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 S.
And let’s not forget the Welsh. 😀
http://suffragio.org/2014/04/18/all-you-wanted-to-know-about-ukraines-donbass-region/
Hi, Peloni. Let me pick at this, point by point:
Wouldn’t that be wonderful? “Neutral”. Ah, memories from the Vietnam Era come back to me… “Neutral”, as in “Cambodia”.
I was in the stockade with a 17-year-old kid, who had gone AWOL after failing the pee test for opioids. Of course, he wanted to go back “in country”, where he could get the best skag (heroin). He talked about the guys in his unit going into Laos (which was pro-US/ pro-VC/ “neutral”. depending on who was holding the gun) and encountering a Russian tank. The Russian turned around and went away, and the US tank did the same. Neither was supposed to be there: They were both effectively “neutral”.
Recently, the “party girl” PM of Finland was asked whether she had a solution for the Ukraine War. She retorted, “It’s simple. If the Russians want peace, they should leave”.
“Simple”, eh? (Some disagree)
ditto, if it had been designed by OBiden (which it may have).
Joshua once had an encounter with an angel:
Joshua 5:
[13] And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?
[14] And he said, Nay (“Lo”); but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come…
I’m with him.
@Michael
I am in complete agreement. Israel has no role in this European squabble, and yet she is specifically targeted to be drawn into this debate by the Green T-shirt Model and his US allies.
Regarding the Chinese controlling Russia, I still don’t agree with your perspective, though I do understand the point you are making. If the Russian invasion were to have been designed by Xi, he could not have designed it better to defend Russia’s geopolitical interests, which seems counter to what Xi would likely care to achieve. He would want Russia to be more dependent not less dependent on China’s support. As you are likely aware, Russia and China have historical positions which do not place them as easy allies, and consequently, I do not believe they are in fact at ease with their current alliance. The formation of the BRICs is a long term program of cooperation, but I do not believe that China controls Russia anymore than they control Brazil. They need eachother. Also, I do not believe that Putin would submit his country to a Chinese orchestrated war simply to avoid the sanctions which were to be the result of going to war in the first place. He could simply have not invaded Ukraine and avoided the sanctions while maintaining Russia’s independence from China. So, no, for many reasons, I do not believe that Russia is under Xi’s control.
@Michael
The word ‘independent’ really should be changed to neutral. The BM required both the US/UK and Russia to take a hands off approach to Ukraine, leaving the Ukrainian govt a neutral choice, or independent choice, to trade with the US/Europe or Russia as she, Ukraine, chose. The US coup violated multiple provisions of the BM, and installed a govt which was intent upon making war upon her Russian minorities, violating other provisions of the BM.
The exact words in the BM are that the parties were to “respect the Independence and Sovereignty”, not to protect them, not to coerce them, and not to overthrow them.
The US violated the neutral/independent/sovereign status of Ukraine by forcibly installing an anti-Russian part-Nazi, part Nationalist led govt in Kiev. I am not sure how you might suggest that doing so was in way a move towards maintaining Ukraine’s independence, much less protecting them. The US made Ukraine a vassal state of the West, denying the citizens in the country as a whole, and the minority territories more specifically, their legally elected Ukrainian govt while also substituting an illegal, vehemently anti-Russian govt in a country on Russia’s border where there had previously been a pro-Russian govt.
The US did not overthrow the pro-Russian Ukrainian govt to maintain Ukraine’s independent character. They overthrew it because they lost the trade negotiations regarding the gas deal.
I would suggest that they are snared, not by any worlds, by the actions of the reckless, arrogant, radical US mafiosos who have been intent upon generating this conflict since before they instituted the 2014 coup.
Peloni,
Hello??? How does one maintain Ukraine as an independent state, without protecting it from invaders???
The world would be a safer place, if they had simply let the Ukrainians keep their nukes (along with US, Russia, etc., Pakistan, N. Korea and Iran). Nevertheless, the Three Powers agreed; and now they’re snared by their words. Ukraine was foolish, to trust in those three, just as was Gaddafi; but what’s done is done.
