JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

[old salt]

Dr Fiona Hill, 2015 WP Op-Ed :

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

How aiding the Ukrainian military could push Putin into a regional war

The United States is on a dangerous trajectory in its relations with Russia, a nuclear superpower that believes itself to be under direct threat. Several former U.S. officials and top think-tank experts released a report calling on the West to provide military support to Ukraine.
The logic of sending weapons to Ukraine seems straightforward and is the same as the logic for economic sanctions: to change Vladi­mir Putin’s “calculus.” Increasing the Ukrainian army’s fighting capacity, the thinking goes, would allow it to kill more rebels and Russian soldiers, generating a backlash in Russia and ultimately forcing the Russian president to the negotiating table.

We strongly disagree. The evidence points in a different direction. If we follow the recommendations of this report, the Ukrainians won’t be the only ones caught in an escalating military conflict with Russia.

In the jargon of geopolitics, Putin enjoys “escalation dominance” in Ukraine: Whatever move we make, he can match it and go further. In August, when it looked as though Ukraine might rout the rebels, Putin increased the stakes and countered the Ukrainian military. Drawing on those lessons, some Russian security analysts are now pushing for a preemptive invasion of Ukraine, arguing that Russia should go all the way to Kiev before the West takes further action. One recent such plan suggested that Moscow was losing momentum in the conflict and should not waste more time on fruitless negotiations. The Western press coverage of the issue of lethal weapons can only convince those in Moscow pushing “full war and invasion now” that their approach is correct.

We also must consider the effect that arming Ukraine would have on our European allies. The report has created an uproar in Berlin and other European capitals, stoking concern that the Obama administration will take steps others are not ready for. If Putin concludes that transatlantic unity can be shattered, with the United States facing the possibility of going it alone in Ukraine, why would he change course?

Our problem is that we do not fully understand Putin’s calculus, just as he does not understand ours. In Putin’s view, the United States, the European Union and NATO have launched an economic and proxy war in Ukraine to weaken Russia and push it into a corner. As Valery Gerasimov, chief of staff of the Russian armed forces, has underscored, this is a hybrid, 21st-century conflict, in which financial sanctions, support for oppositional political movements and propaganda have all been transformed from diplomatic tools to instruments of war. Putin likely believes that any concession or compromise he makes will encourage the West to push further.

Anyone who argues that Putin’s wartime rhetoric is a bluff is making a very risky assumption. We should bear in mind the wars that Putin has waged in Chechnya and Georgia. Before Putin came to power, during the first Chechnya war, the Russian military collapsed, the people balked and President Boris Yeltsin’s government negotiated with the Chechens. In the second war, Putin put his intelligence service in charge and convinced Russians that the sacrifices were worth it. The war was brutal, and the military and civilian casualties high; there were no negotiations. Then, in 2008, Putin called NATO’s bluff on Georgia. Some reasoned that, if Putin knew Georgia would eventually become part of the alliance, he would refrain from moving against it militarily. But the West wasn’t prepared to fight for Georgia, and Putin was.

Since Georgia, Putin has prepared the Russian military to fight a regional war behind the ultimate shield of Russia’s nuclear arsenal. And he has spent a great deal of time and money telling his people that he is defending the Russian nation in Ukraine. His past actions suggest he will do everything he can to convince them that Russian military sacrifices in Ukraine are worth the cost. The delivery of lethal U.S. weapons to Ukraine would help Putin make that case. They will be part of the proof he needs.

We face a huge challenge in devising a strategy to deal with Russia that does not fuel this escalatory cycle and puts Ukraine on another path. We also need to draw bright lines around transatlantic unity and work to preserve it. It is hard to find effective alternatives to the current sanctions policy, but if we plunge headlong into sending weapons, we may lose our allies, and we may never have the opportunity to get things right.

Strobe Talbott threatened to set her pig tails on fire if she recommended lethal military aid for Ukraine.

[MDlaxfan76]

Dr Fiona Hill, 2015 WP Op-Ed :

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

How aiding the Ukrainian military could push Putin into a regional war

The United States is on a dangerous trajectory in its relations with Russia, a nuclear superpower that believes itself to be under direct threat. Several former U.S. officials and top think-tank experts released a report calling on the West to provide military support to Ukraine.
The logic of sending weapons to Ukraine seems straightforward and is the same as the logic for economic sanctions: to change Vladi­mir Putin’s “calculus.” Increasing the Ukrainian army’s fighting capacity, the thinking goes, would allow it to kill more rebels and Russian soldiers, generating a backlash in Russia and ultimately forcing the Russian president to the negotiating table.

We strongly disagree. The evidence points in a different direction. If we follow the recommendations of this report, the Ukrainians won’t be the only ones caught in an escalating military conflict with Russia.

In the jargon of geopolitics, Putin enjoys “escalation dominance” in Ukraine: Whatever move we make, he can match it and go further. In August, when it looked as though Ukraine might rout the rebels, Putin increased the stakes and countered the Ukrainian military. Drawing on those lessons, some Russian security analysts are now pushing for a preemptive invasion of Ukraine, arguing that Russia should go all the way to Kiev before the West takes further action. One recent such plan suggested that Moscow was losing momentum in the conflict and should not waste more time on fruitless negotiations. The Western press coverage of the issue of lethal weapons can only convince those in Moscow pushing “full war and invasion now” that their approach is correct.

We also must consider the effect that arming Ukraine would have on our European allies. The report has created an uproar in Berlin and other European capitals, stoking concern that the Obama administration will take steps others are not ready for. If Putin concludes that transatlantic unity can be shattered, with the United States facing the possibility of going it alone in Ukraine, why would he change course?

Our problem is that we do not fully understand Putin’s calculus, just as he does not understand ours. In Putin’s view, the United States, the European Union and NATO have launched an economic and proxy war in Ukraine to weaken Russia and push it into a corner. As Valery Gerasimov, chief of staff of the Russian armed forces, has underscored, this is a hybrid, 21st-century conflict, in which financial sanctions, support for oppositional political movements and propaganda have all been transformed from diplomatic tools to instruments of war. Putin likely believes that any concession or compromise he makes will encourage the West to push further.

