Douglas Macgregor & Kim Iversen:
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Menu There is no diplomatic solutionIsrael should declare three nos;
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
@Michael
Stop with the distractions and simply address the subjects I raised. Or not.
If I am wrong, tell me how I am wrong without discussing me instead. I promise you the BM is quite a simple document to both read, analyze and discuss, and I am not listed among its six short topics.
HI, Tanna.So much confusion here.
First of all, I thought “Tanna” was a girl’s name, like “Hanna” or “Shanna”. My apologies.
As for your prejudices towards me,
1. I have never seen “Russia” in the Bible
2. I have studied Torah most of my life.
3. Your post is so full of hatred, I won’t comment further on this matter. As for Peloni, I think he has lost his mind.
@Tanna
I want to thank you for your kind reflections on my comments. More than this, though, I appreciate you using them as a springboard from which to seek out your own judgement. It is important for people to assess facts as being factual, and in the current age this is often a difficult task to attempt, so I congratulate you for having made the effort to do so.
Michael,
First and foremost,…. no apologizes needed. I HAVE NEVER BEEN NOR WILL I EVER BE CONFUSED ABOUT MY SEXUALLY. I AM MALE. as THE RABBIS TEACH, I think God that he did not make me a women! If you don’t understand that positive statement, find a Rabbi and learn Torah.:)
I felt no need to respond, because I did not perceive you asking me a direct question as I had asked of you. My own research has led me to the same conclusion that Peloni has laid out. Peloni has done much more reading and deeper research then I have due to my time limits. On some subjects I read general and wide, just to keep up with a subject but not to follow it to the depth that Peloni does. I don’t have the time. But in the years, I have been following Peloni’s comments here I find his comments fair, rational and objective and balanced. Regardless, if I was to agree or not, I find such comments to be a good springboard to do a deeper dive into a topic. Which I have done, only to learn Peloni was right and I had thought wrongly.
I believe you have certain assumptions or confirmation bias that colors your viewpoint on Ukraine and Russia. I also think that most people have been influenced by reading Russia into bible prophecy when they are not mentioned. The other bias that has been programed into the American psyche is the idea that Russia is Bad and America is good. Lying politicians need a foil, and after WW2 they needed to demonize Russia to keep the industrialized military complex going due to the destruction of the Nazis.
If you’re interested in listening to a Christian lying politician, who supports your opinion.
https://ijr.com/tucker-carlson-confronts-mike-pence-tanks-ukraine-us-cities-rot-receives-shocking-response/
@Michael
So, you begin with a mischaracterization of the BM, follow it with a mischaracterization of Maidan coup, and end with a mischaracterization of my own words which you then use against me. All in all, this makes for what can hardly be described as anything but a very poor rebuttal of my statement.
You state that
This is a gross understatement of what the BM states. The BM is only a few sentences long, making the challenge of reading it not only elemental to comprehend, but useful when analyzing what was actually guaranteed by the relevant signatories. Indeed, any fair reading of these few sentences would render your description of being a “guarantee Ukraine’s security from attack” a fairly stunted description of what was actually agreed upon by the parties. In fact, it guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty, its political independence, and its economic independence, while also prohibiting any use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine, and provided a framework for settling violations to the BM, and the promise to coordinate a resolution when a violation does occur. So it was far more reaching than simply a guarantee against attack, as you suggest. The fact that you would frame it as such might support your having ignored the American coup staged against Ukraine as being relevant, but such political intrigues were quite clearly within the scope of what the BM prohibited. You should read it for clarity if you have not already done so.
So, you have ignored the implications about the US coup which clearly violated the economic, political and sovereignty guarantees established within the BM which clearly made the remaining guarantees null and void, particularly by the party who was placed at a disadvantage by such violations, namely Russia. In other words, Russia was not bound by the vitiated BM as you suggested in your first post when it followed the American seizure of Ukraine’s govt with a land invasion in Crimea.
So if you would take the time to read the BM, which would require less time than actually having written your short post, I would be quite happy to respond to a fair interpretation of the guarantees afforded by it, and how the American coup clearly violated it.
What is more curious than your lack of accuracy in describing the BM, however, is how you prefer to describe the US led Maiden coup as being merely ‘an internal matter’. Any objective analysis, as opposed to a political analysis, would include the obvious evidence provided by Victoria Nuland’s wire tapped conversation which exposed the very deal pursued on the evening of the coup, even though Nuland’s conversation had been released weeks prior to the coup, and which was recorded at some time earlier than even this. It is simply obtuse and ahistorical to suggest that the Maidan coup was not a US led false flag operation to overthrow the legitimate govt of Ukraine, and preferring such an nonobjective position would support a political narrative alone.
