The news so far on the drone downing
An MQ-9 reconnaissance drone on a routine mission of the international waters of the Black Sea was intercepted by a pair of Russian Su-27 fighters based in occupied Crimea around 7 a.m. CET, or 2 p.m. Eastern.
During the interception, the two fighters dumped fuel in front of the MQ-9. Then one of the fighters collided with the propeller of the MQ-9. As a result, the MQ-0 was total loss; the Russian fighter had to make an emergency landing.
There’s a great deal of brouhaha being written about this. I’m reserving judgment. But in the meantime – was this a “routine” mission? Perhaps. Was it over “international waters”? Maybe. I neither accept the official word at the outset nor reject it.
That’s part of the problem with all the lies that have been told on other subjects in recent years. We’ve learned not to uncritically swallow the government line – or maybe we learned that a long time ago. But the danger is to routinely reject it.
I also think – although I could certainly be wrong – that nothing all that much will come of this, except some bluster on both sides.
As it is nearly certain that the destruction of Nord Stream was an operation by our Deep State (perhaps with Polish and Ukrainian co-operation, and certainly with the help of the Brits, the Norwegians, the Swedes, and the Danes), and, since the coverage of the war in our MSM consists almost entirely of war-mongering propaganda, one should remain agnostic on the question of this incident. Anyone interested in rational questions concerning the insanity of our policy in Ukraine (more than one hundred billion squandered, with no end in sight and no-one working towards a negotiated settlement) should read Jared Peterson’s “The U.S.’s March of Folly” (posted at AmericanThinker four days ago), as well as consulting the results from potential candidates for 2024 to Tucker’s six questions about the war (article posted today at DailyWire).
j e:
That is not “nearly certain” at all. Plenty of people share your opinion, and plenty disagree. I am in the latter group. These questions have been fully aired many times here and I’m not going to get into it again at the moment.
je:
As neo pointed out, nearly certain may not mean what you claim it to be; as in not at all close, and not at all true. But you be you.
It is interesting that this escalation by Russia happened just after Xi’s visit up Moscow (?). Proxies and moxies indeed.
One of the reasons to use unmanned aircraft; Russia like China “is asshole.” The USSR had a long history of shooting down manned US reconnisssance aircraft. The CCP forced a manned reconnaisance aircraft in 2000.
Russia and China “is asshole.”
the direction and end point of the drone, is in dispute, some have it closer to the Romanian border, some have it farther east near krasnodar, the logic of either location seems implausible,
the leak in the times, which appears to be a modified hangout, raises more questions then answers, of course china is the big winner in this exercise, and we are the big loser,
Reaper fact sheet, per USAF: https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104470/mq-9-reaper/
The vague news story tells naught of the craft’s loadout. Hereafter it may be merely prudent to equip Aim-9s along with a warning “this craft will defend itself”. Don’t expect anything of the kind, however.
Many yrs ago, 1970, while i was in the Navy I took a photo (that was a no no) of a wingtip on an F-4 Phantom. It was damaged, by the F-4 getting very very close to a Russian Bear bomber over the Med. Sea. International waters.
A little strange in that the propeller is on the tail.
https://media.defense.gov/2020/Feb/07/2002245915/-1/-1/0/200114-F-HP405-9947.JPG
There were multiple fighters and who knows what type of maneuvers. Maybe the fuel dumping didn’t do the trick and they intentionally impacted the prop to disable it. Or tried to flip the drone and accidentally hit the prop.
Miguel:
Your of course is just as valid as “j.e.’s” nearly certain.
As you will, as you are.
Tommy Jay:
That is the way it is designed, those are call pusher prop configurations. Kind of handy if you have sensor systems in the nose of the airplane. Not strange at all. The much larger Global Hawk unmanned drone uses a turbofan engine; thrust goes out the tail.
Both can be armed, Roosia, or overwatch could be provided.
Fuel dump to blind the optics, brute force measures to down the drone (speculation). Ham handed Russians. Assumption hostile intent in the future.
ot, a bit of a flashback to top gun, where the air group leader is briefing the new cadet class, on a mig carrying exocet missiles, in the indian ocean, that line slipped by me, I assume they were near diego garcia
om –
The Chinese are still to this day harassing the aircraft of other nations. Video blog The China Show had a segment a few months ago about Chinese fighters buzzing RCAF surveillance aircraft carrying out duties near North Korea (so not even directed at the Chinese). That’s more or less what happened in the collision between a PLAAF fighter and the USAF aircraft back in 2001.
yes, nothing much came of that confrontation
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-gathering-storm/
Miguel:
The title says it all, some just don’t get it.
You be you.
Miguel:
A CCP pilot died. The US plane was forced down. The plane was appearently thoroughly torn apart and gone over. The US personnel were eventually freed and IIRC the plane was recovered (in pieces).
Are you going to apologize to the CCP for that unfortunate incident?
Russia and China is asshole.
I must say, at least this Ukraine/Russia war is historically enlightening. It can be hard to look back at history and understand how people make obvious mistakes or blindly walk into obvious disasters because you tend to evaluate everything from the viewpoint of the future, not the era where it happened.