Anyone who argues that Putin’s wartime rhetoric is a bluff is making a very risky assumption. We should bear in mind the wars that Putin has waged in Chechnya and Georgia. Before Putin came to power, during the first Chechnya war, the Russian military collapsed, the people balked and President Boris Yeltsin’s government negotiated with the Chechens. In the second war, Putin put his intelligence service in charge and convinced Russians that the sacrifices were worth it. The war was brutal, and the military and civilian casualties high; there were no negotiations. Then, in 2008, Putin called NATO’s bluff on Georgia. Some reasoned that, if Putin knew Georgia would eventually become part of the alliance, he would refrain from moving against it militarily. But the West wasn’t prepared to fight for Georgia, and Putin was.

Since Georgia, Putin has prepared the Russian military to fight a regional war behind the ultimate shield of Russia’s nuclear arsenal. And he has spent a great deal of time and money telling his people that he is defending the Russian nation in Ukraine. His past actions suggest he will do everything he can to convince them that Russian military sacrifices in Ukraine are worth the cost. The delivery of lethal U.S. weapons to Ukraine would help Putin make that case. They will be part of the proof he needs.

We face a huge challenge in devising a strategy to deal with Russia that does not fuel this escalatory cycle and puts Ukraine on another path. We also need to draw bright lines around transatlantic unity and work to preserve it. It is hard to find effective alternatives to the current sanctions policy, but if we plunge headlong into sending weapons, we may lose our allies, and we may never have the opportunity to get things right.

Strobe Talbott threatened to set her pig tails on fire if she recommended lethal military aid for Ukraine.

What did you think of her testimony, Salty, including specifically on this issue (including this op-ed)?
Just guessing that she's your worst nightmare, just as she is Vlad's.

[MDlaxfan76]

Must say, I'm a little blown away by your question, MDlax.

An "old salt" is an old sailor who is often a raconteur, or teller of sea stories. Much of the history and traditions of mariners are passed from generation to generation by these sea stories as told and retold by old salts. Sea stories may be truthful, half-truths, or falsehoods. However, they always enhance the reputations of sailors.

I was in the cold war too, chased submarines around in the Mediterraian and North Atlantic, chased 'em up past the Arctic Circle and into the Baltic Sea too. Stopped in a lot of nice places along the way too. Nary a one didn't have a bar.

Interesting point about 'old salt', truths, half-truths, etc.

My question was intended seriously, as salty has often referred to his experience in the Cold War informing his perspective about wanting to avoid another Cold War with Putin's Russia. That's an interesting position and I'm indeed interested in what about his experiences causes him to applaud isolationist moves by the US, withdrawal and/or disengagement around the world.

He's a consistent, passionate advocate for moves and policies that would be applauded in Moscow, given Putin's expansionist ambitions. He's highly dismissive of the threat Russia poses in its cyber campaigns to undermine western democracy and trust in the institutions that bolster that democracy and rule of law.

This seems like a strange place to arrive, given the background to which he often alludes.

Most folks who I know who were involved in the Cold War with Russia see a strong echo in Putin and see the criticality of consistency in confronting those expansionist ambitions and interference, not reverting to isolationism and appeasement.

So, my question is what about that former experience actually brought him to that position?

Interesting movie on Netflix now: The Command...

[MDlaxfan76]

The reaction to Fiona Hill from right wing media:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/22/media/fi ... index.html

I happened across OANN last night...wow. Really scary.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The reaction to Fiona Hill from right wing media:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/22/media/fi ... index.html

I happened across OANN last night...wow. Really scary.

Fiona Hill's testimony was almost impeccable. This is the world we live in.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Must say, I'm a little blown away by your question, MDlax.

An "old salt" is an old sailor who is often a raconteur, or teller of sea stories. Much of the history and traditions of mariners are passed from generation to generation by these sea stories as told and retold by old salts. Sea stories may be truthful, half-truths, or falsehoods. However, they always enhance the reputations of sailors.

I was in the cold war too, chased submarines around in the Mediterraian and North Atlantic, chased 'em up past the Arctic Circle and into the Baltic Sea too. Stopped in a lot of nice places along the way too. Nary a one didn't have a bar.

Interesting point about 'old salt', truths, half-truths, etc.

My question was intended seriously, as salty has often referred to his experience in the Cold War informing his perspective about wanting to avoid another Cold War with Putin's Russia. That's an interesting position and I'm indeed interested in what about his experiences causes him to applaud isolationist moves by the US, withdrawal and/or disengagement around the world.

He's a consistent, passionate advocate for moves and policies that would be applauded in Moscow, given Putin's expansionist ambitions. He's highly dismissive of the threat Russia poses in its cyber campaigns to undermine western democracy and trust in the institutions that bolster that democracy and rule of law.

This seems like a strange place to arrive, given the background to which he often alludes.

Most folks who I know who were involved in the Cold War with Russia see a strong echo in Putin and see the criticality of consistency in confronting those expansionist ambitions and interference, not reverting to isolationism and appeasement.

So, my question is what about that former experience actually brought him to that position?

Interesting movie on Netflix now: The Command...

It's a complex. Something akin to Stockholm Syndrome.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Dr Fiona Hill, 2015 WP Op-Ed :

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

How aiding the Ukrainian military could push Putin into a regional war

The United States is on a dangerous trajectory in its relations with Russia, a nuclear superpower that believes itself to be under direct threat. Several former U.S. officials and top think-tank experts released a report calling on the West to provide military support to Ukraine.
The logic of sending weapons to Ukraine seems straightforward and is the same as the logic for economic sanctions: to change Vladi­mir Putin’s “calculus.” Increasing the Ukrainian army’s fighting capacity, the thinking goes, would allow it to kill more rebels and Russian soldiers, generating a backlash in Russia and ultimately forcing the Russian president to the negotiating table.

We strongly disagree. The evidence points in a different direction. If we follow the recommendations of this report, the Ukrainians won’t be the only ones caught in an escalating military conflict with Russia.

