All Things Russia & Ukraine

[PizzaSnake]

Well, well, well. Looks like the vaunted private sector outsourcing has reached its inevitable conclusion. Funny, didn't a certain President, gasp, a Republican President, warn us of exactly this?

100% failure rate on the howitzers stationed in Kuwait? Nice work, if you can get it...



And for the historically challenged:

[MDlaxfan76]

Salty,
I believe your ftr… the first time you repeated the pairing that gets played in right wing media.

But they understood it.

And once it was pointed out to you, the choice became your own.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Yeah, we should all get behind Russia and Putin:

https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/7/7/542751.pdf

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yeah, we should all get behind Russia and Putin:

https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/7/7/542751.pdf

Biden and the USA are the bad guys….Working on behalf of those two Jews who wants to keep this war going. They haven’t heard that standing up to Russia doesn’t matter now…..

[Farfromgeneva]

Yeah, we should all get behind Russia and Putin:

https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/7/7/542751.pdf

Biden and the USA are the bad guys….Working on behalf of those two Jews who wants to keep this war going. They haven’t heard that standing up to Russia doesn’t matter now…..

The new way is to bend over, lube up and grab the ankles when Putin is in the room.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Victoria Nuland & George Soros need to hurry up with regime change in Belarus.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/28/europe/l ... index.html

Lukashenko offers nuclear weapons to nations willing ‘to join the Union State of Russia and Belarus’

By Mariya Knight, Uliana Pavlova and Helen Regan, CNN, May 28, 2023

Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko has claimed that nations who are willing “to join the Union State of Russia and Belarus” will be given nuclear weapons, days after confirming the transfer of some tactical nuclear weapons from Moscow to Minsk had begun.

Lukashenko, a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, made the comments in an on-camera interview released Sunday on the state-run Russia 1 channel.
During the interview, Lukashenko said, “no one minds Kazakhstan and other countries having the same close relations that we have with the Russian Federation.”
“It’s very simple,” he added. “Join the Union State of Belarus and Russia. That’s all: there will be nuclear weapons for everyone.”

Signed in 1999, the Agreement on Establishment of the Union State of Belarus and Russia Treaty set up a legal basis for a wide-ranging alliance that spanned economic, information, technology, agriculture, and border security among other things between the two countries, according to the Belarus government website.

It was not clear how wide Lukashenko’s invitation to join the Union State extended, and he offered no other specifics.
But his comments on handing out nuclear weapons to like-minded allies are likely to heighten concerns at a time of growing global proliferation and as Moscow threatens the world with its own atomic arsenal as its war against Ukraine falters.

On Thursday the Belarusian autocrat said the transfer of some tactical nuclear weapons from Russia to Belarus had begun, following an agreement signed by Moscow and Minsk.
“It was necessary to prepare storage sites, and so on. We did all this. Therefore, the movement of nuclear weapons began,” Lukashenko said, according to state news agency Belta.
He also promised the safety of those weapons, saying: “This is not even up for discussion. Don’t worry about nuclear weapons. We are responsible for this. These are serious issues. Everything will be alright here.”

Putin has said that Russia would retain control over any tactical nuclear weapons stationed in Belarus and likened the move to Washington’s practice of stationing nuclear weapons in Europe to keep host countries, like Germany, from breaking their commitments as non-nuclear powers.

Belarus has had no nuclear weapons on its territory since the early 1990s. Shortly after gaining independence following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it agreed to transfer all Soviet-era weapons of mass destruction stationed there to Russia.

Since invading Ukraine more than a year ago, Putin has used escalating rhetoric on a number of occasions, warning of the “increasing” threat of nuclear war and suggesting Moscow may abandon its “no first use” policy.

In March, Putin said Moscow will complete the construction of a special storage facility for tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus by the beginning of July, and said Russia had already made the transfer to Belarus of an Iskander short-range missile system, which can be fitted with nuclear or conventional warheads.

Tactical nuclear weapons are smaller than strategic nuclear weapons – which can decimate entire cities – and are designed for use in a limited battlefield. However, their explosive yields are still enough to cause major destruction as well as radiation contamination.

Strong condemnations
The United States and the European Union, as well as opposition leaders in Belarus, have denounced the move to deploy Russian tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus.

“It’s the latest example of irresponsible behavior that we have seen from Russia since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine over a year ago,” said US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller on Thursday.

