The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

'What happened to her?': Fox's Bartiromo buried for claim Biden administration sees Putin as a 'partner'

By Tom Boggioni March 13, 2022

https://www.rawstory.com/maria-bartiromo-2656949825/

“Fox News host Maria Bartiromo was raked over the coals on Sunday after making a wild claim on-air that President Joe Biden's administration secretly sees Russian President Vladimir Putin as a partner.

Addressing her audience, the Fox host explained, "Some people have told me over the weekend that they feel that, at the end of the day, this administration does not see Putin as the enemy, they see him as a partner on many issues. They see him as a partner on climate change. They see him as a partner on the Iran deal."

She then added, "When is this administration going to get serious and tell Vladimir Putin that we are done?"”

 

Some people have told me over the weekend that Maria Bartiromo is an idiot.

Steve Thomas

Well, I don't take cues from Maria (though, she was hot as the "Money Honey" 30 years ago), but...

The globalists seemed to give Putin a green light on Ukraine. Before the invasion, promising no boots on the ground, and then abstaining from a No Fly Zone as Putin said it would be provocative.  

I think the globalists were fine with partitioning Ukraine to Putin, but then lost control of the narrative due to stiff Ukrainian resistance, and Putin's foul image (in large part a deserved image, but also a residual of the Trump-bashing regimen).

Now there is the scramble to come up a Plan B. De-escalate somehow. No Fly Zone! Open to negotiations!  I do not see how Western values will prevail if Putin takes over Ukraine.

The spooky thing is how tight the US multinational-globalist set is with the CCP. Do globalists have Western values? Or something else?

Is international stability (a good commercial climate), rather than Western values, really the top priority in the DC-globalist set? 

 

 

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

Hitting the supply and evacuation routes.  Maybe Vinnytsya and others next, routes through Romania and Moldova?

Aerial attacks hit city that is corridor to Kyiv (msn.com)

[Paul Brancato]

10 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

      Princeton historian Stephen Kotkin pointedly disagrees with the late George F. Kennan and David Mearsheimer's opinions that NATO expansion is responsible for Russian Federation aggression (including Putin's invasion of Ukraine.)

 https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/stephen-kotkin-putin-russia-ukraine-stalin

March 11, 2022   

Excerpt

Remnick: We’ve been hearing voices both past and present saying that the reason for what has happened is, as George Kennan put it, the strategic blunder of the eastward expansion of NATO. The great-power realist-school historian John Mearsheimer insists that a great deal of the blame for what we’re witnessing must go to the United States. I thought we’d begin with your analysis of that argument.

Kotkin: I have only the greatest respect for George Kennan. John Mearsheimer is a giant of a scholar. But I respectfully disagree. The problem with their argument is that it assumes that, had NATO not expanded, Russia wouldn’t be the same or very likely close to what it is today. What we have today in Russia is not some kind of surprise. It’s not some kind of deviation from a historical pattern. Way before NATO existed—in the nineteenth century—Russia looked like this: it had an autocrat. It had repression. It had militarism. It had suspicion of foreigners and the West. This is a Russia that we know, and it’s not a Russia that arrived yesterday or in the nineteen-nineties. It’s not a response to the actions of the West. There are internal processes in Russia that account for where we are today.

I would even go further. I would say that NATO expansion has put us in a better place to deal with this historical pattern in Russia that we’re seeing again today. Where would we be now if Poland or the Baltic states were not in NATO? They would be in the same limbo, in the same world that Ukraine is in. In fact, Poland’s membership in NATO stiffened NATO’s spine. Unlike some of the other NATO countries, Poland has contested Russia many times over. In fact, you can argue that Russia broke its teeth twice on Poland: first in the nineteenth century, leading up to the twentieth century, and again at the end of the Soviet Union, with Solidarity. So George Kennan was an unbelievably important scholar and practitioner—the greatest Russia expert who ever lived—but I just don’t think blaming the West is the right analysis for where we are.

Kotkin’s arguments strike me as specious. 

 

10 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

      Princeton historian Stephen Kotkin pointedly disagrees with the late George F. Kennan and David Mearsheimer's opinions that NATO expansion is responsible for Russian Federation aggression (including Putin's invasion of Ukraine.)

 https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/stephen-kotkin-putin-russia-ukraine-stalin

March 11, 2022   

Excerpt

Remnick: We’ve been hearing voices both past and present saying that the reason for what has happened is, as George Kennan put it, the strategic blunder of the eastward expansion of NATO. The great-power realist-school historian John Mearsheimer insists that a great deal of the blame for what we’re witnessing must go to the United States. I thought we’d begin with your analysis of that argument.