Hi, Peloni
In WWII, when the USSR saw that Hitler was breaking his alliance with Stalin, the composer Prokofiev lent his skills to the production of an anti-German propaganda piece. In order to find a time in history where Russia actually DEFEATED the Germans, he had to go way back to the Battle on the Ice in 1242. Kiev, at that time, was part of Lithuania and Nevsky was tributary to the Mongols — whose Great Khan ruled from China. The geographical situation was thus similar to today. Since then, all of Eastern Europe, from Moscow to Belgrade, has changed hands many time between the Russians and the Germans; and they’re still fighting over it. I think it’s foolish to be taking one side or another at this point — certainly not for Israel, which has its own troubles.
Concerning Kherson, that historically Turkish, Ukrainian and Russian city, the Russians and Ukrainians have both certainly fought hard for it. But do they care for it? Between them, they’ve destroyed the place. I’m glad nobody cares for me with that kind of care!
Concerning Russia and China, they were certainly independent of each other before last February; but when Russia sent in its tanks, it became utterly dependent on Beijing. Xi Jinping wants the US to be entangled with conflicts on four fronts (such as, Taiwan, Korea, Russia and Iran), as part of his grandiose plan to defeat us. For this reason, I consider a struggle between Putin and NATO to be, essentially, a struggle between Xi and the US.
Exactly. And since you use the term “Atlanticists” to describe the modern-day heirs to Roman civilization. let me add another map — one of the last time the “Atlanticists” (Romans and allies) were attacked by the “Eurasians” (Huns and allies):
https://imgs.search.brave.com/AdNTgg24GhooDg_EEqFT4ZMnmcVlAWdZAmXMS9dAIl0/rs:fit:620:475:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9zLW1l/ZGlhLWNhY2hlLWFr/MC5waW5pbWcuY29t/L29yaWdpbmFscy83/YS9iMi9lNS83YWIy/ZTViYTJiYzc0YjRm/OTFhY2UzMTczY2Y2/MTg2Yi5qcGc
That was the Battle of Chalons of 451, the furthest west an alliance including Eastern Slavs ever advanced in battle. Note that the Atlanticists won; and they have never been wiped out. Love them or hate them, they are unbeatable. As the NT says,
Rev.13
[1] And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
[2] And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
[3] And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
[4] And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
[5] And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
Note,
[3] And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
There are so many zombies in office in DC, Davos and elsewhere nowadays, it’s difficult NOT to identify many of them with “the beast”. I strongly doubt, however, that they include Putin.
None of this has anything to do with infrastructure, etc. The world is at war; and during war, infrastructure goes to hell.
@Michael
This is not remotely what the Bucharest Memorandum entailed. It was a three party agreement between the US/UK, Russia and Ukraine. You can read it hear as it is surprisingly short – only 6 sentences long:
https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/files/policymemos/files/2-23-22_ukraine-the_budapest_memo.pdf?m=1645824948
The point of the Bucharest Memorandum was clearly not to provide Ukraine with Western support or protection, but to maintain Ukraine as an independent state, capable of making its own decisions without outside threats, invasions, or economic coercion. The BM also made reference to the in the principles of the CSCE [Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe] Final Act which states
This clause was clearly violated by the US installed anti-Russian govt which disenfranchised the Russian citizens, and this was followed shortly afterwards by the targeting of the Russian protesters by brute squads and state raised Nazi and radical Battalions, specifically raised and incorporated into the govt forces to deploy against the Russian minority centers in Dombas. In truth, the US led Orange Revolution of 2004 violated the BM, but the US led Maidan revolution of 2014 completely eviscerated it. Consequently, during the 2022 Russian invasion, Russia didn’t violate the BM, it simply recognized that the BM had been completely nullified following the US actions of 2004 and certainly by those of 2014. This was made acutely aware for all to witness when Russia made the vain attempt to mediate a resolution of the 2014 US violations against Ukraine’s national and economic sovereignty in accordance with the BM. The result of this was the Minsk agreements which the US failed to press her proxy Ukrainian govt to enact.
Additionally, it should be noted that Russia’s invasion of 2022 was preceded by her invasion of 2014 to occupy Crimea, but this step was taken following the 2014 US violations of the BM and well after the 2004 US violations of the BM.
