W. Niederhut Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 8 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said: Very informative post thanks for sharing Paul 👍 Get a clue, Mathew. Helmer is a KGB stooge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 Does a long war favour the Bidenescu regime? Not according to two studies - by Rand & CSIS (links below) - as noted by this shrewd Indian observer: FEBRUARY 9, 2023 BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR Waiting for Biden’s definition of victory in Ukraine https://www.indianpunchline.com/waiting-for-bidens-definition-of-victory-in-ukraine/ There was an air of magical realism in the daylong visit to Kiev last Friday by the EU’s policy commissioners comprising the executive branch of the group — the so-called College — led by the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. At the end of the day in Kiev on Friday, during a joint press conference in Kiev with President Volodymyr Zelensky, all that the EU’s super bureaucrats would promise was that “Ukraine’s future is in the EU.” However, as the BBC reported, “Typically, it takes years for countries to join — and the EU has declined to set a timescale, describing the sign-up process as “goal-based.” It all depends now on what sort of Ukraine emerges out of the war. Surely, there is a pall of gloom in the western media lately about the war storms gathering on the horizon. A Ukrainian military officer told the BBC that the Russian forces have occupied a third of the highly strategic Bakhmut city, the hub of the so-called Zelensky Line in Donbass. Since then, there have been reports of more Russian successes. The Ukrainian defence line is cracking through which an elephant can pass to the steppes en route to the Dnieper River. An AP report quoting Ukrainian officials in Kiev says, “Russian forces are keeping Ukrainian troops tied down with attacks in the eastern Donbass region as Moscow assembles additional combat power there for an expected offensive in the coming weeks.” Reuters too reports that Russian forces have been advancing “in relentless battles in the east. A regional governor said Moscow was pouring in reinforcements for a new offensive that could begin next week.” Writing for Bloomberg, Hal Brands at the American Enterprises Institute, drastically trims the Biden Administration’s priorities to “reluctance to further inflame Putin’s ire.” Hal sums up: “Washington’s goal is a Ukraine that is militarily defensible, politically independent and economically viable; this doesn’t necessarily include retaking difficult areas such as the eastern Donbass or Crimea.” There is no more talk about destroying the Russian “war machinery” or an insurrection against the Kremlin and a regime change. Two recent think tank reports that appeared in the US last month — Avoiding a Long War by the Rand Corporation (affiliated to the Pentagon) and Empty Bins by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies — epitomise a rude awakening. The Rand Corporation report starkly warns that given the NATO countries’ indirect involvement in the war — “breathtaking in scope” — keeping a Russia-NATO war below the nuclear threshold is going to be “extremely difficult.” It introduces another chilling thought that a protracted war in Ukraine, which “many” in the Beltway subscribe to as a means to degrade the Russian military and weaken the Russian economy, “would also have consequences for US foreign policy,” as the US’ ability to focus on other global priorities — particularly, competition with China — will remain constrained. The Rand report argues that “Washington does have a long-term interest in ensuring that Moscow does not become completely subordinated to Beijing.” The report concludes that the paramount US interest lies in avoiding a long war, since “the consequences of a long war — raging from persistent elevated escalation risks to economic damage — far outweigh the possible benefits.” The report presents a frank assessment that “it is fanciful to imagine that it [ Kiev] could destroy Russia’s ability to wage war.” Its most astounding finding, perhaps, is two-fold: firstly, the US does not even share Ukraine’s drive for retrieving “lost” territories”; and, secondly, that it is in the American interest that Russia remains independent of China with a measure of strategic autonomy vis-a-vis the US-China rivalry. On the other hand, the CSIS report, authored by the well-known strategic thinker Seth Jones (formerly at the Rand) is a wake-up call that the US defence industrial base is grossly inadequate for the “competitive security environment that now exists.” The report has a chapter titled Ukraine and the Great Awakening, which underscores that the US arms supples to Ukraine have “strained the [US] defence industrial base to produce sufficient quantities of some munitions and weapon systems.” Jones represents the duality of the US military-industrial complex, which is disinterested in the objective of the war in Ukraine as such. His grouse is that the US defence industrial base — including the munitions industrial base — is not currently equipped to support a protracted