Kotkin: I have only the greatest respect for George Kennan. John Mearsheimer is a giant of a scholar. But I respectfully disagree. The problem with their argument is that it assumes that, had NATO not expanded, Russia wouldn’t be the same or very likely close to what it is today. What we have today in Russia is not some kind of surprise. It’s not some kind of deviation from a historical pattern. Way before NATO existed—in the nineteenth century—Russia looked like this: it had an autocrat. It had repression. It had militarism. It had suspicion of foreigners and the West. This is a Russia that we know, and it’s not a Russia that arrived yesterday or in the nineteen-nineties. It’s not a response to the actions of the West. There are internal processes in Russia that account for where we are today.

I would even go further. I would say that NATO expansion has put us in a better place to deal with this historical pattern in Russia that we’re seeing again today. Where would we be now if Poland or the Baltic states were not in NATO? They would be in the same limbo, in the same world that Ukraine is in. In fact, Poland’s membership in NATO stiffened NATO’s spine. Unlike some of the other NATO countries, Poland has contested Russia many times over. In fact, you can argue that Russia broke its teeth twice on Poland: first in the nineteenth century, leading up to the twentieth century, and again at the end of the Soviet Union, with Solidarity. So George Kennan was an unbelievably important scholar and practitioner—the greatest Russia expert who ever lived—but I just don’t think blaming the West is the right analysis for where we are.

Respectfully  -  his argument amounts to Russia has been a bad actor for a long time, and probably would have expanded back to its USSR boundaries had it not been for NATO’s eastward expansion. 

[Matt Allison]

8 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Respectfully  -  his argument amounts to Russia has been a bad actor for a long time, and probably would have expanded back to its USSR boundaries had it not been for NATO’s eastward expansion. 

And he would be 100% correct, wouldn't he?

[Kirk Gallaway]

I don't think if Nato didn't expand that Russia would have started gobbling back their old territories in East Europe. But I don't think that Putin has been that threatened by Nato expansion, or he wouldn't have been relatively quiet about it until 2007 and never even mentioned it to Obama in his first term. He's just using security as a war aim to his masses.

It's more like the case of a long time abusive husband refusing to let his wife go. He really has nothing to bring to the table in the way of security or economic well being. He's really just jealous, abusive, and  concerned about how it looks to his world standing. And Matt is right, if given the choice what country wouldn't choose Western ways over Russia and Putin?

Somehow, I think these peace talks  tomorrow might  finally make some progress. Let's hope.

[Ron Bulman]

16 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I don't think if Nato didn't expand that Russia would have started gobbling back their old territories in East Europe. But I don't think that Putin has been that threatened by Nato expansion, or he wouldn't have been relatively quiet about it until 2007 and never even mentioned it to Obama in his first term. He's just using security as a war aim to his masses.

It's more like the case of a long time abusive husband refusing to let his wife go. He really has nothing to bring to the table in the way of security or economic well being. He's really just jealous, abusive, and  concerned about how it looks to his world standing. And Matt is right, if given the choice what country wouldn't choose Western ways over Russia and Putin?

Somehow, I think these peace talks  tomorrow might  finally make some progress. Let's hope.

I Pray your right.  But doubt Putin will settle for eastern Ukraine.

[W. Niederhut]

     I watched my old DVD of Modest Mussorgsky's opera Khovanschina last night.   I have the 1989 Vienna State Opera production directed by Claudio Abbado, which used the 1959 Shostakovich orchestration.

     In light of what is happening right now in Russia and Ukraine, it was spellbinding-- ending in Act V with the immolation of Prince Khovansky and a community of Raskolniks by Tsar Peter the Great.

 

    I think Winston Churchill said it best.

      Famously, Winston Churchill defined Russia as "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma," and his words in 1939 spoke eloquently to the Western sense of Moscow as the "other" - an inscrutable and menacing land that plays by its own rules, usually to the detriment of those who choose more open regulations.

[Steve Thomas]

5 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

   I think Winston Churchill said it best.

      Famously, Winston Churchill defined Russia as "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma," and his words in 1939 spoke eloquently to the Western sense of Moscow as the "other" - an inscrutable and menacing land that plays by its own rules, usually to the detriment of those who choose more open regulations.

W.,x.

I studied Russian history for a bit when I was in college.

The thing you have to understand about Russia is that, as a nation, Russia has a massive inferiority complex.

i think Gesine Argent expressed it well in his study of the influence of the French language in Russian society.

The French Language in Russia: A Social, Political, Cultural, and Literary History

von Editorial Board · Veröffentlicht 18. Dezember 2018 · Aktualisiert 6. Februar 2019

By Gesine Argent

https://trafo.hypotheses.org/16019

“Foreign language use first started spreading in the Russian empire from the days of Peter the Great (sole ruler 1696-1725), who drove forward the modernisation of the empire, which meant Westernisation. Knowledge about diverse fields, from architecture, shipbuilding and mining to art, music and literature, could only be accessed via experts who spoke foreign languages, and the books and instruction manuals they wrote in those languages.”