Miller added that despite the report of the transfer, the US sees “no reason to adjust our strategic nuclear posture” and said there are no “indications that Russia is preparing to use a nuclear weapon.”

The EU called the agreement between Moscow and Minsk “a step which will lead to further extremely dangerous escalation.”

And Ukrainian presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak tweeted on Sunday that Lukashenko’s words “directly indicate that the Russian Federation is deliberately ‘killing’ the concept of global nuclear deterrence and ‘burying’ the key Global Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.”

Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko attends a news conference with Iran's President Ebrahim Raisi (not pictured) in Tehran, Iran, March 13, 2023. Iran's President Website/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS ATTENTION EDITORS - THIS PICTURE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY
Lukashenko says Putin could deploy more powerful Russian nuclear weapons in Belarus
“This fundamentally undermines the principles of global security,” Podolyak said. “There can only be one solution: a tough stance of nuclear states; relevant UN/IAEA resolutions; extensive sanctions against (Russian state nuclear energy firm) Rosatom; systemic financial sanctions against Belarus and ultimately against Russia.”

Members of the Belarusian opposition also slammed the agreement, with exiled opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya saying in a post on Twitter “we must do everything to prevent Putin’s plan to deploy nuclear weapons in Belarus.”

“It directly violates our constitutional non-nuclear status and would secure Russia’s control over Belarus for years ahead. And it would further threaten the security of Ukraine and all of Europe,” she said.

Analysts say there are still a lot of unknowns with the transfer.

“We don’t know if it’s actually physically started yet, though Lukashenko says it has. We don’t know if any weapons have actually left Russia yet, we don’t know when they are going to be deployed, we don’t know what kind of weapons will be deployed,” national security expert Joe Cirincione told CNN on Friday.

Cirincione, former president of the Ploughshares Fund which is focused on reducing the threat of nuclear weapons, said if it goes ahead it would be “an historic milestone.”

“We can’t remember another incident where, during a crisis, a nuclear armed state has flushed its weapons from garrison and put them into the field, which is effectively what Putin is doing here,” he said.

Here was your original crack about them...in this particular set of exchanges. They ain't mentioned in that article, just by you...

Some folks don’t know what they don’t know. Especially about themselves.

Cause & effect.

Nuland & Soros need to hurry up if they expect to ignite a color revolution in Belarus.

ftr -- I was not aware of Nuland's religion until being accused of anti-semitism for mentioning her in regard to Maidan.

you won’t be cowed!

[runrussellrun]

Well, well, well. Looks like the vaunted private sector outsourcing has reached its inevitable conclusion. Funny, didn't a certain President, gasp, a Republican President, warn us of exactly this?

100% failure rate on the howitzers stationed in Kuwait? Nice work, if you can get it...



And for the historically challenged:

Yup.....and Smedley was the first "hero" to speak out, of the modern era, and get doxxed. the personel attacks on his opinion literally made him sick, and he died, as a result. Facists. the same time period as the facists STOPPED members of Congress representing their people as.............

Not sure what you are getting at ? Howitzers are metal tubes, how could they fail ?


We have the same number of Congress as we did from over 100 years ago. Stupid US Constitution and the census.....

[PizzaSnake]

Well, well, well. Looks like the vaunted private sector outsourcing has reached its inevitable conclusion. Funny, didn't a certain President, gasp, a Republican President, warn us of exactly this?

100% failure rate on the howitzers stationed in Kuwait? Nice work, if you can get it...



And for the historically challenged:

Yup.....and Smedley was the first "hero" to speak out, of the modern era, and get doxxed. the personel attacks on his opinion literally made him sick, and he died, as a result. Facists. the same time period as the facists STOPPED members of Congress representing their people as.............

Not sure what you are getting at ? Howitzers are metal tubes, how could they fail ?


We have the same number of Congress as we did from over 100 years ago. Stupid US Constitution and the census.....

"Equipment drawn from the U.S. Army’s Kuwait-based pre-positioned stock bound for Ukraine was not ready for combat operations, the Pentagon’s inspector general has found.

During the inspector general’s audit of that pre-positioned stock area, the fifth of seven such locations around the world, “we identified issues that resulted in unanticipated maintenance, repairs, and extended leadtimes to ensure the readiness of the military equipment selected to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces,” the May 23 report stated.

All six of the M777 howitzers and 25 of 29 M1167 High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles were not “mission ready” and required repairs before U.S. European Command could send the equipment to Ukraine."