In the jargon of geopolitics, Putin enjoys “escalation dominance” in Ukraine: Whatever move we make, he can match it and go further. In August, when it looked as though Ukraine might rout the rebels, Putin increased the stakes and countered the Ukrainian military. Drawing on those lessons, some Russian security analysts are now pushing for a preemptive invasion of Ukraine, arguing that Russia should go all the way to Kiev before the West takes further action. One recent such plan suggested that Moscow was losing momentum in the conflict and should not waste more time on fruitless negotiations. The Western press coverage of the issue of lethal weapons can only convince those in Moscow pushing “full war and invasion now” that their approach is correct.

We also must consider the effect that arming Ukraine would have on our European allies. The report has created an uproar in Berlin and other European capitals, stoking concern that the Obama administration will take steps others are not ready for. If Putin concludes that transatlantic unity can be shattered, with the United States facing the possibility of going it alone in Ukraine, why would he change course?

Our problem is that we do not fully understand Putin’s calculus, just as he does not understand ours. In Putin’s view, the United States, the European Union and NATO have launched an economic and proxy war in Ukraine to weaken Russia and push it into a corner. As Valery Gerasimov, chief of staff of the Russian armed forces, has underscored, this is a hybrid, 21st-century conflict, in which financial sanctions, support for oppositional political movements and propaganda have all been transformed from diplomatic tools to instruments of war. Putin likely believes that any concession or compromise he makes will encourage the West to push further.

Anyone who argues that Putin’s wartime rhetoric is a bluff is making a very risky assumption. We should bear in mind the wars that Putin has waged in Chechnya and Georgia. Before Putin came to power, during the first Chechnya war, the Russian military collapsed, the people balked and President Boris Yeltsin’s government negotiated with the Chechens. In the second war, Putin put his intelligence service in charge and convinced Russians that the sacrifices were worth it. The war was brutal, and the military and civilian casualties high; there were no negotiations. Then, in 2008, Putin called NATO’s bluff on Georgia. Some reasoned that, if Putin knew Georgia would eventually become part of the alliance, he would refrain from moving against it militarily. But the West wasn’t prepared to fight for Georgia, and Putin was.

Since Georgia, Putin has prepared the Russian military to fight a regional war behind the ultimate shield of Russia’s nuclear arsenal. And he has spent a great deal of time and money telling his people that he is defending the Russian nation in Ukraine. His past actions suggest he will do everything he can to convince them that Russian military sacrifices in Ukraine are worth the cost. The delivery of lethal U.S. weapons to Ukraine would help Putin make that case. They will be part of the proof he needs.

We face a huge challenge in devising a strategy to deal with Russia that does not fuel this escalatory cycle and puts Ukraine on another path. We also need to draw bright lines around transatlantic unity and work to preserve it. It is hard to find effective alternatives to the current sanctions policy, but if we plunge headlong into sending weapons, we may lose our allies, and we may never have the opportunity to get things right.

Strobe Talbott threatened to set her pig tails on fire if she recommended lethal military aid for Ukraine.

What did you think of her testimony, Salty, including specifically on this issue (including this op-ed)?
Just guessing that she's your worst nightmare, just as she is Vlad's.

Have you noticed....Old Salt is particularly hard on women.... could be another complex of some sort.

[DMac]

Must say, I'm a little blown away by your question, MDlax.

An "old salt" is an old sailor who is often a raconteur, or teller of sea stories. Much of the history and traditions of mariners are passed from generation to generation by these sea stories as told and retold by old salts. Sea stories may be truthful, half-truths, or falsehoods. However, they always enhance the reputations of sailors.

I was in the cold war too, chased submarines around in the Mediterraian and North Atlantic, chased 'em up past the Arctic Circle and into the Baltic Sea too. Stopped in a lot of nice places along the way too. Nary a one didn't have a bar.

Interesting point about 'old salt', truths, half-truths, etc.

My question was intended seriously, as salty has often referred to his experience in the Cold War informing his perspective about wanting to avoid another Cold War with Putin's Russia. That's an interesting position and I'm indeed interested in what about his experiences causes him to applaud isolationist moves by the US, withdrawal and/or disengagement around the world.

He's a consistent, passionate advocate for moves and policies that would be applauded in Moscow, given Putin's expansionist ambitions. He's highly dismissive of the threat Russia poses in its cyber campaigns to undermine western democracy and trust in the institutions that bolster that democracy and rule of law.

This seems like a strange place to arrive, given the background to which he often alludes.

Most folks who I know who were involved in the Cold War with Russia see a strong echo in Putin and see the criticality of consistency in confronting those expansionist ambitions and interference, not reverting to isolationism and appeasement.

So, my question is what about that former experience actually brought him to that position?

Interesting movie on Netflix now: The Command...

MDlaxfan76 wrote
In what service did you serve,

I interpreted that as what branch, which is why I found the question very surprising.
I'm pretty darn sure that young naval officer did a lot of Ivan chasing and intelligence gathering too.

[MDlaxfan76]

Must say, I'm a little blown away by your question, MDlax.

An "old salt" is an old sailor who is often a raconteur, or teller of sea stories. Much of the history and traditions of mariners are passed from generation to generation by these sea stories as told and retold by old salts. Sea stories may be truthful, half-truths, or falsehoods. However, they always enhance the reputations of sailors.

I was in the cold war too, chased submarines around in the Mediterraian and North Atlantic, chased 'em up past the Arctic Circle and into the Baltic Sea too. Stopped in a lot of nice places along the way too. Nary a one didn't have a bar.

Interesting point about 'old salt', truths, half-truths, etc.

My question was intended seriously, as salty has often referred to his experience in the Cold War informing his perspective about wanting to avoid another Cold War with Putin's Russia. That's an interesting position and I'm indeed interested in what about his experiences causes him to applaud isolationist moves by the US, withdrawal and/or disengagement around the world.

He's a consistent, passionate advocate for moves and policies that would be applauded in Moscow, given Putin's expansionist ambitions. He's highly dismissive of the threat Russia poses in its cyber campaigns to undermine western democracy and trust in the institutions that bolster that democracy and rule of law.