Reading some of the commenters around here make it a lot easier to understand how America sleepwalked into the Vietnam War.
Mike
its a spark that could become a brushfire, but at this point i don’t see much of concern,, I don’t quite see the objective either,
China would take this exercise, as a sign to wage war on us, through biological means, wuhan, as General Chi Haotian, has commended through chemical means fentanyl, through ideological means through tiktok, through other exploitation techniques through huawei and xte, but apple and the nba and microsoft are still in full grovel
“Russia and China is asshole.”
And? om’s fetish for childishly stupid phraseology kind of makes it hard to have anything like an intelligent discussion.
Mike
Since the outset of the Russo-Ukrainian War U.S. drone missions have routinely flown over the center of the Black Sea.
How do I know this? Twice, sometimes thrice daily I visit the Flight Tracker website on which commercial, private (general aviation), and some military flights – including U.S. drone missions over the center of the Black Sea – are displayed along with their tracks. Those drone missions are launched from a U.S. (or NATO) airbase on Sicily to which the drones return.
There is no reason to doubt that the drone was in international airspace as on the Flight Tracker website I’ve never seen a U.S. drone track in anything other than international airspace over the center of the Black Sea.
Also on Flight Tracker I’ve followed U.S. Navy P-8 antisubmarine planes whose tracks stay in the westernmost reach of the Black Sea in Romanian airspace.
MBunge:
That isn’t om’s phraseology and it isn’t “childishly stupid.”. It’s a famous utterance from one of the 2019 Hong Kong protesters.
MBunge:
And America didn’t “sleepwalk” into the Vietnam War. It had certain objectives with which you might or might not agree. Read Sorley and Moyar on the subject.
As America’s involvement in terms of American troops escalated, the military and LBJ were operating under certain premises about how to prevail that were a failure – not necessarily in the military sense but in the propaganda and ultimately the political sense. There’s much more to say about what happened as time went on – and I’ve written tons about it on this blog.
You don’t appear to understand much of anything about what happened back then, actually, if you say America “sleepwalked” into it.
neo:
Thanks for the link to the historical context of “China is asshole.” Nowadays Russia is the lesser of the two global antagonists. Saved me the trouble of informing Bunge.
Bunge, so you know about the old timey days of the 60’s and Indochina, and not just Iraq? I am surprised, and skeptical.
Some people, and then there is Bunge.
MBunge
Look up White Star and Vietnam.
we chose all the wrong exits, because of relying on viet minh agents, who informed halberstam and sheehan who influenced kennedy, now the cake in vietnam was baked in 20 years earlier, with the oss detachment out of kunming that aided ho chi minh, but the way this developed was the twist, about 20 years later, the uk and the uk made similar preferential errors in supplying hekmatyar and other militants, over massouds men, the denoument there was on september 9th, 2001 we can add the other shortcuts in the balkans,
China is the main enemy, yet the powers that be, are doing everything to lead us to grievous capitulation, over taiwan, which is all the marbles, in addition to our surrender to al queda, over afghanistan, brought to you by the same parties that are running this great game played with checkers,
No, I only meant that the fighter didn’t run into the prop while dumping fuel in front of it. Unless the drone flew past the fighter at that operation and the prop got clipped.
re vietnam, china and the ussr waged proxy war on us, through the vietminh’s supply lines out of laos, and yet we rarely reciprocated, the mining of haiphong harbor, late in the last quarter was an exception,
Neo, agree with OP. That’s where I am with this. Well with one added thing I got from Lawrence Person, which it is dumb for Russia to risk a SU-27 for a downed MQ-9 Reaper. One is much more expensive than the other. And reports seem to agree the takedown was caused by a collision.
sdferr, I don’t think the MQ-9 is capable of an air-to-air mission. Your linked fact sheet doesn’t mention AIM-9 support.
I don’t know Leland, but seems to me there’s no barrier in principle and possibly in fact: https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/09/24/us-air-force-fires-aim-9x-from-mq-9-reaper-drone/
Bunge:
You might learn something, from this short YouTube video.
MQ-9 Reaper vs Su-27 Midair Collision – Military Aviation History
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxV7sFwPWo0
Ham handed Russian pilots, probably. Russia and China is asshole.
1. The drone may have been (was certainly capable of) participating in active battlefield recon for (fill in blank) thus a valid wartime target, regardless of ‘location’.
2. I still have my ‘Gulf of Tonkin Yacht Club’ patch. Don’t really need another similar.
3. Will Congress ever say ‘yay or nay’ on WW3 and start drafting children aka cannon fodder?
A quick on-line search turned up an article mentioning a successful test that involved a Reaper shooting down a target drone with a Sidewinder. That was in 2020.
There’s also been a focus on Reapers and Stingers. An MQ-1 Reaper apparently fired a Stinger at an Iraqi MiG-25 in 2002, but missed (the MiG, on the other hand, did not). And there’s been recent testing of the Air to Air Stinger system with the MQ-9 Reaper.
From the sound of things, the Reaper could carry either Stingers or Sidewinders. But it doesn’t sound like that’s one of the standard weapons packages. Given that Reapers are generally used for recon or ground strikes, that makes sense.
