.

Uh huh. So you’re saying you are weak in ineffective within human society? Cool that makes sense and tracks.

[old salt]

When some people talk about lives lost in other countries I wonder how little they care when they use that as a cheap prop to try and win an argument.

How many Memorial Services for lost friends have you participated in, sport ?....& I don't mean OD's.

So this is a competition now MR you definitely stated on the record your order dogs to people and are absolutely lying now? Unambiguously.

And plenty you fuxk face price of turd. Complete trash.

You purposely don't get it. I am able to rescue dogs & cats, myself. Not so with people. I do what I can.

Uh huh. So you’re saying you are weak in ineffective within human society? Cool that makes sense and tracks.

I can still save the lives of cats & dogs. Give them a new life. Ensure their survival. Helping the people they matter to in the process.
I am no longer able to protect or rescue people. It's not that complicated. I volunteer where I feel I can do the most good.
obtw -- the dogs bring their people with them to the dog park.