This seems like a strange place to arrive, given the background to which he often alludes.

Most folks who I know who were involved in the Cold War with Russia see a strong echo in Putin and see the criticality of consistency in confronting those expansionist ambitions and interference, not reverting to isolationism and appeasement.

So, my question is what about that former experience actually brought him to that position?

Interesting movie on Netflix now: The Command...

MDlaxfan76 wrote
In what service did you serve,

I interpreted that as what branch, which is why I found the question very surprising.
I'm pretty darn sure that young naval officer did a lot of Ivan chasing and intelligence gathering too.

ahhh yes, I did not mean that I was actually questioning Navy, as I believe someone has vouched for Salty as an Annapolis grad. I was asking more about in what capacity, where, how etc. I think there was something about helicopters at some point. Combat? My question is really what about that service led him to where he views the Russian aggression in Ukraine as simply the Russians taking back their territory and where he advocates for American withdrawal, often in the guise of 'others should carry a greater share of the burden' instead of the USA, and in which the Russian active measures campaigns around the world, including here in the US are, in his parlance 'BFD'...?

How does his prior service and knowledge of military affairs, which he so often cites or displays, inform that posture?

It's quite contrary to the folks who I've met who went head to head with the Soviets over the decades.

On the other hand, I've met Vietnam vets who, based on their experience in that proxy hot war, are disenchanted with confrontation of any kind. I understand how they get to that view. At least there's a rationale for avoidance of the hot conflicts.

[old salt]

Must say, I'm a little blown away by your question, MDlax.

An "old salt" is an old sailor who is often a raconteur, or teller of sea stories. Much of the history and traditions of mariners are passed from generation to generation by these sea stories as told and retold by old salts. Sea stories may be truthful, half-truths, or falsehoods. However, they always enhance the reputations of sailors.

I was in the cold war too, chased submarines around in the Mediterraian and North Atlantic, chased 'em up past the Arctic Circle and into the Baltic Sea too. Stopped in a lot of nice places along the way too. Nary a one didn't have a bar.

Interesting point about 'old salt', truths, half-truths, etc.

My question was intended seriously, as salty has often referred to his experience in the Cold War informing his perspective about wanting to avoid another Cold War with Putin's Russia. That's an interesting position and I'm indeed interested in what about his experiences causes him to applaud isolationist moves by the US, withdrawal and/or disengagement around the world.

He's a consistent, passionate advocate for moves and policies that would be applauded in Moscow, given Putin's expansionist ambitions. He's highly dismissive of the threat Russia poses in its cyber campaigns to undermine western democracy and trust in the institutions that bolster that democracy and rule of law.

This seems like a strange place to arrive, given the background to which he often alludes.

Most folks who I know who were involved in the Cold War with Russia see a strong echo in Putin and see the criticality of consistency in confronting those expansionist ambitions and interference, not reverting to isolationism and appeasement.

So, my question is what about that former experience actually brought him to that position?

Interesting movie on Netflix now: The Command...

It's a complex. Something akin to Stockholm Syndrome.

Perhaps because I'm acutely aware of the potential consequences (at a granular level) of the application of military force, specifically against a Soviet or Russian enemy. I spent years preparing for & pondering that eventuality & helping to develop tactics & weapons systems that we would employ. I had the opportunity to study, experience, closely observe, confront & counter (at the operational level) our Soviet (& proxy) adversaries. The stakes were high, the tensions were often high, the potential consequences devastating. We are fortunate to have survived the Cold War without a major conflict with the USSR.

Russia today is a much weaker economic power than was the USSR, but they remain our most formidable military adversary.
I'm concerned that we are moving closer to confrontation (again) with Russia because of partisan political reasons rather than legitimate strategic reasons. In the information age, elevating "election meddling" to an "act of war" is folly, particularly when it's done by people who have no first hand appreciation of what "war" with Russia would entail. I'm not fearful of confronting Russia again, but when we do, I want it to be for good strategic (not political) reasons, from a position of strength, & not out ahead of our NATO allies.

My views are not that far our of the mainstream, particularly when you consider the detente & reset which have occurred since the end of the Cold War. Kissinger & other legit foreign policy scholars have questioned the wisdom of NATO expansion beyond the unification of Germany & advocated for the "Findlandisation" of Ukraine. We are now coping with the consequences of our post Cold War decisions.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Must say, I'm a little blown away by your question, MDlax.

An "old salt" is an old sailor who is often a raconteur, or teller of sea stories. Much of the history and traditions of mariners are passed from generation to generation by these sea stories as told and retold by old salts. Sea stories may be truthful, half-truths, or falsehoods. However, they always enhance the reputations of sailors.

I was in the cold war too, chased submarines around in the Mediterraian and North Atlantic, chased 'em up past the Arctic Circle and into the Baltic Sea too. Stopped in a lot of nice places along the way too. Nary a one didn't have a bar.

Interesting point about 'old salt', truths, half-truths, etc.

My question was intended seriously, as salty has often referred to his experience in the Cold War informing his perspective about wanting to avoid another Cold War with Putin's Russia. That's an interesting position and I'm indeed interested in what about his experiences causes him to applaud isolationist moves by the US, withdrawal and/or disengagement around the world.

He's a consistent, passionate advocate for moves and policies that would be applauded in Moscow, given Putin's expansionist ambitions. He's highly dismissive of the threat Russia poses in its cyber campaigns to undermine western democracy and trust in the institutions that bolster that democracy and rule of law.

This seems like a strange place to arrive, given the background to which he often alludes.

Most folks who I know who were involved in the Cold War with Russia see a strong echo in Putin and see the criticality of consistency in confronting those expansionist ambitions and interference, not reverting to isolationism and appeasement.

So, my question is what about that former experience actually brought him to that position?

Interesting movie on Netflix now: The Command...

It's a complex. Something akin to Stockholm Syndrome.