@Michael
I have never said that Israel stands to benefit from the Ukraine War.
I think that MacGregor has it right and you have it wrong..
End of discussion.
BTW, Ted. Your map doesn’t go back far enough. Notice Moskva and Kyow on the following map:
https://imgs.search.brave.com/pSR353KVF053I6AWbFciihhuWyCBlg7hlm5H8Qkzc4g/rs:fit:600:453:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9pLnBp/bmltZy5jb20vNzM2/eC83OC84OS9mNy83/ODg5ZjdmNTNmNWRk/MjAyMzhjMzY0NDc1/MjQyNTgwOS0tZHVj/aHktbGl0aHVhbmlh/LmpwZw
The current kerfuffle goes back farther than you’ve cared to look so far.
Ted. Watched the movies. Nothing to see.
What’s your point? Your spokespersons keep harping on the virtues of the Russian bear, and how NATO has broken her promises — all the while excusing Putin for his brazen aggression and crimes against humanity in Ukraine. (Un)Fair enough. Just a small reminder — Ukraine would be a nuclear state today, but for NATO’s promise to protect her if she gave up her weapons. I suppose you would prefer that Zelenskyy nuked Moscow? That would certainly even up the disparity in the field, and give millions of Ukrainians some revenge against the people who have been destroying their country.
What really escapes me, is that you somehow think rewarding Putins’s aggression — in Azerbaijan, in Georgia, in Moldova and in Syria as well as Ukraine — will somehow help Israel.
Having seen your movies, I will say once more, what I have been saying all along: Russia CANNOT defeat NATO.
The film says that NATO is not prepared for a full-scale invasion of Russia, akin to Russia’s current offensive against Ukraine. I don’t know if anyone has noticed, but Russia has been fighting with many of its neighbors, and busily modernizing its armed forces, ever since Putin came to power. NATO (sans US) has not had to think seriously for 75 years about seriously fighting a war with Russia or anyone; it has basked in peace under the US umbrella. Russia had a head start, because it is and has been clearly bent on hegemonic imperialist enterprise. But if I were Putin, I would be quaking in my boots about the likes of Germany, Britain and France seriously mobilizing.
So much for your videos. Again, how does any of this bloodshed benefit Israel?
@Michael
You really should watch these three short videos, and the one by McGreggor.
Forgive me if I don’t respond to the Tuetan Knights metaphore, but I think that there is enough meat on the bone to talk directly about what we are actually talking about.
Ah, yes, they do, they really really do. Russia recently declared this as part of the newly named sovereign Russian territories, and recently as in just a few weeks back. As Sorvikin noted the surrender of that city was a difficult choice to make, but the choice was wisely made. But I would suggest that you should not be fooled into thinking that the loss by Russia of this historic Russian city in the newly declared Russian province was anything done lightly.
As to the Russians fighting for the Chinese, no I do not agree that this is true. Russia is fighting for Russia, her strategic position in Europe and the world, and now her economic survival. She is not strong enough to face off against the Atlantacists’ economic war on her own, and Putin was wise enough to seek a remedy to this inevitable challenge prior to responding to the multiple challenges and threats made against his country in the 12 months following Trump’s leaving the White House. Even before this, though, going back to the Obama era, and the Bush era before that, Russia was being squeezed by the US into China’s sphere of influence due to the obnoxiously belligerent moves by the US leadership. Trump was suppose to upset this long standing US policy, but due to the political environment created by the Uniparty claiming he was a Russian asset, Trump’s desires to draw Russia away from China was held in check, much to the regret of the US and Russia, and to the glee of China. Irrespective of all of this, though, Russia did not invade Ukraine to satisfy Xi’s interests but to secure his own interests. Having invaded Ukraine, however, he knew full well that he could rely upon Xi’s assistance to evade the economic consequences which were among the reasons which kept him from responding to the violations of the Bucharest Memorandum nearly a decade earlier in 2014.