There are apparently three types of surveillance missions over the Black Sea (i.e., Crimea). One is a manned USN P-8 (maritime 737) that sticks to eastern sea south of Odesa. Two is an unmanned Global Hawk, a large jet powered spycraft that is generally unarmed, but cruises at 50,000 ft plus for 24 hours plus over the south-central Black Sea. Three is the Reaper that got clobbered today, which is smaller and slower than the other two.
The first two above show up frequently on FlightRadar24 as they use high-altitude airspace which requires ADS-B transponders. The P-8 often has no call sign, but the Global Hawk often has a call sign starting with “FORTE”.
cb:
You mean active battlefield recon over say, Snake Island? That action ended more than 6 months ago. Or is it Crimea you are concerned about?
Most of the heaviest fighting going on now in the Russo-Ukrainian war isn’t near the Black Sea.
Any part of international airspace that you understand (regardless of location, LOL)?
Wagner got its cannon fodder from Russian jails.
Kind of old to be thinking about going to sea (cough).
With this kind of one-for-one, we can do this all day until the Russians run out of high-performance fighters. An mergency landing usually involves repairs requiring backing up the Brink truck.
With trepidation, one presumes the Russians know this.
Keep in mind the publicly noted cost of shooting down a balloon. Even a air to air missile is a substantial fraction of the cost of the drone.
Hey! Since the fuel dump didn’t work, how about a short gun burst? Cheap, right?
Okay, the Russians were ordered to…not shoot anything. Leaving fuel ,and a collision.
Used to be, in WW II, first line Brit fighters would slide up next to a buzz bomb, V1, get a wingtip under the German craft and lift it up, destroying its in-flight stability. Dumped, hopefully, someplace other than Downton Abbey. Didn’t want to shoot the thing on account of a warhead of nearly a ton of amatol.
So maybe the Russians were trying that and biffed it. Cost more than expected.
So, next, what will they do to get the job done without taking a first-line fighter out of service or out of inventory?
“Neo, agree with OP. That’s where I am with this. Well with one added thing I got from Lawrence Person, which it is dumb for Russia to risk a SU-27 for a downed MQ-9 Reaper. One is much more expensive than the other. And reports seem to agree the takedown was caused by a collision.
sdferr, I don’t think the MQ-9 is capable of an air-to-air mission. Your linked fact sheet doesn’t mention AIM-9 support.”
1) A collision by accident still means the Flanker got way too close to the Reaper, way closer than any aircraft should ever come to any other flying object when not deliberately flying in formation. Close enough in fact to be able to dump fuel into its engine intake in an attempt to cause a fire…
2) indeed, the MQ-9 is not AA capable. I doubt it could be made AA capable without adding quite a bit of equipment. Could it be done? maybe. Would it be worth the loss in range from the increase in mass? probably not.
@MBunge
I must say, at least this Ukraine/Russia war is historically enlightening.
For once, Mike, we agree. Though I suspect for very different reasons.
Reading your dishonest, hypocritical prattle it is easier to understand how the US lost the peace in the Vietnam War. And as Neo pointed out, the US didn’t “sleepwalk” into Vietnam. It had been active for almost a quarter century in the region before sending in combat troops, and it had a very clear idea of what it wanted to accomplish at almost every stage of the conflict (albeit sometimes very contradictorily), but not how to achieve such outcomes.
But as I’ve come to conclude after reading and analyzing your writing, you have essentially zero interest in historical reality beyond the extent to which you perceive it can be used as a cudgel to smear, demonize, and insult your opponents. Which is why you are so quick to assume those that take different lessons from history than you do are doing so merely for emotional grandstanding or for other insincere reasons.
You wish to assume we are on the same level you are.
And? om’s fetish for childishly stupid phraseology kind of makes it hard to have anything like an intelligent discussion.
Oh, NOW Mike Bunge is concerned about having an INTELLIGENT CONVERSATION is he?!?
Quick show of hands: who’s convinced?
Well, not me.
Because some of us weren’t born yesterday, and were around to see you smear, lie, evade, and wheedle. All of which makes reasoned and logical discussion Impossible with you, especially on this subject. And I increasingly think that such behavior is calculated to make intelligent discussion impossible, for reasons I have covered here.
https://www.thenewneo.com/2023/02/23/one-answer-to-the-question-of-whether-the-ukraine-war-is-a-quagmire/#comment-2668414
https://www.thenewneo.com/2023/03/04/open-thread-3-4-23/#comment-2670631
For all of my many, many, MANY misgivings about om and how he approaches things – especially on the subject – om is at least consistent and a known quantity. You know what you get with them. So you can take or ignore om as is needed.
You on the other hand? You want to play Schrodinger’s Asshole. You apparently have no greater agenda on this issue than to screw with attempts to actually discuss this matter and to preen about your imaginary superiority to all comers.
Other people write slogans or catchphrases? You say that’s “Childish” and “Simplistic.”
But other people provide in-depth historical analysis? You engage in dishonest, bad-faith strawmanning, first that “Not every bad guy is Hitler” (a fact I agreed with) and when that doesn’t work (because some of us remember the 1930s beyond the adventures of Le Austrian Painter) you impugn their intent and claim that it is being done out of “self-righteous emotionalism.”