One more thing, you shared the following quote as if to suggest it came from me and it clearly did not:
I would prefer you quote only what I actually write, and I did not write this nor even imply it. What I did say was that
Not only have you failed to accurately critique this statement, you have clearly corrupted the very intent of the statement which I did make with the above false quotation. You should be aware that having done so, your final statement is not only not responsive to my own, but in support of it – Russia did invade. It was a measured if not limited response to the American seizure of the political levers of control within a bordering nation and handing these levers to anti-Russian neo Nazis and nationalists as I have previously described below. There can be no doubt of these facts, but I’d be happy to see you try with a better performance than you provided here.
While I do not doubt that it was not your intent to mischaracterize my comment as you did do, I would suggest for the purposes of clarity and accuracy, that you not take such liberties with my words in the future, even as it might make it easier for you to counter them.
Peloni,
Tanna hasn’t answered. Maybe she isn’t buying your line! 😮
The deal was, “Ukraine gives its nukes to Russia; and in return, the US and Russia, etc. will guarantee Ukraine’s security from attack. Peloni is trying to characterize an internal matter, a popular revolt against a president who had been fraudulently elected, as an “invasion”; while trying to characterize the Russians destroying the country and killing tens of thousands of Ukrainians as being somehow “not an invasion”.
Pardon me, while I reach for the room deodorant spray.
@Michael
@Tanna
Michael said
and Tanna said
I wasn’t going to revisit this but seeing that Tanna has raised the subject while Michael dropped it, I think it is worth re-threading this needle once more.
Russia did not violate any agreement when it invaded. The Ukraine was stipulated in their constitution to remain a neutral nation. Its independence, both economic, political and geographical, was guaranteed between the US, Russia and UK and the agreement which made that guarantee was the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. The BM, however, was made void by the violation of this treaty by the public exposure of the political overthrow of the Ukrainian govt which was made public two weeks prior to the overthrow taking place. This exposure is not the least controversial which is why the Neocons and Ukraine supporters will never address it. Not once, at the time or since has the US govt denied the authenticity of the recordings made available exposing the role of Victoria Nuland and Joe Biden in the pre and post elements of the overthrow, respectively. The purpose of the overthrow was to remove the moderate Viktor Yanukovych, who had been using both Russia and the EU against each other while negotiating better terms on a trade deal for Ukraine. Russia won the bidding war, which stimulated the need to remove the Ukrainian president and thereby co-opt not just Ukraine’s political independence but their economic independence as well. Hence, the US coup resulted in the violation of the Independence and Sovereignty clause (paragraph 1) of the BM, the Political Independence clause (paragraph 2) of the BM, as well as the Economic Coersion clause (paragraph 3) of the BM. There were only 6 paragraphs in total to the entire document which can be found HERE. Consequently, the BM had been made quite null and void by these treaty violations by the US even as people try to assert the relevance of the BM regarding the subsequent actions taken by Russia.
More than this, the US organized coup violated the principles described in the Helsinki Final Act, the OSCE charter, and the United Nations charter. It was a clear violation of international law and was specifically focused to cross a stated Red line described by Russia back in 2007 regarding their sphere of influence. The illegal overthrow of the Ukrainian govt was threat enough against the Russians, but the aftermath of the coup led to neoNazi’s being placed into the highest echelon’s of govt, not the least concerning was the man placed at the head of Ukraine’s NSA, Andriy Parubiy, who was the Commandant of the Maidan, responsible for the murders during the Maidan massacre and an unrepentant founder of the neoNazi Svoboda party.
So prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the US overthrew the Ukrainian govt, violated all the standards of international law as well as the BM, crossed Russia’s long standing Red Line, and put in place a neo Nazi to develop and coordinate not just Ukraine’s domestic policy, but its international policy as well. When Russia responded with its invasion, it was easily within the Carolinian standard of self defense and it was clearly a minimal action since it was limited only to the Crimea, much to the deep regret and annoyance of the unprotected ethnic Russians living in the Dombas and elsewhere.
So if anyone has something to add which explains what agreements forbade Russia from acting as she did, please do so. This is not the first time, nor even the second or third time I have raised these facts, but I am still interested in having an answer to the question revisited by the exchange between Tanna and Michael, to which Tanna seems to have had his question answered with a similar silence to that which I have received previously.
Tanna darling,
We are currently in a war.
Thanks for the info about Luongo.
I like this, this is my favorite way of thinking also.
I don’t have to agree with people on everything in order to appreciate their views, and I am not into finance, stock market, economic predictions, etc. but his blog seems like something that will be interesting to read.