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/0 ... y-ig-says/

[Seacoaster(1)]

Pretty interesting:

https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/0 ... have-begun

[cradleandshoot]

Well, well, well. Looks like the vaunted private sector outsourcing has reached its inevitable conclusion. Funny, didn't a certain President, gasp, a Republican President, warn us of exactly this?

100% failure rate on the howitzers stationed in Kuwait? Nice work, if you can get it...



And for the historically challenged:

Yup.....and Smedley was the first "hero" to speak out, of the modern era, and get doxxed. the personel attacks on his opinion literally made him sick, and he died, as a result. Facists. the same time period as the facists STOPPED members of Congress representing their people as.............

Not sure what you are getting at ? Howitzers are metal tubes, how could they fail ?


We have the same number of Congress as we did from over 100 years ago. Stupid US Constitution and the census.....

"Equipment drawn from the U.S. Army’s Kuwait-based pre-positioned stock bound for Ukraine was not ready for combat operations, the Pentagon’s inspector general has found.

During the inspector general’s audit of that pre-positioned stock area, the fifth of seven such locations around the world, “we identified issues that resulted in unanticipated maintenance, repairs, and extended leadtimes to ensure the readiness of the military equipment selected to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces,” the May 23 report stated.

All six of the M777 howitzers and 25 of 29 M1167 High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles were not “mission ready” and required repairs before U.S. European Command could send the equipment to Ukraine."

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/0 ... y-ig-says/

I think your misrepresenting the facts. Equipment not being mission ready is a far cry from claiming the equipment has failed. A freaking howitzer just doesn't suddenly fail.

[cradleandshoot]

The age of drones being effective weapons could be short lived if THOR continues to be successful in its testing.

[old salt]

Salty,
I believe your ftr… the first time you repeated the pairing that gets played in right wing media.

But they understood it.

And once it was pointed out to you, the choice became your own.

That still does not alter the fact that they are the 2 best known advocates & they still remain active.

Why should they get a pass from scrutiny simply because of their religion ?

Just more of your attempts to divert & deflect from what they are actually doing.

[old salt]

Play the anti-Semitism card on this :

https://www.wsj.com/articles/dueling-ap ... 1653509537
Kissinger vs. Soros on Russia and Ukraine
The notable nonagenerians offer dueling visions of world order at the World Economic Forum.

By Walter Russell Mead, May 25, 2022

Two American immigrants, both survivors of life under Nazi rule still making waves in their nineties, set the terms of debate at the World Economic Forum. Henry Kissinger, who celebrates his 99th birthday this week, made a virtual appearance to urge against attempts to defeat or marginalize Russia, calling on Ukraine to accept the territorial losses of 2014 to end the war. A few hours later, George Soros, in person at the forum at age 91, warned that victory in the war against Vladimir Putin’s Russia was necessary to “save civilization” and urged the West to provide Ukraine with everything it needs to prevail.

Their prescriptions are radically different, but their perceptions have much in common. Both men believe that American values and interests make the defense of peace in Europe a primary goal of American foreign policy. Both see themselves as defenders of what is best in Western civilization. Both see the war as a major shock to the world system and fear the consequences of a long military struggle. Messrs. Kissinger and Soros both believe that Russia is ultimately a secondary problem for American policy, and that the future of U.S.-China relations is of much greater significance in the long run.

Where they disagree is on the nature of the order and civilization they seek to conserve. Mr. Soros, much like the Biden administration, sees the dominant issue in world politics as a struggle between democracy and totalitarianism. Democracies are obliged by law to respect the rights of their citizens at home, and must conduct themselves under the restraints of international law abroad.

Totalitarian rulers reject such limits at home and abroad, and Mr. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is as lawless as his treatment of dissidents at home. His attack on Ukraine is an attack on the fundamental principles of international order, and if that attack succeeds, international politics will return to the law of the jungle by which, as the Athenians once told the Melians during the Peloponnesian War, “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

The Kissinger position is less ideological. There always has been and always will be many types of government in the world. America’s job is to create and defend a balance of power that protects our freedom and that of our allies at the least possible risk and cost. We do not have a mission to convert the Russians and Chinese to the gospel of democracy and we must recognize that rival great powers have rights and interests that must be respected. Russia, as Mr. Kissinger told the Davos audience, is and will remain an important element in the European state system, and an enduring peace must recognize that unavoidable fact.