….. which is a form of logical fallacy by trying to invalidate an argument by attacking its (supposed, fictional) reasons WHY it was presented when such things are completely Goddamn Irrelevant to the factual merits of such an analogy.
People ignore recent history to focus on the more modern history? You generally ignore that or find other ways to discount it, even if it contradicts what you have argued before.
When people provide reasoned sources from grassroots analysts (in format and substance not that different from our host) you loudly ask why people are using a Youtube Guy or the like rather than the MSM (that you know is corrupt and unreliable and so do we). In between completely unconvincing and thoroughly insincere claims that you never badmouthed Youtube Guy or whoever the source is and you’re “salty” people take you (correctly) as doing so by obvious strategem.
But when people do cite “mainstream” sources you largely criticize them for doing so. And god forbid you ever acknowledge attempts to triangulate the truth by preponderance of sources, both independence grassroots and mainstream.
You shotgun out often poorly-vetted and poorly-researched analogies (like the “Cuban Missile Crisis in Ukraine” analogy) and sources (like the one I tore apart for positioning a stupidly, counterfactually rosy picture of the wartime Russian economy because of things like consumer goods still being available in MOSCOW the Imperial Capital) with the obvious expectation we take them seriously.
And when some of us DO take them seriously inasmuch as we give them due consideration, which often involves caustically criticizing their shortfalls, you try to play the victim and say that you NEVER said the things you were very obviously saying-by-way-of-proxy and that anybody who says otherwise is strawmanning you.
In short, for all of your lip service to saying you want consideration and an intelligent discussion, scrutinizing your words and actions shows that there is no way for people to engage with you in a way you deem worthy of respectful, intelligent engagement… If they disagree with you on this issue. Which means you repudiate the very essence of intelligent discussion and reasoned disagreement. Ironically while accusing others (including myself) of being driven by emotional posturing while you quite literally make it the basis of your entire stance.
You are intellectually cowardly, dishonest, rude, and a titan of the bad faith argument. And dealing with your balderdash makes me regret that I am spending time outlining this when I still have not responded to the latest comments on this subject from Brian E and a few others.
It’s painfully obvious to those of us who have followed your comments on this subject for a while that you don’t have anything like a consistent set of principles on this, Mike. So do us all a favor and either grow up, or at least stop pretending to be the victim.
I know I’m sick of it. I can only imagine the act grows thin for others too, likely including our host. Who has had to call you out not a few times for this nonsense.
Right. With one false start and an odd notice out of the way, to the subject at hand….
I’ll be honest. this terrifies me. Not the least of which because when the news first came to me it was in the form of a very scarequote/clickbaity headline about things “going kinetic” between the USAF and the VVS. Which I now realize was calculated to be alarmist enough to draw in clicks and views without *literally* being false, even if it is misleading.
I’ve made my stance on Ukraine quite clear. I support its defense, but not to the extent of getting into an open war, especially with our domestic political scene in shambles or worse, and with political prisoners still suffering from January 6th, to say nothing of the fraud that helped lead to Jan 6th. And this stuff fears me, in large part because the mixed messages make it oh so very easy for whoever cares to to push a narrative. One that could push things into the edge.
Especially if the drone was shot down or knowingly crashed by collision. Because that would invite some kind of retaliation, and likely kinetic in nature. Which could be a quick offramp to a wider war. And I fear more from the likes of Brandon’s handlers and puppetmasters than form Putin (though not enough pushback might embolden him or some of the even-more-hawkish Russian leaders to keep trying their luck).
My napkin notes gut feeling response? Commit to gifting at least two Predator Drones to Ukraine, and send two more into theater with the USAF to replace it. That way deterrence is maintained and retaliation is exacted without actually risking things going kinetic.
I do not claim to be a genius or expert, so only time will tell what will happen.
Turtler:
If I was totally cynical I would expect the claim to be made soon that the CIA/Davos/NATO/WEF downed the MQ-9 drone.
@j e
Like Neo said, that’s far from “nearly certain.” Though I do increasingly wonder it. I am very certain that Sy Hersh was lying and probably trying to run a pro-Biden political op with his “story”, but the Swedes have remained very tight-lipped on the issue, and I feel that if they could pin this on the Kremlin or even a non-government actor they likely would be more talkative. But even that is just my gut feeling and might not be true.
Not if one has been studying more carefully, especially with known USAF flights over the Black Sea.
Well, I did.
And I can safely say Jared Peterson’s not merely wrong, but a dishonest scumbag.
Harsh words? Yes. But let me try to justify them.
Agreed.
Uh what?
Maybe if someone is reading the tea leaves far better than most people, including not just myself but ALSO Peterson (who as we’ll see is using really, really godawful sources). But that isn’t a very clear picture, especially given the Russian loss of Kherson, mounting casualties, and failure to obtain a decisive breakthrough of the Greater Bakhmut Line.
Nor should this be in the least bit surprising, since the norm for this war since 2014 has been grinding attrition, and often to Russia’s detriment. A quick gander at the progress of fighting and territory held from 2014-2021 shows that.