conventional war, although, as the UK newspaper Sunday Times wrote last week, “All wars spawn profiteers, and the Ukraine conflict is no exception… The enormous supply of western arms to Ukraine has bolstered all weapons manufacturers, mainly in restocking Nato’s own arsenals and fulfilling the big orders from countries now spending more on defence….In the US, Lockheed, Raytheon and Northrop are among the big arms and jet fighter manufacturers with bulging order books.” The Rand and CSIS reports appeared at a time when the war has reached a tipping point. Thus, within the last month, the US has announced three of the largest aid packages to Ukraine in a sign of ongoing support as the war nears its one-year mark. And on Friday, the Biden Administration announced yet another new Ukraine security package worth approximately $2.2 billion that includes longer-range missiles with a range of 90 miles for the first time. Herein lies the paradox. On February 1, four senior Defense Department officials reportedly told the US House Armed Services Committee lawmakers in a classified briefing that the Pentagon doesn’t believe Ukraine has the ability to force Russian troops out of the Crimean peninsula. After the briefing, the House Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) asserted in an interview that the war “needs to end this summer.” Senator Rogers said: “There’s a school of thought … that Crimea’s got to be a part of it. Russia is never going to quit and give up Crimea… What is doable? And I don’t think that that’s agreed upon yet. So I think that there’s going to have to be some pressure from our government and NATO leaders with Zelensky about what does victory look like. And I think that’s going to help us more than anything to be able to drive Putin and Zelensky to the table to end this thing this summer.” This is the first time that a top US political personality has called for a timeline for the war. It came as no wonder, as Senator Bob Menendez the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who presided over the hearings on Ukraine on January 26 — also addressed the core issue in a question for the record to the US Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland who was testifying. The influential senator bemoaned that Washington has “no definition of victory,” and sought an answer from Nuland, who was rendered speechless. But it must have rankled her, for, at the fag-end of the hearing, she volunteered a reply: “If we define winning as Ukraine surviving and thriving as a cleaner democratic state, it can, it must, it will.” Period. Nuland fudged. But that is also what President Biden did in his State of the Union address on Wednesday by sticking to his tiresome mantra — that the US will support Ukraine for “as long as it takes.” That said, significantly, Zelensky has taken off for a tour of major European capitals to discuss what could possibly constitute peace. Indeed, all this is a far cry from Von der Leyen’s rhetoric as she set out for Kiev last week: “With the visit of the College to Kyiv, the EU is sending today a very clear message to Ukraine and beyond about our collective strength and resolve in the face of Russia’s brutal aggression. We will continue supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes. And we will continue to impose a heavy price on Russia until it ceases its aggression. Ukraine can count on Europe to help rebuild a more resilient country, that progresses on its path to join the EU.” There is something that either Von der Leyen doesn’t know about, or doesn’t want to talk about. Meanwhile, Biden seems closer to her than to Rand and the CSIS or Senator Menendez and Nuland — leave alone Republican Senator Rogers. That must be an optical illusion. Avoiding a Long War: https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA2510-1.html Empty Bins in a Wartime Environment: https://www.csis.org/analysis/empty-bins-wartime-environment-challenge-us-defense-industrial-base Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 21 minutes ago, Paul Rigby said: Does a long war favour the Bidenescu regime? Not according to two studies - by Rand & CSIS (links below) - as noted by this shrewd Indian observer: FEBRUARY 9, 2023 BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR Waiting for Biden’s definition of victory in Ukraine https://www.indianpunchline.com/waiting-for-bidens-definition-of-victory-in-ukraine/ There was an air of magical realism in the daylong visit to Kiev last Friday by the EU’s policy commissioners comprising the executive branch of the group — the so-called College — led by the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. At the end of the day in Kiev on Friday, during a joint press conference in Kiev with President Volodymyr Zelensky, all that the EU’s super bureaucrats would promise was that “Ukraine’s future is in the EU.” However, as the BBC reported, “Typically, it takes years for countries to join — and the EU has declined to set a timescale, describing the sign-up process as “goal-based.” It all depends now on what sort of Ukraine emerges out of the war. Surely, there is a pall of gloom in the western