Dear Moderator

[Sandy Larsen]

19 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Another step that would help Ukraine win the war would be to give them long-range missiles so they could hit Russian naval ships and retaliate for all the vicious Russian missile attacks on civilian areas.

 

Michael,

I've wondered what Ukraine could do to disincentivize Russia's illegally and immorally attacking Ukrainian civilians and civilian sites. I've thought that they could attack strategic (non-civilian) sites in Russia with fighter jets and long-range missiles on a tit-for-tat basis. Problem is, America and NATO would not allow this for fear of escalation of the war outside of Ukraine.

So I found what you wrote -- quoted above -- interesting. When you say Ukraine could hit Russian Naval ships, are you speaking of ones already in the war zone (in the Black Sea and Sea of Azov)? Or do you mean those outside the war zone or even docked in Russia?

 

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

So NATO expansion in eastern Europe is only my subjective “impression” rather than an objective fact?

You brought up American foreign policy in general, remember?

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Are you trying to gaslight me?

If you can’t have a rational discussion of a topic don’t bring it up.

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

The same could be said for your “faction ridden” argument. Have you ever heard of Spenlow and Jorkins?

Never heard of them.

Again: how does your analysis account for the negotiated removal of Syrian chemical weapons, the Iranian nuclear accords, the opening to Cuba, or the withdrawal from Afghanistan?  These policies were opposed by the Neo-con faction within the American national security state.

Not a subject you can discuss without hysterics?

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Michael,

I've wondered what Ukraine could do to disincentivize Russia's illegally and immorally attacking Ukrainian civilians and civilian sites. I've thought that they could attack strategic (non-civilian) sites in Russia with fighter jets and long-range missiles on a tit-for-tat basis. Problem is, America and NATO would not allow this for fear of escalation of the war outside of Ukraine.

So I found what you wrote -- quoted above -- interesting. When you say Ukraine could hit Russian Naval ships, are you speaking of ones already in the war zone (in the Black Sea and Sea of Azov)? Or do you mean those outside the war zone or even docked in Russia?

I was only talking about hitting Russian ships that are in the war zone, not ships that are docked or operating farther away. 

We could give Ukraine long-range missiles with the stipulation that they could not be fired at targets farther than XXX miles away. I'd certainly hope we would at least allow them to hit Russian missile sites that fire missiles at Ukraine, and also hit rear bases, rear staging areas, and transportation nodes and lines within 150 miles of Ukraine's border. 

I am thrilled that Biden is finally authorizing the transfer of fighter jets to Ukraine. News reports say we are now training Ukrainian pilots to fly those jets. Assuming we give Ukraine a decent amount of fighter jets, and assuming we train the pilots adequately, the jets will make a huge difference by enabling Ukraine to take meaningful offensive actions.

[John Cotter]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You brought up American foreign policy in general, remember?

If you can’t have a rational discussion of a topic don’t bring it up.

Never heard of them.

Again: how does your analysis account for the negotiated removal of Syrian chemical weapons, the Iranian nuclear accords, the opening to Cuba, or the withdrawal from Afghanistan?  These policies were opposed by the Neo-con faction within the American national security state.

Not a subject you can discuss without hysterics?

Hysterics? What an ironic response to my exposing your nonsense.

Meanwhile, the carnage in Ukraine caused by the proxy war-mongering of you and your fellow travellers continues.

To what avail?

https://aurelien2022.substack.com/p/round-two-there-is-no-round-two

[Greg Doudna]

10 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

I was only talking about hitting Russian ships that are in the war zone, not ships that are docked or operating farther away. 

We could give Ukraine long-range missiles with the stipulation that they could not be fired at targets farther than XXX miles away. I'd certainly hope we would at least allow them to hit Russian missile sites that fire missiles at Ukraine, and also hit rear bases, rear staging areas, and transportation nodes and lines within 150 miles of Ukraine's border. 