Not really, especially since Russian casualties would be very similar proportionally (probably somewhat higher but from a fairly larger base).
Ok, this is very important for two reasons.
Firstly: It is unalloyed bullshit. Not even the Russian MOD or many “Pro-Russian Cheerleaders” (as Perun pointed out) are claiming this number, and it is well in excess of all Ukrainian deaths since the war began back in 2014.
This handily destroys Peterson’s credibility as an honest or competent analyst “just asking questions” or “just trying to find the truth.”
Secondly: It tips Peterson’s hand by showing who and what he IS using as “sources” or “evidence.”
And it is not at all good.
Pretty much the only “source” for this from ANYBODY (Including again, many other Pro-Russian Propagandists, including rather nasty cases like MacGregor, who for all of their flaws and dishonesty have been wise enough to not touch on this) is one Scott Ritter.
https://mythdetector.ge/en/the-document-allegedly-depicting-the-losses-of-ukraine-is-fabricated/
Who is a…. Nasty piece of Work, to put it lightly.
Here’s Daniel Greenfield covering his case more than a decade ago, and it gives you some idea of the merit of the man.
https://www.danielgreenfield.org/2007/04/pathetic-disgusting-saga-of-scott.html
Of particular is the fact that he’s not just now a twice-convicted podophilic sex offender and often outright paid to act as a “commentator” by Russian government outlets, but also has outright admitted in his own words to covering up Baathist regime abuses in Iraq (including at a children’s prison we now know was used as a “playground” for similarly-inclined officials in Saddam’s regime like Uday Hussein) in the name of “peace.” Oh, and he’s also married to a Russian national that was his government-supplied translator (which if you know how the “Chekists” do things should be immediately running red flags).
In short, this guy both incredibly stupid and dishonest, but also toxic on a level very few people can touch. He has outright admitted he will lie on behalf of totalitarian dictatorships guilty of incredibly heinous, evil shit against the most innocent and vulnerable of people in order to push his agenda, and he is probably a perpetrator of that. As well as likely being compromised by Russian security services in his own right.
But even if you can completely ignore all of that – the culpability in child sex abuse, the lies, the dishonesty, the shilling for totalitarians – to try and take his “analysis” at face value… you get analysis that is mostly bullshit and has been proven to be so. And which is routinely among the most deluded and out there in the field, being more radical than not just the Russian government but also other pro-Kremlin interest groups like Wagner or commentators like Rybar.
It’s a bad, BAD day when I have to unironically prefer the scumbag known as Vindiman to someone, but Ritter is so Godawful I unironically have to, if for no other reason than because he at least hasn’t ADMITTED He will cover up podophilic rape by a totalitarian dictatorship in the name of “Peace.”
THIS is who Peterson is getting his analysis from.
That should speak volumes about Peterson himself, and in particular about incompetence and poor parsing of the sources.
Sadly true, but also Russia is too.
REALLY?!!?
And here I thought it might have Something, MAYBE, to do with the desire to repulse a violent invasion of their country and avoid its (further) partition and loss of independence!
This is about as stupid as alleging Chinese Nationalists and Communists fighting against the Japanese and to a lesser extent the Soviets in the 1930s and 1940s were doing it “all to prop up a declining British planetary hegemony.”
Ok, this is a decent line, odd “tyro” use nonwithstanding.
This is stupid and dishonest on multiple levels.
Firstly: absolutely nobody has been doing more to “deliberately lengthen” this war than Vladimir Putin and the Russian dictatorship, who decided to initiate this war years ago and who have steadily rejected compromise of any kind. This in spite of – again- Zelenskyy was one of the more avowed DOVES in Ukrainian Politics and outright broached the all-but-previously-unbroachable topic of territorial concessions in the Donbas to Russia in exchange for a lasting peace, so long as it was done on the basis of free and open plebiscites monitored internationally. Which as I covered before was something Putin rejected for various reasons, starting with I think the fact that he and the wider state bureaucracy he claims to represent are not really interested in having this come to a definitive end but instead prefer a frozen conflict that will leave Ukraine in a violent, unstable limbo ala Georgia and Moldova.
The Russian government could end this war tomorrow by withdrawing from Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders. Period. Full Stop. It could likely even get some territorial concessions by agreeing to Zelenskyy’s formula. That it has not is on the hands of the Kremlin’s powerbrokers, and Peterson is dishonest to imply otherwise.
Secondly: Far be it for me to loudly endorse what passes for Western leadership, especially the goons squatting in DC, but you wanna know who else fits the description of “vicious, confused, criminally reckless tyros”?
I’d say people who think Novichok is a suitable tool for supposedly discreet wetwork, and who decided to launch and then escalate a major war in one of the planet’s big breadbaskets.
Thirdly: Far be it for me to claim that Foggy Bottom and the White House sit up at night dreading the lives of Ukrainians, but “indifference” is a HELL of a lot better an attitude than active, violent malice, which is what Putin has shown to them ever since he prodded Yanukovych to order the army to massacre everybody on the street after curfew (at least), and how he has widened his targeting to be of Ukrainian water infrastructure (something that is RARELY done in modern war precisely BECAUSE it is of marginal military value – and then usually to whoever controls it – but destroying it would be a humanitarian disaster).