media lately about the war storms gathering on the horizon. A Ukrainian military officer told the BBC that the Russian forces have occupied a third of the highly strategic Bakhmut city, the hub of the so-called Zelensky Line in Donbass. Since then, there have been reports of more Russian successes. The Ukrainian defence line is cracking through which an elephant can pass to the steppes en route to the Dnieper River. An AP report quoting Ukrainian officials in Kiev says, “Russian forces are keeping Ukrainian troops tied down with attacks in the eastern Donbass region as Moscow assembles additional combat power there for an expected offensive in the coming weeks.” Reuters too reports that Russian forces have been advancing “in relentless battles in the east. A regional governor said Moscow was pouring in reinforcements for a new offensive that could begin next week.” Writing for Bloomberg, Hal Brands at the American Enterprises Institute, drastically trims the Biden Administration’s priorities to “reluctance to further inflame Putin’s ire.” Hal sums up: “Washington’s goal is a Ukraine that is militarily defensible, politically independent and economically viable; this doesn’t necessarily include retaking difficult areas such as the eastern Donbass or Crimea.” There is no more talk about destroying the Russian “war machinery” or an insurrection against the Kremlin and a regime change. Two recent think tank reports that appeared in the US last month — Avoiding a Long War by the Rand Corporation (affiliated to the Pentagon) and Empty Bins by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies — epitomise a rude awakening. The Rand Corporation report starkly warns that given the NATO countries’ indirect involvement in the war — “breathtaking in scope” — keeping a Russia-NATO war below the nuclear threshold is going to be “extremely difficult.” It introduces another chilling thought that a protracted war in Ukraine, which “many” in the Beltway subscribe to as a means to degrade the Russian military and weaken the Russian economy, “would also have consequences for US foreign policy,” as the US’ ability to focus on other global priorities — particularly, competition with China — will remain constrained. The Rand report argues that “Washington does have a long-term interest in ensuring that Moscow does not become completely subordinated to Beijing.” The report concludes that the paramount US interest lies in avoiding a long war, since “the consequences of a long war — raging from persistent elevated escalation risks to economic damage — far outweigh the possible benefits.” The report presents a frank assessment that “it is fanciful to imagine that it [ Kiev] could destroy Russia’s ability to wage war.” Its most astounding finding, perhaps, is two-fold: firstly, the US does not even share Ukraine’s drive for retrieving “lost” territories”; and, secondly, that it is in the American interest that Russia remains independent of China with a measure of strategic autonomy vis-a-vis the US-China rivalry. On the other hand, the CSIS report, authored by the well-known strategic thinker Seth Jones (formerly at the Rand) is a wake-up call that the US defence industrial base is grossly inadequate for the “competitive security environment that now exists.” The report has a chapter titled Ukraine and the Great Awakening, which underscores that the US arms supples to Ukraine have “strained the [US] defence industrial base to produce sufficient quantities of some munitions and weapon systems.” Jones represents the duality of the US military-industrial complex, which is disinterested in the objective of the war in Ukraine as such. His grouse is that the US defence industrial base — including the munitions industrial base — is not currently equipped to support a protracted conventional war, although, as the UK newspaper Sunday Times wrote last week, “All wars spawn profiteers, and the Ukraine conflict is no exception… The enormous supply of western arms to Ukraine has bolstered all weapons manufacturers, mainly in restocking Nato’s own arsenals and fulfilling the big orders from countries now spending more on defence….In the US, Lockheed, Raytheon and Northrop are among the big arms and jet fighter manufacturers with bulging order books.” The Rand and CSIS reports appeared at a time when the war has reached a tipping point. Thus, within the last month, the US has announced three of the largest aid packages to Ukraine in a sign of ongoing support as the war nears its one-year mark. And on Friday, the Biden Administration announced yet another new Ukraine security package worth approximately $2.2 billion that includes longer-range missiles with a range of 90 miles for the first time. Herein lies the paradox. On February 1, four senior Defense Department officials reportedly told the US House Armed Services Committee lawmakers in a classified briefing that the Pentagon doesn’t believe Ukraine has the ability to force Russian troops out of the Crimean peninsula. After the briefing, the House Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) asserted in an interview that the war “needs to end this summer.” Senator