Looking at history, the one thing that seems clear is that neither approach yields an infallible guide to success. The French and British leaders who tried to appease Hitler in the 1930s made very Kissingerian arguments about the need to respect German national interests. The neoconservatives pushing George W. Bush to invade Iraq made Sorosian arguments about the totalitarian nature of Saddam Hussein’s regime. As Messrs. Kissinger and Soros would both agree, mechanistically applying any theory of history to the messy realities of international life is a good way to get into trouble.

[PizzaSnake]

Well, well, well. Looks like the vaunted private sector outsourcing has reached its inevitable conclusion. Funny, didn't a certain President, gasp, a Republican President, warn us of exactly this?

100% failure rate on the howitzers stationed in Kuwait? Nice work, if you can get it...



And for the historically challenged:

Yup.....and Smedley was the first "hero" to speak out, of the modern era, and get doxxed. the personel attacks on his opinion literally made him sick, and he died, as a result. Facists. the same time period as the facists STOPPED members of Congress representing their people as.............

Not sure what you are getting at ? Howitzers are metal tubes, how could they fail ?


We have the same number of Congress as we did from over 100 years ago. Stupid US Constitution and the census.....

"Equipment drawn from the U.S. Army’s Kuwait-based pre-positioned stock bound for Ukraine was not ready for combat operations, the Pentagon’s inspector general has found.

During the inspector general’s audit of that pre-positioned stock area, the fifth of seven such locations around the world, “we identified issues that resulted in unanticipated maintenance, repairs, and extended leadtimes to ensure the readiness of the military equipment selected to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces,” the May 23 report stated.

All six of the M777 howitzers and 25 of 29 M1167 High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles were not “mission ready” and required repairs before U.S. European Command could send the equipment to Ukraine."

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/0 ... y-ig-says/

I think your misrepresenting the facts. Equipment not being mission ready is a far cry from claiming the equipment has failed. A freaking howitzer just doesn't suddenly fail.

Did you bother to read the article? How the fcuk do you think a howitzer works?
Than
“The team subsequently found that all six howitzers had operational issues. Four of the six howitzers had breech blocks improperly aligned with the rack gear, which prevented the breech from correctly locking. A breech not properly locked could result in an explosion that could kill the crew, the report noted.”

Or maybe you know more the Army repair crew?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Salty,
I believe your ftr… the first time you repeated the pairing that gets played in right wing media.

But they understood it.

And once it was pointed out to you, the choice became your own.

That still does not alter the fact that they are the 2 best known advocates, among some
of us & they still remain active.

Why should they get a pass from scrutiny simply because of their religion ?

Just more of your attempts to divert & deflect from what they are actually doing.

Fixed it.

[a fan]

Play the anti-Semitism card on this :

https://www.wsj.com/articles/dueling-ap ... 1653509537
Kissinger vs. Soros on Russia and Ukraine
The notable nonagenerians offer dueling visions of world order at the World Economic Forum.

By Walter Russell Mead, May 25, 2022

Two American immigrants, both survivors of life under Nazi rule still making waves in their nineties, set the terms of debate at the World Economic Forum. Henry Kissinger, who celebrates his 99th birthday this week, made a virtual appearance to urge against attempts to defeat or marginalize Russia, calling on Ukraine to accept the territorial losses of 2014 to end the war. A few hours later, George Soros, in person at the forum at age 91, warned that victory in the war against Vladimir Putin’s Russia was necessary to “save civilization” and urged the West to provide Ukraine with everything it needs to prevail.

Their prescriptions are radically different, but their perceptions have much in common. Both men believe that American values and interests make the defense of peace in Europe a primary goal of American foreign policy. Both see themselves as defenders of what is best in Western civilization. Both see the war as a major shock to the world system and fear the consequences of a long military struggle. Messrs. Kissinger and Soros both believe that Russia is ultimately a secondary problem for American policy, and that the future of U.S.-China relations is of much greater significance in the long run.

Where they disagree is on the nature of the order and civilization they seek to conserve. Mr. Soros, much like the Biden administration, sees the dominant issue in world politics as a struggle between democracy and totalitarianism. Democracies are obliged by law to respect the rights of their citizens at home, and must conduct themselves under the restraints of international law abroad.