Is it any question why Ukrainians on the whole – even those who previously voted Yanukovych into power- are none too keen on the Russian Bear’s loving embrace?
Firstly: This is aggressively stupid, because do you know what Ukraine WAS in 2014?
That’s right. Neutral and non-NATO. With no prospects of changing that any time soon and little desire, even after Euromaidan. It was Putin’s invasion and partition of Ukrainian territory in that that began to push it.
Secondly: Rule of Thumb, it’s a bad indicator when someone is pushing KISSINGER as having a good idea.
Right, in case there was absolutely any doubt that this article was disgusting, dishonest Kremlin propaganda even after it became clear this scumbag was using Scott Ritter as his best and brightest source, that can be safely dismissed.
“Eight-year, US-sponsored war on the Donbas Russian speakers and Russian ethnics”?
This is a load of shit on multiple levels, starting with what ISN’T mentioned.
Crimea.
This war started with the violent (if low casualty) takeover of Crimea by what is now universally acknowledged to be Russian Federation Spetznaz operating in plainclothes, after which they declared its annexation to Russia by means of a thoroughly rigged plebiscite.
This was followed up days later by similar attacks (albeit of much greater violence) in the Donbas, mostly by deniable Russian assets (including many known “Dogs of War” with known ties to Moscow such as Girkin/”Strelkov”) with some local supporters.
By whitewashing this reality out, Peterson is peddling outright lies. Starting with the fact that Ukraine could not simply stop fighting and accept the partition of its territory lightly.
Secondly: The “war on the Donbas Russian speakers and Russian ethnics” is PARTICULARLY repulsive blood libel in a war where Kharkhiv is one of the great Eastern bastions of the Ukrainian Loyalists and even the local, resident violent Neo-Fascists have been open and active in recruiting ethnic Russian Russophones (which is indeed one reason why – along with their toxic ideology and its value as propaganda – they’ve had such an outsized presence for a unit of their size; they can use infiltration tactics and screw with the enemy’s line because THEY SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE AND LOOK THE SAME).
There is no war on “Russian ethnics and Russian speakers” in the Donbas. Indeed, to the extent there IS a war on ethnicity and language, it’s against Ukrainians as the Russian occupation regimes have worked to minimize the presence of both.
https://newlinesinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/English-Report.pdf
Thirdly: This ignores the fact that the Kremlin violated Minsk I and Minsk II on a large level, and many of the “Russian speakers and ethnics” the Ukrainian government was fighting against were not local separatists but reflagged Russian Federation troops.
https://kyivindependent.com/national/russian-court-openly-documents-moscows-military-presence-in-donbas
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/11/13/136-brigade-in-donbass/
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2016/07/04/russias-200th-motorized-infantry-brigade-donbass-tell-tale-tanks/
In short, Peterson is engaged in blood libel of a particularly evil kind, and he’s doing so very, very stupidly.
This is stupid on multiple levels, especially when you realize how far back Ukrainian ties to the US and others go.
https://www.army.mil/article/15056/ukrainians_complete_mission_in_iraq
In short: There was military exchange between the US and Ukraine for more than a decade, continuing right through pro-Russian governments such as the Yanukovych regime without significant complaint from the Kremlin.
Also, “weapon system” can mean literally anything from a nuclear bomb to a humble Colt 1911 family. Meaning it was never practical or likely that there would ever be a case where there would be “no US weapon systems within Ukraine.”
And while I do regard Peterson as a colossal idiot for reasons I hope are already fairly evident, I don’t think he’s actually stupid enough to not realize THAT. But this also serves as a convenient, reasonable-SOUNDING excuse to the lay person who doesn’t think a pistol is a “Weapon system” and doesn’t know that much about the war to make Putin’s regime look aggrieved.
I reject this for the obvious reasons.
In any case, Ukraine WAS Neutral and had as few US Weapons Systems as practical in 2014, when it was invaded by the Kremlin.
Again, this is a load of crap for the reasons I mentioned.
Ok Peterson. HOW did “the US Military Industrial Complex” “get” this particular war?
The MIC use its mind control waves to prod Putin into invading? Three times over?
Yeah, this kind of nonsense is never convincing.
Well, if Russia’s government wants to avoid bloody, weakening quagmires MAYBE IT SHOULDN’T INVADE NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES ON FALSE PRETEXTS!
Or at a MINIMUM, upon doing so, cash out its chips and settle for a suitably chaotic frozen conflict ala Georgia, as was possible had Putin kept to Minsk.
But he didn’t and we know how this ended up.
And again, this is where Peterson shows his hand again by showing he’s a Kremlin shill. Who is ironically engaging in Glorious Russian World fantasies.
I can name more than two countries that can say no to America off the top of my head, and without trying very hard. Please correct me if any of these seem “wrong.”