I am thrilled that Biden is finally authorizing the transfer of fighter jets to Ukraine. News reports say we are now training Ukrainian pilots to fly those jets. Assuming we give Ukraine a decent amount of fighter jets, and assuming we train the pilots adequately, the jets will make a huge difference by enabling Ukraine to take meaningful offensive actions.

If in a year or three from now you and the rest of us, assuming we are among the survivors, are looking back at the unimaginable holocaust of a nuclear war that spun out of control, would you still consider these actions in retrospect to have been the correct ones to take?

I know Putin was wrong to invade Ukraine, totally wrong. But for the love of God and future generations, this goddamned war is going to go nuclear if it is not stopped and settled with a negotiated cease-fire and settlement. 

The Russians are saying it will. You think people in power do not mean what they say? 

Is this a little like playing "chicken" in high school, in which cars with young men with too many hormones and too little sense race toward each other striving to be the last one to veer away?

But back to the question: if this horrifying worst case happens, which "no one" wants to happen, would you still consider the present actions in retrospect the right ones to have taken?

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

Hysterics? What an ironic response to my exposing your nonsense.

You only exposed your inability to make a cogent argument.  

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

Meanwhile, the carnage in Ukraine caused by the proxy war-mongering of you and your fellow travellers continues.

The carnage in Ukraine is the result of war-mongering by the Russo-fascists you support.

Edited June 15, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Sandy Larsen]

10 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

If in a year or three from now you and the rest of us, assuming we are among the survivors, are looking back at the unimaginable holocaust of a nuclear war that spun out of control, would you still consider these actions in retrospect to have been the correct ones to take?

 

Likewise Greg, if in a year or three from now Ukraine wins the war and retains the sovereignty of their country, as opposed to losing it to Russia, would you still consider appeasement the correct option to take?

I know you say that you want a settlement, not appeasement. But the only way Putin is going to settle is once he realizes he can't win the war. I'm sure that Biden is looking for signs of that. That is the whole point of the U.S. and others supplying arms to Ukraine.... to wear down Putin.

 

[James DiEugenio]

John:

Thanks for that link, an insightful and objective appraisal of the status of the war on the ground.

And let us not forget this confession: 

https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2022/12/13/merkels-confession-could-be-a-pretext-for-an-international-tribunal/

Or this one:  https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/05/06/boris-johnson-pressured-zelenskyy-ditch-peace-talks-russia-ukrainian-paper

 

Again, returning to the theme, can anyone imagine JFK doing stuff like this?  I sure cannot.

Edited June 15, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

John:

Thanks for that link, an insightful and objective appraisal of the status of the war on the ground.

 

Jim,

     I must confess that I have difficulty conceiving of John as "insightful," in any meaningful sense of the term, but to each his own.

     On the other hand, I share Greg Doudna's concerns about the recent escalation of Putin and Lukashenko's nuclear threats toward the U.S. and Western Europe.

     Most of us doubted that Putin would invade Ukraine last year.  He is now blowing up dams and signalling that he would use nukes.

     Surely, we need some diplomatic initiative from Biden and NATO to de-escalate this dangerous crisis and end the violence.

      It seems like it would make sense to establish some sort of peace plan/partition, granting the Russian Federation control of the Russian-majority Crimea and adjacent Russian-majority regions of the Donbas.

    

   

    

Edited June 15, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[James DiEugenio]

William, did you even read that post or what it referred to?

I said the link, the linked article was not written by John.

[John Cotter]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

John:

Thanks for that link, an insightful and objective appraisal of the status of the war on the ground.

And let us not forget this confession: 

https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2022/12/13/merkels-confession-could-be-a-pretext-for-an-international-tribunal/

Or this one:  https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/05/06/boris-johnson-pressured-zelenskyy-ditch-peace-talks-russia-ukrainian-paper

 

Again, returning to the theme, can anyone imagine JFK doing stuff like this?  I sure cannot.

I can’t either, James.