Rogers said: “There’s a school of thought … that Crimea’s got to be a part of it. Russia is never going to quit and give up Crimea… What is doable? And I don’t think that that’s agreed upon yet. So I think that there’s going to have to be some pressure from our government and NATO leaders with Zelensky about what does victory look like. And I think that’s going to help us more than anything to be able to drive Putin and Zelensky to the table to end this thing this summer.” This is the first time that a top US political personality has called for a timeline for the war. It came as no wonder, as Senator Bob Menendez the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who presided over the hearings on Ukraine on January 26 — also addressed the core issue in a question for the record to the US Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland who was testifying. The influential senator bemoaned that Washington has “no definition of victory,” and sought an answer from Nuland, who was rendered speechless. But it must have rankled her, for, at the fag-end of the hearing, she volunteered a reply: “If we define winning as Ukraine surviving and thriving as a cleaner democratic state, it can, it must, it will.” Period. Nuland fudged. But that is also what President Biden did in his State of the Union address on Wednesday by sticking to his tiresome mantra — that the US will support Ukraine for “as long as it takes.” That said, significantly, Zelensky has taken off for a tour of major European capitals to discuss what could possibly constitute peace. Indeed, all this is a far cry from Von der Leyen’s rhetoric as she set out for Kiev last week: “With the visit of the College to Kyiv, the EU is sending today a very clear message to Ukraine and beyond about our collective strength and resolve in the face of Russia’s brutal aggression. We will continue supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes. And we will continue to impose a heavy price on Russia until it ceases its aggression. Ukraine can count on Europe to help rebuild a more resilient country, that progresses on its path to join the EU.” There is something that either Von der Leyen doesn’t know about, or doesn’t want to talk about. Meanwhile, Biden seems closer to her than to Rand and the CSIS or Senator Menendez and Nuland — leave alone Republican Senator Rogers. That must be an optical illusion. Avoiding a Long War: https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA2510-1.html Empty Bins in a Wartime Environment: https://www.csis.org/analysis/empty-bins-wartime-environment-challenge-us-defense-industrial-base Thank you for adding to the pot, Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 Neocons are very found of the word freedom, but not so fond of the practice. Craig Murray on the attempts to suppress opposition to NATO in the UK; and the consequences of the Anglo-American deep state's successful purge of the Labour Party's left-wing. We are back to the days of the British invasion of the Boer Republics and the Jingo mobs organised to smash public protests against that brutal imperial war: Quote Those of us critical of the aggressive promotion of war in Europe, are not only barred from all mainstream media and confined to corners of the internet, and even then heavily suppressed on social media (which is why Sy Hersh’s article does not have the scores of millions of readers it merits). We can’t even obtain freedom of assembly. Two established left wing venues have cancelled the No 2 Nato meeting I am addressing in London on 25 February. Conway Hall’s reasons for cancellation included threats to funding and fears for the safety of staff. We are now reduced to a guerrilla meeting, the Central London venue for which will not be announced until the evening before. Is this really a democracy, where it is not possible for dissidents to hold a public meeting without secrecy, subterfuge and hiding from supporters of the state? I do urge you to come along on the day, whatever your views on the subject, to support the right to freedom of speech… There is no longer an Overton window of permitted debate. It has narrowed and should be renamed the Overton letterbox. One of those small difficult ones right down at the bottom of the door. With a very fierce spring, and snarling dogs guarding it. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2023/02/sy-hersh-and-the-way-we-live-now/ The extirpation of the Left within the UK Labour Party: https://youtube.com/watch?v=njyIauSPQc0&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 And a brief reminder of how the CIA's goons in Ukraine dealt with the anti-coup opposition, here in Odessa: https://youtube.com/watch?v=wu2tXG2Yo-g&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 28 minutes ago, Paul Rigby said: And a brief reminder of how the CIA's goons in Ukraine dealt with the anti-coup opposition, here in Odessa You're posting from Odessa? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cotter Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 31 minutes ago, Paul Rigby said: And a brief reminder of how the CIA's goons in Ukraine dealt with the anti-coup opposition, here in Odessa: https://youtube.com/watch?v=wu2tXG2Yo-g&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE Thanks for those very informative posts, Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, John Cotter said: Thanks for those very informative posts, Paul. John, I agree that Craig Murray has written some good stuff about Bush & Cheney's Iraq WMD scam, and their phony Neocon "War on Terror. Murray is a man who has been willing to speak truth to power. I take my hat off to him. I am also surprised to hear about the suppression of Labor Party dissent against support for Ukraine in the U.K. Not o.k. in my book. Here in the states, the opposition to support for Ukraine is coming from far right Trumpsters, including those who tried to obstruct the certification of Biden's election. As for Paul Rigby's bogus, KGB-affiliated "review" of Catherine Belton's book, I would advise people to judge for themselves. And, incidentally, the book has been extensively reviewed at Amazon. Paul has also expressly denied that Russia interfered in our 2016 election on behalf of Trump. He's wrong. And he refers to Biden as, "Bidenescu." Is Paul waiting for Godot, or what, exactly? Some people on this forum are poorly informed, and I daresay naive, about Putin and his FSB. The Russians I know have no illusions about the subject. Edited February 12, 2023 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 4 hours ago, Paul Rigby said: Does a long war favour the Bidenescu regime? Not according to two studies - by Rand & CSIS (links below) - as noted by this shrewd Indian observer: FEBRUARY 9, 2023 BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR Waiting for Biden’s definition of victory in Ukraine https://www.indianpunchline.com/waiting-for-bidens-definition-of-victory-in-ukraine/ There was an air of magical realism in the daylong visit to Kiev last Friday by the EU’s policy commissioners comprising the executive branch of the group — the so-called College — led by the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. At the end of the day in Kiev on Friday, during a joint press conference in Kiev with President Volodymyr Zelensky, all that the EU’s super bureaucrats would promise was that “Ukraine’s future is in the EU.” However, as the BBC reported, “Typically, it takes years for countries to join — and the EU has declined to set a timescale, describing the sign-up process as “goal-based.” It all depends now on what sort of Ukraine emerges out of the war. Surely, there is a pall of gloom in the western media lately about the war storms gathering on the horizon. A Ukrainian military officer told the BBC that the Russian forces have occupied a third of the highly strategic Bakhmut city, the hub of the so-called Zelensky Line in Donbass. Since then, there have been reports of more Russian successes. The Ukrainian defence line is cracking through which an elephant can pass to the steppes en route to the Dnieper River. An AP report quoting Ukrainian officials in Kiev says, “Russian forces are keeping Ukrainian troops tied down with attacks in the eastern Donbass region as Moscow assembles additional combat power there for an expected offensive in the coming weeks.” Reuters too reports that Russian forces have been advancing “in relentless battles in the east. A regional governor said Moscow was pouring in reinforcements for a new offensive that could begin next week.” Writing for Bloomberg, Hal Brands at the American Enterprises Institute, drastically trims the Biden Administration’s priorities to “reluctance to further inflame Putin’s ire.” Hal sums up: “Washington’s goal is a Ukraine that is militarily defensible, politically independent and economically viable; this doesn’t necessarily include retaking difficult areas such as the eastern Donbass or Crimea.” There is no more talk about destroying the Russian “war machinery” or an insurrection against the Kremlin and a regime change. Two recent think tank reports that appeared in the US last month — Avoiding a Long War by the Rand Corporation (affiliated to the Pentagon) and Empty Bins by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies — epitomise a rude awakening. The Rand Corporation report starkly warns that given the NATO countries’ indirect involvement in the war — “breathtaking in scope” — keeping a Russia-NATO war below the nuclear threshold is going to be “extremely difficult.” It introduces another chilling thought that a protracted war in Ukraine, which “many” in the Beltway subscribe to as a means to degrade the Russian military and weaken the Russian economy, “would also have consequences for US foreign policy,” as the US’ ability to focus on other global priorities — particularly, competition with China — will remain constrained. The Rand report argues that “Washington does have a long-term interest in ensuring that Moscow does not become completely subordinated to Beijing.” The report concludes that the paramount US interest lies in avoiding a long war, since “the consequences of a long war — raging from persistent elevated escalation risks to economic damage — far outweigh the possible benefits.” The report