But my VERY non-exhaustive, casually compiled list…
1. Russia.
2. The PRC.
3. Iran.
4. Saudi Arabia.
5. Castro’s Cuba.
6. Germany (seriously, how much of a meme has Germany snubbing the US bee?).
7. Indonesia.
8. Pakistan (because literally sheltering Bin Laden is apparently not enough to get Peterson’s notice?).
I could go on. Oh God, I COULD GO ON. But I think this list suffices to reveal Peterson is not actually engaging in anything that could be easily mistaken for sober analysis (even if informed by biases), but is simply peddling dishonest propaganda.
Protip Peterson: unnecessary intensifiers often reveal intentional deception or insecurity in what one is writing. Not always of course, but it is curious that Peterson’s entire stance on this war is that there is NO ambiguity, there is no shared responsibility, the US is “totally” responsible for “provoking” the war started by Putin invading Ukraine multiple times over.
Riiiiiiiiiigggghht.
As one of America’s neocons with wet dreams, I can confirm it may be much different than those I have. But probably not for the reasons Peterson claims, considering how his main source of evidence seems to be a deranged pedophile who is kept at arm’s length even by most pro-Kremlin sources.
Surviving? Yes. Unsurprising since in contrast to bullshit Castro and North Korea propaganda the US rarely sanctions in the hopes of destroying a country or its people. Especially now.
Quite comfortably? Hell no.
As shown by the Russian government’s own estimates that the economy will continue to contract in this year in spite of very costly course correction attempts.
Uh no, almost everybody the Kremlin is selling natural gas to is an existing customer. And they’re generally demanding better deals that involve Russia selling at steeper discounts, ie making Russia take in less profit.
And even that doesn’t compensate for ALL the downturn, because you can’t exactly turn Natural Gas infrastructure over on a dime, so most of the stuff that was flowing to Europe is now stagnant.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/impact-sanctions-russian-economy/
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russian-oil-sold-india-below-price-cap-buyers-market-2022-12-14/
https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/economics/article/3210640/india-china-enjoy-discount-russian-oil-eu-tightens-price-cap
All of that is making Russia tighten its belt.
It doesn’t REMAIN strong, it is strong because of massive Russian government intervention to stop its fall. Which arguably went too far, because now the Ruble is overvalued and the Kremlin is having its economists try to devalue it because they course corrected too hard that a too-strong Ruble is actively damaging the Russian economy.
https://marketmonetarist.com/2022/04/03/the-ruble-has-appreciated-exactly-because-the-sanctions-work/
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/russias-first-deputy-pm-says-rouble-is-overvalued-sees-inflation-easing-tass-2022-06-15/
This is more or less true from what i can tell.
No, they’re not. Especially since this was a very mild Winter and the Europeans took steps to cushion the impact.
Thanks Brandon.
AH yes, the fantasy of BRICS-as-an-Alliance-or-coherent-power-bloc (please ignore how China and India are bending Russia over a barrel in terms of conditions for continuing the trade as well as the vast gulfs in).
The problem is – like I mentioned before – there’s incredibly little appetite for these alternate methods. Not that Peterson is terribly interested in the truth (as we’ve seen before, when he is trying to claim a Ukrainian government headed up by a Russian-speaking Jew is waging a war on the Russian language), but it also shows where he is cribbing his “information” from.
People, anybody here think Russia’s government does not “in fact feel threatened by the US MIC”? Considering how the recent chapter of this war was waged on the pretext of preventing NATO expansion and how overheated and apocalyptic discussions of the US and NATO are among the Kremlin and others?
Moreover, if the US MIC in fact DID have a 30 year pattern of “gratuitously aggressive behavior” why WOULDN’T you feel threatened?
Ah, but that would require Peterson have a shred of INTEGRITY or at least COHERENCE. But he doesn’t, he’s writing what he thinks will get the emotional reaction.
I’ve already beaten the shit out of this talking point many, many times before. I am debating whether I will do so again.
However,
Firstly: NATO expansion was not imperial conquest. It consisted of voluntary adherence by independent nations and their governments to NATO.
Secondly: While I think it is all but certain that many Western leaders did promise to prevent NATO expansion or at least said they would do what they could (Baker and HW Bush in particular), they ALSO recognized that such promises were 1. Contingent upon themselves if not secured by treaty, and 2. Could only be made AFTER consultation with other players, including the nations themselves.
And UNSURPRISINGLY after the Soviet Coup attempt in 1991, the outbreak of wars in Moldova, Georgia, North Ossetia, Chechnya, and Nagorno-Karabach (to cite just a few places in Soviet Space) and the tremors of the Yugoslav Wars, A WHOLE LOT of those countries were inclined to join NATO, much to the consternation of many of the leaders in the “Old Guard” of NATO members.
(Ironically, Ukraine was one of the relatively few nations in the USSR’s Western Frontier that opted to NOT go this path in favor of genuine neutrality. Which also underlines one of the problems with how the Kremlin has managed its neighborly relations.)
But in any case, this is all mostly a matter of academic discussion, because
3: The UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Accord, and the Astana Declaration all make it CRYSTAL CLEAR that every nation has the right to choose its own security and alliance arrangements, including none at all. This explicitly includes Ukraine and was adhered to by both Ukraine and Russia.
So Ukraine had every legal right to join NATO if it wished, Period. Full Stop. As did the nations that actually joined. Because that is the same right that allows it the ability to join the CSTO and others.