Perhaps because I'm acutely aware of the potential consequences (at a granular level) of the application of military force, specifically against a Soviet or Russian enemy. I spent years preparing for & pondering that eventuality & helping to develop tactics & weapons systems that we would employ. I had the opportunity to study, experience, closely observe, confront & counter (at the operational level) our Soviet (& proxy) adversaries. The stakes were high, the tensions were often high, the potential consequences devastating. We are fortunate to have survived the Cold War without a major conflict with the USSR.

Russia today is a much weaker economic power than was the USSR, but they remain our most formidable military adversary.
I'm concerned that we are moving closer to confrontation (again) with Russia because of partisan political reasons rather than legitimate strategic reasons. In the information age, elevating "election meddling" to an "act of war" is folly, particularly when it's done by people who have no first hand appreciation of what "war" with Russia would entail. I'm not fearful of confronting Russia again, but when we do, I want it to be for good strategic (not political) reasons, from a position of strength, & not out ahead of our NATO allies.

My views are not that far our of the mainstream, particularly when you consider the detente & reset which have occurred since the end of the Cold War. Kissinger & other legit foreign policy scholars have questioned the wisdom of NATO expansion beyond the unification of Germany & advocated for the "Findlandisation" of Ukraine. We are now coping with the consequences of our post Cold War decisions.

I should have said “is possibly Stockholm Syndrome”....Politics weren’t involved when you were serving? My guess is “that was different”...

[old salt]

Must say, I'm a little blown away by your question, MDlax.

An "old salt" is an old sailor who is often a raconteur, or teller of sea stories. Much of the history and traditions of mariners are passed from generation to generation by these sea stories as told and retold by old salts. Sea stories may be truthful, half-truths, or falsehoods. However, they always enhance the reputations of sailors.

I was in the cold war too, chased submarines around in the Mediterraian and North Atlantic, chased 'em up past the Arctic Circle and into the Baltic Sea too. Stopped in a lot of nice places along the way too. Nary a one didn't have a bar.

Interesting point about 'old salt', truths, half-truths, etc.

My question was intended seriously, as salty has often referred to his experience in the Cold War informing his perspective about wanting to avoid another Cold War with Putin's Russia. That's an interesting position and I'm indeed interested in what about his experiences causes him to applaud isolationist moves by the US, withdrawal and/or disengagement around the world.

He's a consistent, passionate advocate for moves and policies that would be applauded in Moscow, given Putin's expansionist ambitions. He's highly dismissive of the threat Russia poses in its cyber campaigns to undermine western democracy and trust in the institutions that bolster that democracy and rule of law.

This seems like a strange place to arrive, given the background to which he often alludes.

Most folks who I know who were involved in the Cold War with Russia see a strong echo in Putin and see the criticality of consistency in confronting those expansionist ambitions and interference, not reverting to isolationism and appeasement.

So, my question is what about that former experience actually brought him to that position?

Interesting movie on Netflix now: The Command...

It's a complex. Something akin to Stockholm Syndrome.

Perhaps because I'm acutely aware of the potential consequences (at a granular level) of the application of military force, specifically against a Soviet or Russian enemy. I spent years preparing for & pondering that eventuality & helping to develop tactics & weapons systems that we would employ. I had the opportunity to study, experience, closely observe, confront & counter (at the operational level) our Soviet (& proxy) adversaries. The stakes were high, the tensions were often high, the potential consequences devastating. We are fortunate to have survived the Cold War without a major conflict with the USSR.

Russia today is a much weaker economic power than was the USSR, but they remain our most formidable military adversary.
I'm concerned that we are moving closer to confrontation (again) with Russia because of partisan political reasons rather than legitimate strategic reasons. In the information age, elevating "election meddling" to an "act of war" is folly, particularly when it's done by people who have no first hand appreciation of what "war" with Russia would entail. I'm not fearful of confronting Russia again, but when we do, I want it to be for good strategic (not political) reasons, from a position of strength, & not out ahead of our NATO allies.

My views are not that far our of the mainstream, particularly when you consider the detente & reset which have occurred since the end of the Cold War. Kissinger & other legit foreign policy scholars have questioned the wisdom of NATO expansion beyond the unification of Germany & advocated for the "Findlandisation" of Ukraine. We are now coping with the consequences of our post Cold War decisions.

I should have said “is possibly Stockholm Syndrome”....Politics weren’t involved when you were serving? My guess is “that was different”...

The Cold War was not this politicized. Countering the global Soviet threat was a bi-partisan objective, shared by our NATO & Pacific allies.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Must say, I'm a little blown away by your question, MDlax.

An "old salt" is an old sailor who is often a raconteur, or teller of sea stories. Much of the history and traditions of mariners are passed from generation to generation by these sea stories as told and retold by old salts. Sea stories may be truthful, half-truths, or falsehoods. However, they always enhance the reputations of sailors.

I was in the cold war too, chased submarines around in the Mediterraian and North Atlantic, chased 'em up past the Arctic Circle and into the Baltic Sea too. Stopped in a lot of nice places along the way too. Nary a one didn't have a bar.

Interesting point about 'old salt', truths, half-truths, etc.

My question was intended seriously, as salty has often referred to his experience in the Cold War informing his perspective about wanting to avoid another Cold War with Putin's Russia. That's an interesting position and I'm indeed interested in what about his experiences causes him to applaud isolationist moves by the US, withdrawal and/or disengagement around the world.

He's a consistent, passionate advocate for moves and policies that would be applauded in Moscow, given Putin's expansionist ambitions. He's highly dismissive of the threat Russia poses in its cyber campaigns to undermine western democracy and trust in the institutions that bolster that democracy and rule of law.

This seems like a strange place to arrive, given the background to which he often alludes.

Most folks who I know who were involved in the Cold War with Russia see a strong echo in Putin and see the criticality of consistency in confronting those expansionist ambitions and interference, not reverting to isolationism and appeasement.

So, my question is what about that former experience actually brought him to that position?

Interesting movie on Netflix now: The Command...

It's a complex. Something akin to Stockholm Syndrome.