Totalitarian rulers reject such limits at home and abroad, and Mr. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is as lawless as his treatment of dissidents at home. His attack on Ukraine is an attack on the fundamental principles of international order, and if that attack succeeds, international politics will return to the law of the jungle by which, as the Athenians once told the Melians during the Peloponnesian War, “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

The Kissinger position is less ideological. There always has been and always will be many types of government in the world. America’s job is to create and defend a balance of power that protects our freedom and that of our allies at the least possible risk and cost. We do not have a mission to convert the Russians and Chinese to the gospel of democracy and we must recognize that rival great powers have rights and interests that must be respected. Russia, as Mr. Kissinger told the Davos audience, is and will remain an important element in the European state system, and an enduring peace must recognize that unavoidable fact.

Looking at history, the one thing that seems clear is that neither approach yields an infallible guide to success. The French and British leaders who tried to appease Hitler in the 1930s made very Kissingerian arguments about the need to respect German national interests. The neoconservatives pushing George W. Bush to invade Iraq made Sorosian arguments about the totalitarian nature of Saddam Hussein’s regime. As Messrs. Kissinger and Soros would both agree, mechanistically applying any theory of history to the messy realities of international life is a good way to get into trouble.

They're arguing over what to do AFTER the invasion here. Sure would like to hear their opposing views on what to do before that die is cast.

[old salt]

They're arguing over what to do AFTER the invasion here. Sure would like to hear their opposing views on what to do before that die is cast.

Kissinger was for the "Findlanization" of Ukraine. He coined the term in a WaPo op-ed.

Soros was for color revolution & regime change & promoted it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html
How the Ukraine crisis ends

Opinion -- by Henry A. KissingerMarch 5, 2014

Henry A. Kissinger was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977.

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.

[a fan]

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.

This was written by Kissinger AFTER Putin annexed Crimea, right?

[cradleandshoot]

Well, well, well. Looks like the vaunted private sector outsourcing has reached its inevitable conclusion. Funny, didn't a certain President, gasp, a Republican President, warn us of exactly this?

100% failure rate on the howitzers stationed in Kuwait? Nice work, if you can get it...



And for the historically challenged:

Yup.....and Smedley was the first "hero" to speak out, of the modern era, and get doxxed. the personel attacks on his opinion literally made him sick, and he died, as a result. Facists. the same time period as the facists STOPPED members of Congress representing their people as.............

Not sure what you are getting at ? Howitzers are metal tubes, how could they fail ?


We have the same number of Congress as we did from over 100 years ago. Stupid US Constitution and the census.....

"Equipment drawn from the U.S. Army’s Kuwait-based pre-positioned stock bound for Ukraine was not ready for combat operations, the Pentagon’s inspector general has found.

During the inspector general’s audit of that pre-positioned stock area, the fifth of seven such locations around the world, “we identified issues that resulted in unanticipated maintenance, repairs, and extended leadtimes to ensure the readiness of the military equipment selected to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces,” the May 23 report stated.

All six of the M777 howitzers and 25 of 29 M1167 High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles were not “mission ready” and required repairs before U.S. European Command could send the equipment to Ukraine."

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/0 ... y-ig-says/

I think your misrepresenting the facts. Equipment not being mission ready is a far cry from claiming the equipment has failed. A freaking howitzer just doesn't suddenly fail.

Did you bother to read the article? How the fcuk do you think a howitzer works?
Than
“The team subsequently found that all six howitzers had operational issues. Four of the six howitzers had breech blocks improperly aligned with the rack gear, which prevented the breech from correctly locking. A breech not properly locked could result in an explosion that could kill the crew, the report noted.”

Or maybe you know more the Army repair crew?

I know the armorers could probably fix it relatively quickly. In simple terms it was a quick fix and whoever was responsible for preparing the guns to be shipped is at fault. How long did it take the armorers to correct the problem? By the way they are not refered to as repair crew. Their MOS identifies them as armorers.

[old salt]

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.

This was written by Kissinger AFTER Putin annexed Crimea, right?

Yes. Kissinger wrote that shortly after Russia annexed Crimea & just before pro-Russian separatists began seizing territory in the Donbas.
He hoped that peace could be maintained by Ukraine granting semi-autonomy to Crimea & the separatist Donbas enclaves, that would give assurances to ethnic Russian's in the east & guarantee Russia's control of their Black Sea Fleet base at Sevastopol, with Ukraine remaining neutral & not joining NATO. It would also have required Ukraine to allow overland supply access to Crimea from Russia & continue the flow of fresh water to Crimea via the N Crimea canal, all of which Ukraine refused to negotiate.

This part of Kissinger's 2014 opinion has proven sadly prophetic :
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.