Michael, could you enlighten me on what agreements Mr. Putin broke?
It seems to me everyday, we are moving closer to another major WAR!.
@Reader
I’m not even a little surprised that he has been wiped from Wiki. He probably wears that fact like a badge of honor. Luongo is a chemist turned economist-political forecaster and a bit of an eccentric as well. He has a blog called ‘Gold , Goats, and Guns’, and those three words describe a great deal about him. His economics is based on the Austrian school of economics, and his politics is that of a Libertarian. He offers a uniquely singular perspective on topics, one in which he does not profess to necessarily be correct, but in any event, he bases many of his conclusions on what people do rather than who a person is to avoid the obvious misdirection. I don’t agree with him exclusively but I have agreed with him a great deal on many topics since I first read his commentaries some years ago. I find his writings and reasoning to be particularly challenging, ie to keep up with him you have to think things through in a way which you haven’t necessarily considered previously. He holds a particularly unique opinion about the Fed which he sees as being the likely source of saving the US from being swallowed by the Davos crowd, for instance. He draws distinctions between white hats and people who act to support white hats, a distinction which he often raises when discussing Jaime Diamond for example in the past few weeks (months maybe?). As I say he has an interesting way of viewing the world and I find his conclusions intriguing even when they are not convincing.
In any event, I am not sure if you will appreciate all his conclusions or even many of them, particularly about economics. His website is here:
https://tomluongo.me/
He does podcast interviews and his articles are posted on Zerohedge usually on Fridays, but it is all collected and posted on his own site. His articles are long, and he speaks quite fast in his interviews, just fyi.
@peloni
Who is this Tom Luongo – he is not even on Wikipedia (I am not saying it is bad but it is kind of strange)?
@Michael
**Looking back on your comment just now I see your last line states it was intended as sarcasm. If this was there when I read your post, it escaped my notice, so accept my apology.
Actually it is the Neocon’s war, not mine, not Ted’s and not yours. Afterall, who but a nutty Neocon would support using pathetically corrupt, politically challenged and socially divisive Ukraine to fight a proxy war against a nation the size of Russia. This becomes particularly acute when it is noted that Ukraine couldn’t even defeat the ethnic Russian militia despite they were using the combined might of the Ukrainian armed forces and the bully brute squad battalions raised specifically for the task. But as Tom Luongo notes, whoever wins or loses in such a war of Slav against Slav, the deaths of innumerable Slavs on both sides and the taxpayer funded fraud and munitions will feed the fantasies of the next generation of Neocons and their donors.
Peloni,
FYI, I do not support the neocons. It is YOU and TED who have been cheering on this war, backing the Russians. When your friends invaded Ukraine, what did they expect? Cheers and flowers? This is your war, not mine.
A Group of Ukrainian volunteer body collectors has unearthed another 85 dead bodies of Wagner Group PMC soldiers near Bakhmut.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarRoom/comments/14xqp3f/a_group_of_ukrainian_volunteer_body_collectors/
@peloni
Of course!
As far as they are concerned, Ukraine must be destroyed ASAP (hopefully, together with Russia, Belarus, Poland, and other “lives not worthy of living”).
Any country which joins NATO must be defended by NATO, and that doesn’t include the Ukrainian proxy’s sacrificial cannon fodder.
I am starting to wonder whether Zelensky has finally figured it out and is provoking them on purpose with his demands to join or whether he is simply dumb enough to believe that Ukraine is considered by the NATO members to be their equal and that the whole “our support for Ukraine” thing is for real.
@Ari Dale
@Michael
This is quite a routine example of Neocon naivete to suggest providing nuclear weapons to a mafia state which has undergone two color revolutions and a civil war over the past two decades all of which is still not yet resolved.
Such easy bravado over a topic which once was once handled with the greatest of care demonstrates the problem existing in the Neocon led West today, and why their rule has been both dangerous and destructive, both to the nations they rule as well as the nations which they dominate.
Ari Dale,
That isn’t a far-fetched idea. Before Russia broke its agreement and invaded Ukraine, the latter was one of the most powerful nuclear nations on earth, surpassed only by Russia and the US. The gifted missiles should be solid fueled, on a hair trigger, and aimed at Putin. That might change the dynamics of current diplomacy. (Disclaimer: this is sarcasm, sort of)
Is this intended to intimidate the USA and Europe from supporting Ukraine? I say give Ukraine nice, new, shiny nuclear weapons instead of bending over for Putin.
I didn’t know they were unionized. What are they waiting for?
Allies refuse to give Ukraine timeframe on joining
https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1678800646848249857