Perhaps because I'm acutely aware of the potential consequences (at a granular level) of the application of military force, specifically against a Soviet or Russian enemy. I spent years preparing for & pondering that eventuality & helping to develop tactics & weapons systems that we would employ. I had the opportunity to study, experience, closely observe, confront & counter (at the operational level) our Soviet (& proxy) adversaries. The stakes were high, the tensions were often high, the potential consequences devastating. We are fortunate to have survived the Cold War without a major conflict with the USSR.

Russia today is a much weaker economic power than was the USSR, but they remain our most formidable military adversary.
I'm concerned that we are moving closer to confrontation (again) with Russia because of partisan political reasons rather than legitimate strategic reasons. In the information age, elevating "election meddling" to an "act of war" is folly, particularly when it's done by people who have no first hand appreciation of what "war" with Russia would entail. I'm not fearful of confronting Russia again, but when we do, I want it to be for good strategic (not political) reasons, from a position of strength, & not out ahead of our NATO allies.

My views are not that far our of the mainstream, particularly when you consider the detente & reset which have occurred since the end of the Cold War. Kissinger & other legit foreign policy scholars have questioned the wisdom of NATO expansion beyond the unification of Germany & advocated for the "Findlandisation" of Ukraine. We are now coping with the consequences of our post Cold War decisions.

I should have said “is possibly Stockholm Syndrome”....Politics weren’t involved when you were serving? My guess is “that was different”...

The Cold War was not this politicized. Countering the global Soviet threat was a bi-partisan objective, shared by our NATO & Pacific allies.

I am not sure what not this politicized means....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z ... revision/8

No politics here.

[old salt]

TLD :
Have you noticed....Old Salt is particularly hard on women.... could be another complex of some sort.

My highly independent & accomplished spouse is hard on me.
She asks no quarter (as a woman) & gives none.
This is my therapeutic outlet.

[old salt]

Must say, I'm a little blown away by your question, MDlax.

An "old salt" is an old sailor who is often a raconteur, or teller of sea stories. Much of the history and traditions of mariners are passed from generation to generation by these sea stories as told and retold by old salts. Sea stories may be truthful, half-truths, or falsehoods. However, they always enhance the reputations of sailors.

I was in the cold war too, chased submarines around in the Mediterraian and North Atlantic, chased 'em up past the Arctic Circle and into the Baltic Sea too. Stopped in a lot of nice places along the way too. Nary a one didn't have a bar.

Interesting point about 'old salt', truths, half-truths, etc.

My question was intended seriously, as salty has often referred to his experience in the Cold War informing his perspective about wanting to avoid another Cold War with Putin's Russia. That's an interesting position and I'm indeed interested in what about his experiences causes him to applaud isolationist moves by the US, withdrawal and/or disengagement around the world.

He's a consistent, passionate advocate for moves and policies that would be applauded in Moscow, given Putin's expansionist ambitions. He's highly dismissive of the threat Russia poses in its cyber campaigns to undermine western democracy and trust in the institutions that bolster that democracy and rule of law.

This seems like a strange place to arrive, given the background to which he often alludes.

Most folks who I know who were involved in the Cold War with Russia see a strong echo in Putin and see the criticality of consistency in confronting those expansionist ambitions and interference, not reverting to isolationism and appeasement.

So, my question is what about that former experience actually brought him to that position?

Interesting movie on Netflix now: The Command...

It's a complex. Something akin to Stockholm Syndrome.

Perhaps because I'm acutely aware of the potential consequences (at a granular level) of the application of military force, specifically against a Soviet or Russian enemy. I spent years preparing for & pondering that eventuality & helping to develop tactics & weapons systems that we would employ. I had the opportunity to study, experience, closely observe, confront & counter (at the operational level) our Soviet (& proxy) adversaries. The stakes were high, the tensions were often high, the potential consequences devastating. We are fortunate to have survived the Cold War without a major conflict with the USSR.

Russia today is a much weaker economic power than was the USSR, but they remain our most formidable military adversary.
I'm concerned that we are moving closer to confrontation (again) with Russia because of partisan political reasons rather than legitimate strategic reasons. In the information age, elevating "election meddling" to an "act of war" is folly, particularly when it's done by people who have no first hand appreciation of what "war" with Russia would entail. I'm not fearful of confronting Russia again, but when we do, I want it to be for good strategic (not political) reasons, from a position of strength, & not out ahead of our NATO allies.

My views are not that far our of the mainstream, particularly when you consider the detente & reset which have occurred since the end of the Cold War. Kissinger & other legit foreign policy scholars have questioned the wisdom of NATO expansion beyond the unification of Germany & advocated for the "Findlandisation" of Ukraine. We are now coping with the consequences of our post Cold War decisions.

I should have said “is possibly Stockholm Syndrome”....Politics weren’t involved when you were serving? My guess is “that was different”...

The Cold War was not this politicized. Countering the global Soviet threat was a bi-partisan objective, shared by our NATO & Pacific allies.

I am not sure what not this politicized means....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z ... revision/8

No politics here.

Vietnam was just one theater & one phase of the Cold War.
The entire nation was much more aware & supportive of the Cold War than they are of our current escalating tensions with Russia.
The dramatic change in (D) support of lethal military aid to Ukraine from the Obama to Trump Admin's illustrates the political opportunism impacting our policy re. Russia.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Must say, I'm a little blown away by your question, MDlax.

An "old salt" is an old sailor who is often a raconteur, or teller of sea stories. Much of the history and traditions of mariners are passed from generation to generation by these sea stories as told and retold by old salts. Sea stories may be truthful, half-truths, or falsehoods. However, they always enhance the reputations of sailors.

I was in the cold war too, chased submarines around in the Mediterraian and North Atlantic, chased 'em up past the Arctic Circle and into the Baltic Sea too. Stopped in a lot of nice places along the way too. Nary a one didn't have a bar.

Interesting point about 'old salt', truths, half-truths, etc.

My question was intended seriously, as salty has often referred to his experience in the Cold War informing his perspective about wanting to avoid another Cold War with Putin's Russia. That's an interesting position and I'm indeed interested in what about his experiences causes him to applaud isolationist moves by the US, withdrawal and/or disengagement around the world.