presents a frank assessment that “it is fanciful to imagine that it [ Kiev] could destroy Russia’s ability to wage war.” Its most astounding finding, perhaps, is two-fold: firstly, the US does not even share Ukraine’s drive for retrieving “lost” territories”; and, secondly, that it is in the American interest that Russia remains independent of China with a measure of strategic autonomy vis-a-vis the US-China rivalry. On the other hand, the CSIS report, authored by the well-known strategic thinker Seth Jones (formerly at the Rand) is a wake-up call that the US defence industrial base is grossly inadequate for the “competitive security environment that now exists.” The report has a chapter titled Ukraine and the Great Awakening, which underscores that the US arms supples to Ukraine have “strained the [US] defence industrial base to produce sufficient quantities of some munitions and weapon systems.” Jones represents the duality of the US military-industrial complex, which is disinterested in the objective of the war in Ukraine as such. His grouse is that the US defence industrial base — including the munitions industrial base — is not currently equipped to support a protracted conventional war, although, as the UK newspaper Sunday Times wrote last week, “All wars spawn profiteers, and the Ukraine conflict is no exception… The enormous supply of western arms to Ukraine has bolstered all weapons manufacturers, mainly in restocking Nato’s own arsenals and fulfilling the big orders from countries now spending more on defence….In the US, Lockheed, Raytheon and Northrop are among the big arms and jet fighter manufacturers with bulging order books.” The Rand and CSIS reports appeared at a time when the war has reached a tipping point. Thus, within the last month, the US has announced three of the largest aid packages to Ukraine in a sign of ongoing support as the war nears its one-year mark. And on Friday, the Biden Administration announced yet another new Ukraine security package worth approximately $2.2 billion that includes longer-range missiles with a range of 90 miles for the first time. Herein lies the paradox. On February 1, four senior Defense Department officials reportedly told the US House Armed Services Committee lawmakers in a classified briefing that the Pentagon doesn’t believe Ukraine has the ability to force Russian troops out of the Crimean peninsula. After the briefing, the House Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) asserted in an interview that the war “needs to end this summer.” Senator Rogers said: “There’s a school of thought … that Crimea’s got to be a part of it. Russia is never going to quit and give up Crimea… What is doable? And I don’t think that that’s agreed upon yet. So I think that there’s going to have to be some pressure from our government and NATO leaders with Zelensky about what does victory look like. And I think that’s going to help us more than anything to be able to drive Putin and Zelensky to the table to end this thing this summer.” This is the first time that a top US political personality has called for a timeline for the war. It came as no wonder, as Senator Bob Menendez the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who presided over the hearings on Ukraine on January 26 — also addressed the core issue in a question for the record to the US Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland who was testifying. The influential senator bemoaned that Washington has “no definition of victory,” and sought an answer from Nuland, who was rendered speechless. But it must have rankled her, for, at the fag-end of the hearing, she volunteered a reply: “If we define winning as Ukraine surviving and thriving as a cleaner democratic state, it can, it must, it will.” Period. Nuland fudged. But that is also what President Biden did in his State of the Union address on Wednesday by sticking to his tiresome mantra — that the US will support Ukraine for “as long as it takes.” That said, significantly, Zelensky has taken off for a tour of major European capitals to discuss what could possibly constitute peace. Indeed, all this is a far cry from Von der Leyen’s rhetoric as she set out for Kiev last week: “With the visit of the College to Kyiv, the EU is sending today a very clear message to Ukraine and beyond about our collective strength and resolve in the face of Russia’s brutal aggression. We will continue supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes. And we will continue to impose a heavy price on Russia until it ceases its aggression. Ukraine can count on Europe to help rebuild a more resilient country, that progresses on its path to join the EU.” There is something that either Von der Leyen doesn’t know about, or doesn’t want to talk about. Meanwhile, Biden seems closer to her than to Rand and the CSIS or Senator Menendez and Nuland — leave alone Republican Senator Rogers. That must be an optical illusion. Avoiding a Long War: https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA2510-1.html Empty Bins in a Wartime Environment: https://www.csis.org/analysis/empty-bins-wartime-environment-challenge-us-defense-industrial-base