The recklessness and stupidity of western leadership regarding Ukraine has been mind boggling, and those two articles you linked provide good examples of it. As professors Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer have said, none of the western leaders of today could hold a candle to JFK in terms of his geopolitical acumen.

The proxy war cheerleaders here have tried to justify their stance by cherry picking one of the foreign policy speeches – the Berlin speech – made by JFK in June 1963. They don’t seem to realise that since Berlin is 700 miles and two countries away from the Russian border, there is a world of difference between pledging to defend Berlin and sponsoring wars against Russia in countries bordering Russia.

They are ignoring history, geography and the geopolitical “sphere of interest” concept where great powers are concerned. But what’s new? Their ignorance in these respects has been abundantly displayed in debates in this forum during the past year or so.

I see that some of these cheerleaders, including the self-styled insightful full spectrum polymath William Niederhut, are now realising too late that the carnage in Ukraine, which was caused by the Russophobic jingoism they endorse, now needs to be stopped – even at the cost of appeasing the antichrist Putin of their fevered imagination.

To paraphrase Lord Byron, we must laugh that we may not weep.

[W. Niederhut]

17 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

I can’t either, James.

The recklessness and stupidity of western leadership regarding Ukraine has been mind boggling, and those two articles you linked provide good examples of it. As professors Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer have said, none of the western leaders of today could hold a candle to JFK in terms of his geopolitical acumen.

The proxy war cheerleaders here have tried to justify their stance by cherry picking one of the foreign policy speeches – the Berlin speech – made by JFK in June 1963. They don’t seem to realise that since Berlin is 700 miles and two countries away from the Russian border, there is a world of difference between pledging to defend Berlin and sponsoring wars against Russia in countries bordering Russia.

They are ignoring history, geography and the geopolitical “sphere of interest” concept where great powers are concerned. But what’s new? Their ignorance in these respects has been abundantly displayed in debates in this forum during the past year or so.

I see that some of these cheerleaders, including the self-styled insightful full spectrum polymath William Niederhut, are now realising too late that the carnage in Ukraine, which was caused by the Russophobic jingoism they endorse, now needs to be stopped – even at the cost of appeasing the antichrist Putin of their fevered imagination.

To paraphrase Lord Byron, we must laugh that we may not weep.

Cherry-picking the Berlin Speech, eh, John?

As opposed to cherry-picking the Peace Speech to infer that JFK wasn't serious about defending democracy in Europe from Kremlin totalitarianism?

Good one. 😵‍💫

Meanwhile, can you tell us the distance from West Berlin to Soviet-occupied East Germany in 1963?

Not that geographic distance is the real issue here.

BTW, do you support Irish independence from the British Empire?

You and Rigby completely side-stepped that awkward subject yesterday.

 

Edited June 16, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Kirk Gallaway]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

William, did you even read that post or what it referred to?

I said the link, the linked article was not written by John.

Jim I read John's post.  Why is it that John, Barnard, and Koch and now Jim who are supposedly arguing for peace always rely on information from people who arrogantly claim they know the real story on the ground and Ukraine is losing terribly and have been saying that since the beginning of the war. But we people who similarly want a peaceful settlement but agree with the resistance  Ukraine is putting up to a bloody invasion of their country are a bit more sincere  and never make such claims to say "we're kicking your ass" like you do!. 

That's the crux of John's link. And how about (Autrelian's?) phony disclaimer at the onset.

I’m not going to say much about the current Ukrainian “offensive,” because I’m not a military specialist, and anyway it may already be mostly over by the time you read this..

I call it phony' because he then arrogantly makes an assertion that the the offensive may be over by the time you read this." Which it is'nt! and then goes on to write an article where he does presume to know everything about military capability and strategy. I've never found Cotter having any technical knowledge about anything, and regarding involved military planning,  that goes for you as well, Jim. Just in general, I think we could all benefit if you start admitting when you don't know what you're talking about. Neither of you have any "inside track" on this any more than we do, or you would have been right a year ago.