He's a consistent, passionate advocate for moves and policies that would be applauded in Moscow, given Putin's expansionist ambitions. He's highly dismissive of the threat Russia poses in its cyber campaigns to undermine western democracy and trust in the institutions that bolster that democracy and rule of law.

This seems like a strange place to arrive, given the background to which he often alludes.

Most folks who I know who were involved in the Cold War with Russia see a strong echo in Putin and see the criticality of consistency in confronting those expansionist ambitions and interference, not reverting to isolationism and appeasement.

So, my question is what about that former experience actually brought him to that position?

Interesting movie on Netflix now: The Command...

It's a complex. Something akin to Stockholm Syndrome.

Perhaps because I'm acutely aware of the potential consequences (at a granular level) of the application of military force, specifically against a Soviet or Russian enemy. I spent years preparing for & pondering that eventuality & helping to develop tactics & weapons systems that we would employ. I had the opportunity to study, experience, closely observe, confront & counter (at the operational level) our Soviet (& proxy) adversaries. The stakes were high, the tensions were often high, the potential consequences devastating. We are fortunate to have survived the Cold War without a major conflict with the USSR.

Russia today is a much weaker economic power than was the USSR, but they remain our most formidable military adversary.
I'm concerned that we are moving closer to confrontation (again) with Russia because of partisan political reasons rather than legitimate strategic reasons. In the information age, elevating "election meddling" to an "act of war" is folly, particularly when it's done by people who have no first hand appreciation of what "war" with Russia would entail. I'm not fearful of confronting Russia again, but when we do, I want it to be for good strategic (not political) reasons, from a position of strength, & not out ahead of our NATO allies.

My views are not that far our of the mainstream, particularly when you consider the detente & reset which have occurred since the end of the Cold War. Kissinger & other legit foreign policy scholars have questioned the wisdom of NATO expansion beyond the unification of Germany & advocated for the "Findlandisation" of Ukraine. We are now coping with the consequences of our post Cold War decisions.

I should have said “is possibly Stockholm Syndrome”....Politics weren’t involved when you were serving? My guess is “that was different”...

The Cold War was not this politicized. Countering the global Soviet threat was a bi-partisan objective, shared by our NATO & Pacific allies.

I am not sure what not this politicized means....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z ... revision/8

No politics here.

Vietnam was just one theater & one phase of the Cold War.
The entire nation was much more aware & supportive of the Cold War than they are of our current escalating tensions with Russia.
The dramatic change in (D) support of lethal military aid to Ukraine from the Obama to Trump Admin's illustrates the political opportunism impacting our policy re. Russia.

The Information Age has distorted your perception of the role of politics.

[Typical Lax Dad]

TLD :
Have you noticed....Old Salt is particularly hard on women.... could be another complex of some sort.

My highly independent & accomplished spouse is hard on me.
She asks no quarter (as a woman) & gives none.
This is my therapeutic outlet.

Ok

[DMac]

Must say, I'm a little blown away by your question, MDlax.

An "old salt" is an old sailor who is often a raconteur, or teller of sea stories. Much of the history and traditions of mariners are passed from generation to generation by these sea stories as told and retold by old salts. Sea stories may be truthful, half-truths, or falsehoods. However, they always enhance the reputations of sailors.

I was in the cold war too, chased submarines around in the Mediterraian and North Atlantic, chased 'em up past the Arctic Circle and into the Baltic Sea too. Stopped in a lot of nice places along the way too. Nary a one didn't have a bar.

Interesting point about 'old salt', truths, half-truths, etc.

My question was intended seriously, as salty has often referred to his experience in the Cold War informing his perspective about wanting to avoid another Cold War with Putin's Russia. That's an interesting position and I'm indeed interested in what about his experiences causes him to applaud isolationist moves by the US, withdrawal and/or disengagement around the world.

He's a consistent, passionate advocate for moves and policies that would be applauded in Moscow, given Putin's expansionist ambitions. He's highly dismissive of the threat Russia poses in its cyber campaigns to undermine western democracy and trust in the institutions that bolster that democracy and rule of law.

This seems like a strange place to arrive, given the background to which he often alludes.

Most folks who I know who were involved in the Cold War with Russia see a strong echo in Putin and see the criticality of consistency in confronting those expansionist ambitions and interference, not reverting to isolationism and appeasement.

So, my question is what about that former experience actually brought him to that position?

Interesting movie on Netflix now: The Command...

It's a complex. Something akin to Stockholm Syndrome.

Perhaps because I'm acutely aware of the potential consequences (at a granular level) of the application of military force, specifically against a Soviet or Russian enemy. I spent years preparing for & pondering that eventuality & helping to develop tactics & weapons systems that we would employ. I had the opportunity to study, experience, closely observe, confront & counter (at the operational level) our Soviet (& proxy) adversaries. The stakes were high, the tensions were often high, the potential consequences devastating. We are fortunate to have survived the Cold War without a major conflict with the USSR.

Russia today is a much weaker economic power than was the USSR, but they remain our most formidable military adversary.
I'm concerned that we are moving closer to confrontation (again) with Russia because of partisan political reasons rather than legitimate strategic reasons. In the information age, elevating "election meddling" to an "act of war" is folly, particularly when it's done by people who have no first hand appreciation of what "war" with Russia would entail. I'm not fearful of confronting Russia again, but when we do, I want it to be for good strategic (not political) reasons, from a position of strength, & not out ahead of our NATO allies.

My views are not that far our of the mainstream, particularly when you consider the detente & reset which have occurred since the end of the Cold War. Kissinger & other legit foreign policy scholars have questioned the wisdom of NATO expansion beyond the unification of Germany & advocated for the "Findlandisation" of Ukraine. We are now coping with the consequences of our post Cold War decisions.