“Of course French was used also to communicate with those who had no Russian language skills, for example in diplomacy and other official domains, as one chapter of the book shows. French was also used for propagandistic purposes, to forge a favourable image of Russia as an international, westward-looking country that was a legitimate member of the European family of nations and to counteract accounts of Russia as a backward, uncivilised place. Catherine the Great (ruled 1762-1796), for example, corresponded with Voltaire in French – Voltaire praised her as ‘the Semiramis of the North’ – and bought Denis Diderot’s library in a bid for positive publicity. Many publications in French written by Russians were intended for an international audience, to show how advanced literary, political and social life was in Russia.”

Steve Thomas

 

[Ron Bulman]

From inside Kyiv.

The Western World Is in Denial (msn.com)

[W. Niederhut]

17 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

From inside Kyiv.

The Western World Is in Denial (msn.com)

Yeah, Ron, I read this one this morning in The Atlantic.  It's a sad, horrifying article.

It's horrifying to watch what the Ukrainian people are experiencing right now.

It's also horrifying to think about what we did to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, without really telling their stories in our M$M.  Instead, we ended up watching jingoistic films like American Sniper!

Edited March 15, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Ron Bulman]

I thought at one point in this regarding negotiations it sounded slightly encouraging.  Maybe not the overall interview.  I don't really see Ukraine agreeing to demilitarization.

MSN

[Benjamin Cole]

The globalist-Biden approach to Ukraine appears to be a failure. Certainly, a humanitarian catastrophe.

The situation in Mariupol appears particularly grim, but of course that scenario may play out across Ukraine, in every contested city, in the months ahead. 

The West is encouraging the Ukrainians to fight, but is not providing a No Fly Zone. Not targeting Russian vessels with submarines, and still buying Russian oil. 

My take is the globalist-Biden Administration pretty much consigned Ukraine to Putin, and signaled as much pre-invasion. The globalists lost control of the narrative due to Ukrainian resistance, and Putin's foul image (deserved, and also a residual from Trump-bashing). 

The globalists want stability and commercial relations above all. See how they kow-tow to the CCP. Human rights is low on the agenda. Ukraine is dispensable, and Russia has fossil fuels to sell. 

The globalist plan presently appears to be to give the Ukrainians enough tools to make the Russian occupation miserable for Moscow.  From a cynical perspective, that might work.  The cost in human carnage is too horrible to contemplate.

Biden appears poorly counseled. Seems to have no ideas. Flat-footed. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Matt Allison]

Ben - feel free to share your plan; the one Biden should have gone with instead of doing what he's doing.

We're all ears.

[Benjamin Cole]

19 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Ben - feel free to share your plan; the one Biden should have gone with instead of doing what he's doing.

We're all ears.

Well, when Russia promised to not invade Ukraine, the West had a chance to say they would establish a No Fly Zone over Ukraine as a prophylactic against anyone starting a war. 

I think it is still a good idea, though riskier. 

Stop the sale of Russian oil. 

Declare the port of Odessa a free port, that will be kept open. 

Zelensky has asked Biden for tougher sanctions. I don't know all the details, but it  this is not time for anything except maximum economic sanctions in all regards. How can Zelensky be asking for tougher sanctions? 

Without hostility, the US should  announce a huge 10-year program to boost global manufacturing in SE Asia and India, and re-shoring to US (probably should do this anyway). 

The globalists just want Ukraine to go away. Publicly held multinationals have fiduciary obligations to maximize shareholder profit. There is nothing wrong with public companies trying to maximize profits; that is their role and obligation.

What is wrong is when multinationals control US foreign-military-trade policies, which is where we are now (and have been since the days of Smedley Butler). 

True, the globalists have lost control of the Ukraine narrative.  They still want to situation resolved so that business can resume with Russia ASAP, and nothing changes with Beijing. 

I prefer a victory for the Ukrainians. Biden seems to have no plans for a Ukrainian victory, or a decoupling from Beijing. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The globalist-Biden approach to Ukraine appears to be a failure. Certainly, a humanitarian catastrophe.

The situation in Mariupol appears particularly grim, but of course that scenario may play out across Ukraine, in every contested city, in the months ahead. 

The West is encouraging the Ukrainians to fight, but is not providing a No Fly Zone. Not targeting Russian vessels with submarines, and still buying Russian oil. 

My take is the globalist-Biden Administration pretty much consigned Ukraine to Putin, and signaled as much pre-invasion. The globalists lost control of the narrative due to Ukrainian resistance, and Putin's foul image (deserved, and also a residual from Trump-bashing). 

The globalists want stability and commercial relations above all. See how they kow-tow to the CCP. Human rights is low on the agenda. Ukraine is dispensable, and Russia has fossil fuels to sell. 

The globalist plan presently appears to be to give the Ukrainians enough tools to make the Russian occupation miserable for Moscow.  From a cynical perspective, that might work.  The cost in human carnage is too horrible to contemplate.

Biden appears poorly counseled. Seems to have no ideas. 

 

 

 

Edited March 15, 2022 by Ron Bulman