Paul- I think a face-saving armistice, leaving battle lines where there with nobody recognizing them as permanent, might be in the cards and the most humane result as of now. Trump was right: NATO is a weak sister, giving less to the Ukrainians than the US, and prolonged dithering over tanks and fighter jets. And this horrible military invasion is on their doorstep. They should be doing more, not less. I am skeptical of US "experts" on the progress of the war. They first predicted a rapid Russian victory. They also predicted a US victory in Vietnam. They promised US victories in Afghanistan. Let's say we don't know how this war turns out. History shows occupations are very expensive and difficult. Will Putin change goals from occupation to annihilation? In the end, Putin's war was volitional, thus criminal. No one was planning to invade Russia, a nation with nukes, tactical nukes and 12,000 tanks, rail lines to the front. An interesting digression: In 2008, President Obama instigated a military surge into Afghanistan, a nation posited to harbor threats to the US, although located as far from the US as possible, when still in the Northern Hemisphere. Obama felt his military occupation of Afghanistan was justified---but it also appears volitional. Obama as a war criminal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said: Paul- I think a face-saving armistice, leaving battle lines where there with nobody recognizing them as permanent, might be in the cards and the most humane result as of now. Trump was right: NATO is a weak sister, giving less to the Ukrainians than the US, and prolonged dithering over tanks and fighter jets. And this horrible military invasion is on their doorstep. They should be doing more, not less. I am skeptical of US "experts" on the progress of the war. They first predicted a rapid Russian victory. They also predicted a US victory in Vietnam. They promised US victories in Afghanistan. Let's say we don't know how this war turns out. History shows occupations are very expensive and difficult. Will Putin change goals from occupation to annihilation? In the end, Putin's war was volitional, thus criminal. No one was planning to invade Russia, a nation with nukes, tactical nukes and 12,000 tanks, rail lines to the front. An interesting digression: In 2008, President Obama instigated a military surge into Afghanistan, a nation posited to harbor threats to the US, although located as far from the US as possible, when still in the Northern Hemisphere. Obama felt his military occupation of Afghanistan was justified---but it also appears volitional. Obama as a war criminal? Obama's military occupation of Afghanistan, Ben? That's rich. Obama was inaugurated more than 7 years after Bush & Cheney occupied Afghanistan. Did you ever read Robert Gates' memoir on that subject? Gates faulted Obama for dragging his feet on the prosecution of Bush & Cheney's bogus "War on Terror," then reluctantly conceded that "Obama made all of the right calls." Previously, Leon Panetta had advised Obama that, "You can't just say, 'no,' to these guys" ( i.e., the CIA and Joint Chiefs.) JFK was the only POTUS who ever did that, and they shot him in the head. As an anti-war liberal and Obama supporter, I was quite surprised and disappointed by Obama's strange capitulation to the military-industrial complex in the Middle East. As for Putin's Ukrainian debacle, our friends across the pond are, apparently, determined to blame it on Bidenescu, while pretending that Putin is some sort of enlightened autocrat. And, as Americans in the post-Bush/Cheney era, who are we to criticise an imperialist like Putin for invading and bombing a sovereign nation? Edited February 12, 2023 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cotter Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: John, I agree that Craig Murray has written some good stuff about Bush & Cheney's Iraq WMD scam, and their phony Neocon "War on Terror. Murray is a man who has been willing to speak truth to power. I take my hat off to him. I am also surprised to hear about the suppression of Labor Party dissent against support for Ukraine in the U.K. Not o.k. in my book. Here in the states, the opposition to support for Ukraine is coming from far right Trumpsters, including those who tried to obstruct the certification of Biden's election. As for Paul Rigby's bogus, KGB-affiliated "review" of Catherine Belton's book, I would advise people to judge for themselves. And, incidentally, the book has been extensively reviewed at Amazon. Paul has also expressly denied that Russia interfered in our 2016 election on behalf of Trump. He's wrong. And he refers to Biden as, "Bidenescu." Is Paul waiting for Godot, or what, exactly? Some people on this forum are poorly informed, and I daresay naive, about Putin and his FSB. The Russians I know have no illusions about the subject. William, Your tendency to conflate different issues in arguing your position regarding Ukraine is illogical. The fact that a person is a Trump supporter is irrelevant to the validity or otherwise of their views on Ukraine. Similarly, Putin's personality, his ruling methods