This is what I like a whole lot about Salty, MDlax. I've said before that if I were buying a watch dog it would be an Old Salt breed. While you and many here might not agree with what he would do, I don't think there's any question that he keeps pretty close tabs on what's going on in the world and who is positioning themselves for what. He brings a lot to this forum that many others wouldn't know or even think of. Whether you agree with his views or not, we need people like the salty one.
I really viewed the cold war as nothing more than a game of cat and mouse the US and USSR were playing, but in retrospect (and a little more knowledge) I do realize the seriousness of it all. My job while aboard the Intrepid was gathering intelligence, fingerprinting, and trying to track the comings and goings of soviet vessels and aircraft. A lot of the super spooks, pilots (they were launched to go check out the activity we intercepted), and Admiral's staff hung out in our space despite the fact that my partner and I were pretty darn good at what we did...we were pretty darn salty and knew what we were doing (and looking at). On one occassion while in the North Atlantic we intercepted a Bear (Big Bulge radar) aircraft which no one had any intelligence on as far as movement, mission, or destination. We were questioned a half a dozen times by all the big shots as to whether or not we were certain about what we were telling them. There was no question in our minds what we were looking at. Consequently the ship was brought around to launch the A4s and interecept that plane, and it did. Those aircraft could fly from Russsia to Cuba nonstop and I'm sure that one was trying to sneak down there unnoticed. Well, that didn't happen. My buddy and I received letters of commendation for that interception and a BZ from the admiral....was a big deal to someone, all part of the big picture I suppose.

As for the Vietnam vets, I'd guess their being used as pawns in a war that is seen as so wrong is a big part of the reason for their sentiments. As one of them (in country, not on a ship) I share their sentiments.

[old salt]

Must say, I'm a little blown away by your question, MDlax.

An "old salt" is an old sailor who is often a raconteur, or teller of sea stories. Much of the history and traditions of mariners are passed from generation to generation by these sea stories as told and retold by old salts. Sea stories may be truthful, half-truths, or falsehoods. However, they always enhance the reputations of sailors.

I was in the cold war too, chased submarines around in the Mediterraian and North Atlantic, chased 'em up past the Arctic Circle and into the Baltic Sea too. Stopped in a lot of nice places along the way too. Nary a one didn't have a bar.

Interesting point about 'old salt', truths, half-truths, etc.

My question was intended seriously, as salty has often referred to his experience in the Cold War informing his perspective about wanting to avoid another Cold War with Putin's Russia. That's an interesting position and I'm indeed interested in what about his experiences causes him to applaud isolationist moves by the US, withdrawal and/or disengagement around the world.

He's a consistent, passionate advocate for moves and policies that would be applauded in Moscow, given Putin's expansionist ambitions. He's highly dismissive of the threat Russia poses in its cyber campaigns to undermine western democracy and trust in the institutions that bolster that democracy and rule of law.

This seems like a strange place to arrive, given the background to which he often alludes.

Most folks who I know who were involved in the Cold War with Russia see a strong echo in Putin and see the criticality of consistency in confronting those expansionist ambitions and interference, not reverting to isolationism and appeasement.

So, my question is what about that former experience actually brought him to that position?

Interesting movie on Netflix now: The Command...

It's a complex. Something akin to Stockholm Syndrome.

Perhaps because I'm acutely aware of the potential consequences (at a granular level) of the application of military force, specifically against a Soviet or Russian enemy. I spent years preparing for & pondering that eventuality & helping to develop tactics & weapons systems that we would employ. I had the opportunity to study, experience, closely observe, confront & counter (at the operational level) our Soviet (& proxy) adversaries. The stakes were high, the tensions were often high, the potential consequences devastating. We are fortunate to have survived the Cold War without a major conflict with the USSR.

Russia today is a much weaker economic power than was the USSR, but they remain our most formidable military adversary.
I'm concerned that we are moving closer to confrontation (again) with Russia because of partisan political reasons rather than legitimate strategic reasons. In the information age, elevating "election meddling" to an "act of war" is folly, particularly when it's done by people who have no first hand appreciation of what "war" with Russia would entail. I'm not fearful of confronting Russia again, but when we do, I want it to be for good strategic (not political) reasons, from a position of strength, & not out ahead of our NATO allies.

My views are not that far our of the mainstream, particularly when you consider the detente & reset which have occurred since the end of the Cold War. Kissinger & other legit foreign policy scholars have questioned the wisdom of NATO expansion beyond the unification of Germany & advocated for the "Findlandisation" of Ukraine. We are now coping with the consequences of our post Cold War decisions.

I should have said “is possibly Stockholm Syndrome”....Politics weren’t involved when you were serving? My guess is “that was different”...

The Cold War was not this politicized. Countering the global Soviet threat was a bi-partisan objective, shared by our NATO & Pacific allies.

I am not sure what not this politicized means....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z ... revision/8

No politics here.

Vietnam was just one theater & one phase of the Cold War.
The entire nation was much more aware & supportive of the Cold War than they are of our current escalating tensions with Russia.
The dramatic change in (D) support of lethal military aid to Ukraine from the Obama to Trump Admin's illustrates the political opportunism impacting our policy re. Russia.

The Information Age has distorted your perception of the role of politics.

As a serving member of the military at the time, I was acutely aware of the growing anti-Vietnam war movement, but it was focused on the war in Vietnam (in isolation). We sensed no less commitment to the wider Cold War struggle against Communism (Soviet, ChiCom, Cuban & other proxies). There was no pull back in our other global deployments & confrontations. Particularly when Reagan came into office. We were united in our Cold War mission of countering the global threat of Soviet lead Communism. Our current anti-Russian sentiment smacks of political opportunism -- sour grapes over a single election loss.

[Kismet]

Our current anti-Russian sentiment smacks of political opportunism -- sour grapes over a single election loss.

If it doesn't look like a duck. quack like a duck or otherwise resemble a duck - it isn't an EFFING DUCK!

Sadly, for you facts don't seem to matter. We are WAY BEYOND sour grapes and an election. You are ignoring evidence of criminal activity in plain sight which is most certainly impeachable.

Removing the stable genius does not undo an election - Mike Pence would be the new CiC upon that action. Everyone who voted for TrumptyDumpty also voted for Pence.