@Ted
You make a strong argument, and in fact, I don’t disagree with most of what you say here, but the strategic withdrawal at Kershon and the Ukrainian captured territory upto Lyman in Kharkiv are, in my opinion, the direct result of Russia not having the men on hand to maintain the lands they conquered, even though they knew their numbers were dropping. In other words, Russia knew they needed to call up more troops months ago and failed to do so. The hard choices which Surovikin spoke of having to make, which included the withdrawal from Kherson just weeks after declaring it as sovereign Russian territory, were the byproduct of that delay, a delay which was made due to political choice rather than due to the additional troops not being needed. Having too few men to hold and secure Kherson, they made their strategic retreat and prepared the city as a trap for Ukraine, which the idiot Ukrainians were glad to jump into, but I do not believe that the Kherson retreat was done independent of the need for more troops on the ground than they had available.
I also do agree with you that this war is in no way in jeopardy of being lost by Russia. Indeed, I do not believe that Russia has made many mistakes in this war, but among the ones I would suggest she has made are the refusal to attack the Ukrainian infrastructure, particularly the rail lines (which are still largely intact) and the electrical grid, and the failure to maintain a force significant enough in size to hold what gains they had made. Just my own thoughts, of course, such as they are.
@Michael
Don’t bother me until you have watched these three videosw.
Ted and Peloni. Tell me if I’m mistaken, that this is just a continuation of a conflict that has been raging since the time of Alexander Nevsky and the Teutonic knights. Nevsky fought as a lackey of the Mongols, just as Putin is fighting as a lackey of the Chinese. Estonia, Poland, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Hungary, the Jews — these have been history’s hot potatoes. Does anyone really care about Kherson?
Ukraine Caught in Tough Spot in Kherson After Russia WithdrawaL
.
NATO Realizes it is Not Ready to Take On Russia | Europe
@Peloni
I see it differently. Yes, nobody likes to retreat but sometimes it is for the greater good.. Russia has always used retreat as a tactical weapon. She retreated before the Napoleon army and before Germany in both world wars. These retreats cost the aggressor dearly.. The enemy achieved a pyrrhic.
victory only. Ukraine is not retaking Kherson totally. It is also sending the remaining inhabitants elsewhere as it is too difficult to heat them and feed them.. Meanwhile, Russia is consolidating its hold on the Donbas. When Russia is ready she will easily roll over the depleted Ukrainian forces. She is already using artillery to decimate the Ukrainian forces in Kherson. I read that the Ukrainian Army suffered over 5 times the number of casualties that Russia suffered in their fall offensive.
The simple truth is that Russia withdrew her forces from Kherson in consideration of limiting the death and injuries to their own soldiers rather than holding onto positions which were placed under imminent possibility of being overrun or cutoff. What this statement ignores however, is the limited manner in which Russia has seen to the properly defend the lands which they captured and have even named as being Russian territory. The call up of the reserves should have been made many months earlier, and the establishment of defensive fortifications in the areas which Ukraine has now seized should have been made well in advance of the Ukrainian offensive. No plan survives contact with the enemy, of course, but it was well publicized that Ukraine was going to make a hard push in the fall, so none of this could easily have been a surprise to Russia. Also, the evacuation of Kherson was particularly painful given that it was among the earliest gains Russia claimed in the war, and was necessary for the presumed inevitable push towards Odessa.
Why were these steps not made in a timely manner? Well, for the same reason why Ukraine refused to evacuate its forward forces in Marioupol, ie the motivation was not due to military needs but to political concerns and tabloid defeats. So, while the evacuation of Kherson was executed to preserve the vital airborne division which was capably defending it, the evacuation was only made necessary due to Putin’s mis-step in not calling up his reserves when he new the forces on the battlefield were diminishing due to expiring contracts and casualties, irregardless of which of these was more pressing.
It is particularly difficult to accept a defeat due to unavoidably changing military considerations on the battlefield, but it is far more difficult to accept a defeat due to the circumstances which only political concerns made inevitable. And in any realistic calculation, the withdrawal from Kherson was a particularly painful Russian defeat, irregardless of the wisdom which made it necessary due to the failure of timely preparations. Whatever number of men are lost while retaking this city will have been lost due to political gambits gone awry.