and Russia's internal politics are irrelevant to Russia's foreign policy, including its policy vis-a-vis Ukraine. This kind of conflation by you is a tacit admission that your views on the Ukraine war per se are logically untenable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 23 minutes ago, John Cotter said: William, Your tendency to conflate different issues in arguing your position regarding Ukraine is illogical. The fact that a person is a Trump supporter is irrelevant to the validity or otherwise of their views on Ukraine. Similarly, Putin's personality, his ruling methods and Russia's internal politics are irrelevant to Russia's foreign policy, including its policy vis-a-vis Ukraine. This kind of conflation by you is a tacit admission that your views on the Ukraine war per se are logically untenable. John, Your analysis makes no sense. Let me explain why. 1) Trump supporters are authoritarians who have, like Trump, idealized Putin as a fascist strongman. For example, when Putin first invaded Ukraine one year ago, Trump declared that, "Putin is a genius!" Putin has long been a pin up boy for the Trumpsters. So, unlike British liberals, Trump supporters oppose support for Ukraine not because they are pacifists, but because they admire Putin and his quasi-fascist factotum, Donald Trump. 2) Putin's personality and Stalinist/Andropov upbringing are absolutely relevant to his foreign policy-- his agenda of re-establishing the Soviet empire as an imperialist, totalitarian police state. Are you familiar with the histories of Spiridon, Mikhail, and Vlad Putin, Sr.? I would urge you and Paul Rigby to educate yourselves about Putin's 21st century FSB oligarchy by studying Catherine Belton's well-researched history, Putin's People. Also, have you studied the Mitrokhin archives? Solzhenitsyn? Konstantin Preobrazhensky? Set aside the ubiquitous KGB disinformazia in the Western media. Putin and his KGB goons have used it for decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said: Obama's military occupation of Afghanistan, Ben? That's rich. Obama was inaugurated more than 7 years after Bush & Cheney occupied Afghanistan. Did you ever read Robert Gates' memoir on that subject? Gates faulted Obama for dragging his feet on the prosecution of Bush & Cheney's bogus "War on Terror," then reluctantly conceded that "Obama made all of the right calls." Previously, Leon Panetta had advised Obama that, "You can't just say, 'no,' to these guys" ( i.e., the CIA and Joint Chiefs.) JFK was the only POTUS who ever did that, and they shot him in the head. As an anti-war liberal and Obama supporter, I was quite surprised and disappointed by Obama's strange capitulation to the military-industrial complex in the Middle East. As for Putin's Ukrainian debacle, our friends across the pond are, apparently, determined to blame it on Bidenescu, while pretending that Putin is some sort of enlightened autocrat. And, as Americans in the post-Bush/Cheney era, who are we to criticise an imperialist like Putin for invading and bombing a sovereign nation? Of course, Bush & Cheney started the volitional occupation and war in Afghanistan. I gather you believe there was little or no connection between 9/11 and Osama bin Laden, which would make the invasion even less tolerable. We can have unmixed feelings about Bush & Cheney (and Liz Cheney also for that matter). I was posing a more-challenging question: Obama re-invaded a nation posing no military threat to the US. It appears to be, and I think was, a volitional invasion. I generally liked Obama, but should we look away from a President Obama who re-invaded and lengthened a patently lost cause? I read Gates book, and also Woodward's. No one seemed to ever decide if we were fighting the Taliban or Al Qaeda in Afcrapistan or just fighting to preserve a dubious and corrupt ally in Kabul, or fighting for anything at all. You say the record shows it was Trump who inked the deal to get the US out of Afcrapistan, credit to which I had been giving Biden. You know, the blue-red pissing wars strike me as a distraction. Was Obama a war criminal in re-invading Afcrapistan? What is your answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said: You say the record shows it was Trump who inked the deal to get the US out of Afcrapistan, credit to which I had been giving Biden. That's correct. He wanted to surrender to them at Camp David and Bolton through a fit is my understanding. He signed an agreement to leave that was to occur after the election, if I recall correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Koch Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bob Ness said: That's correct. He wanted to surrender to them at Camp David and Bolton through a fit is my understanding. He signed an agreement to leave that was to occur after the election, if I recall correctly. Trump wanted to surrender? No you are not recalling that correctly. Thanks for the laugh this morning Bob, Trump wanted to Surrender to the Taliban, that is almost as funny as Chris's Post to you earlier.. Edited February 12, 2023 by Matthew Koch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now