When Cotter runs out of facts he starts using well worn phrases over and over again as if it gives him some mystical power and he ends up contributing nothing in content, or he passes it off to make an exit on some author like this guy to make his case, ("This guy says everything I'm thinking!") and thinks adding some cute quip about "warmongers' and "fellow travelers" will bail him out, or he'll go off in on some supposedly broad historic context and quote a poet.  The only lasting thing that will come from Cotter as result of this article is that we'll probably hear the phrase "punditocracy" over and over again from Cotter, so I figure maybe I can nip that in the bud right now.

 

Edited June 16, 2023 by Kirk Gallaway

[W. Niederhut]

11 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Jim I read John's post.  Why is it that John, Barnard, and Koch and now Jim who are supposedly arguing for peace always rely on information from people who arrogantly claim they know the real story on the ground and Ukraine is losing terribly and have been saying that since the beginning of the war. But we people who similarly want a peaceful settlement but agree with the resistance  Ukraine is putting up to a bloody invasion of their country are a bit more sincere  and never make such claims to say "we're kicking your ass" like you do!. 

That's the crux of John's link. And how about (Autrelian's?) phony disclaimer at the onset.

I’m not going to say much about the current Ukrainian “offensive,” because I’m not a military specialist, and anyway it may already be mostly over by the time you read this..

I call it phony' because he then arrogantly makes an assertion that the "war may be over by the time you read this." Which it is'nt! and then goes on to write an article where he does presume to know everything about military capability and strategy. I've never found Cotter having any technical knowledge about anything, and regarding involved military planning,  that goes for you as well, Jim. Just in general, I think we could all benefit if you start admitting when you don't know what you're talking about. Neither of you have any "inside track" on this any more than we do, or you would have been right a year ago.

When Cotter runs out of facts he starts using well worn phrases over and over again as if it gives him some mystical power and he ends up contributing nothing in content, or he passes it off to make an exit on some author like this guy to make his case, ("This guy says everything I'm thinking!") and thinks adding some cute quip about "warmongers' and "fellow travelers" will bail him out, or he'll go off in on some supposedly broad historic context and quote a poet.  The only lasting thing that will come from Cotter as result of this article is that we'll probably hear the phrase "punditocracy" over and over again from Cotter, so I figure maybe I can nip that in the bud right now.

 

Kirk,

      I think "punditocracy" has something to do with "full spectrum dominance" and other American abominations.

      Among other causes of John Cotter's dyspepsia, he has been indignant about Americans "exporting democracy at gunpoint."

       I share some of John's justifiable indignation about the U.S. military-industrial complex, but I also wonder if John would choose to live in North Korea or South Korea.

       He refuses to tell us, but I can't picture Cotter goose-stepping past murals of Kim Jong Un.

 

 

Edited June 16, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[John Cotter]

44 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Cherry-picking the Berlin Speech, eh, John?

As opposed to cherry-picking the Peace Speech to infer that JFK wasn't serious about defending democracy in Europe from Kremlin totalitarianism?

Good one. 😵‍💫

Meanwhile, can you tell us the distance from West Berlin to Soviet-occupied East Germany in 1963?

Not that geographic distance is the real issue here.

BTW, do you support Irish independence from the British Empire?

You and Rigby completely side-stepped that awkward subject yesterday.

 

Insofar as I can make sense of what you’re trying to say in the first part of your post, William, you seem to be unwittingly endorsing what I said.

As for your question about Irish independence from the British Empire, this is an example of your habit of recycling “arguments” that have already been repeatedly rebutted.

I’ve made it abundantly clear that I’ve always supported Irish independence, and I’ve also explained why the US’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine is completely different from the Irish struggle for independence.

Since Britain was the dominant world power while Ireland was fighting against it for independence, Britain’s comparator in the Ukraine situation is the hitherto dominant world power, the USA.

I could elaborate this further, but with your superior insight you should be able to deduce for yourself the full implications of the distinctions I’ve adumbrated.