Ah yes, THIS bullshit.
This is stupid for multiple reasons.
A: As I mentioned before, CUBA IN THE 1960S IS NOT AN ARGUMENT THE KREMLIN APOLOGISTS WANT TO MAKE BECAUSE that “conversion” happened and stuck. Cuba remains a nominally Marxist-Leninist, Left Wing, Anti-American totalitarian hell put whose government wants to engage in terrorism and export its dysfunction abroad (with unfortunately large success as Venezuela and Nicaragua show).
It also remains the only regime on earth whose government openly tried to cause a nuclear WW3 by trying to grift its Soviet patrons.
B: As mentioned above, Ukraine and Georgia had every right to accept or decline admission into NATO or any other alliance. Meaning that calling this “aggressive” is stupid and dishonest.
C: A little context. Russian forces and proxies had been fighting with Georgian ones since 1992 at the latest, and even engaged in wholesale ethnic cleansing.
Of course, acknowledging this would mean acknowledging WHY Georgia in particular might seek NATO membership, which this lying scumbag doesn’t want to touch. In large part because it does not paint the Kremlin in a positive light.
And this article has literally no purpose BUT to try and polish the turd in Moscow.
Another topic that’s been debated to hell and back about, most notably by Brian E and myself. But to try and summarize it in a fairly objective fashion:
Protests against Yanukovych violating one of his election promises re: trade with the EU turned massive (Well beyond what was normal in Ukraine’s pre-2014 history), spooking Yanukovych. Things then got violent (whether or not because Yanukovych resorted to increasingly erm… “Legally Sketchy” expediencies, or if that just happened around the same time). This eventually led Yanukovych to calling upon A: Putin, B: Riot Police, and C: The Military for support (the last of whom called him out), and ultimately to a conflict between Yanukovych and an opposition including much of the equally-democratically-elected Rada.
They came to some tentative agreement for new elections that was criticized by others in the Rada and ominously rejected by several of the hardliners in the protests, and then Yanukovych disappeared (claiming to have been in fear for his life). So the Rada was left confused and what remaining supporters Yanu had were demoralized, and when they realized he had gone to Russia and showed little indication of coming back to carry out the agreement they alleged him of violations of the constitution and voted to remove him from office in a Not-Impeachment outside the letter of the constitution.
There’s a lot that can be said about this, and not everybody calling this a coup is deranged. But one thing that is worth noting is that the climax of this was the conflict between Yanukovych and the Rada. Both democratically elected (even at the same time) and in fact with Yanukovych’s party holding the balance of power.
That puts it into a new context. One that Peterson does not want to give. Precisely because pointing out that the legislative body that deposed Yanukovych was also democratically elected blunts the rhetorical power of this charge, even if it doesn’t completely invalidate it (as Brian E pointed out when he analyzed the clear problems of what the Rada did under the Ukrainian constitution).
It also shifts the focus from the EVUUUUL US Military Industrial Complex to Ukrainian Internal Politics and to a lesser extent a Left-dominated, mostly anti-MIC US Diplomatic Corps. Which utterly undermines Peterson’s narrative.
You got that?
NATO members installing weapon systems for defense on their own territory is aggression. This is literally Orwellian War is Peace.
Please ignore Russian and Chinese troops basing in Venezuela and Cuba.
This is what galls me more. The rank and shameless hypocrisy of it all.
Got any proof of that, Peterson muh prat? What sort of “treatment” qualifies as “defacto member of NATO” status?
And why should I trust the evaluation of such from a lying goon whose main source on this has been a literally pathological, dishonest pedophile?
I’m sorry dipshit, but “perception of threat” is not recognized as a legal justification for war anymore. As I mentioned.
Which is ALSO why the Kremlin has generally avoided making overt reference to it in a legal context when trying to justify the war. Because they’d either need to prove something far stronger than a mere perception (which the brouhaha over the “Biolabs” proved they are largely incapable of) or to use another justification (hence the constant, dishonest blather that the Ukrainian government headed up by a native Russophone is persecuting Russian ethnics and the Russian Language, not even something the “Neo-Nazi” Neo-Fascists in Ukraine have much interest in doing.
Literally every word in this sentence is a lie except “eight year war” and “corrupt Kiev.”
I’ve already addressed how the war isn’t against “its Donbas population” but the occupying Russian military and its local collaborators, and that attempts to pretend that this is a nasty ethnic or sectarian conflict like in Georgia or North Ossetia or Transnistria are bullshit when even the local Bandera stans openly recruit ethnic Russians.
But a few things.
“Corrupt Kiev Regime.”
Unfortunately for Peterson the Prat, there has been No “Kiev Regime” that has LASTED eight years.
The most obvious indication of this was in 2019, when Zelenskyy defeated the previous government under Poroshenko in a democratic election (amazing how Kremlin apologists ignore those when they don’t serve the narrative)? Poroshenko is the guy who oversaw most of the war, and it’ll be several months before Zelenskyy will overstake him.
He also came to power after several weak caretaker governments under Yatsenyuk (the “Yats” Nuland the scumbag referred to in her phone call) that existed purely to pad out the time and arrange new elections after Yanukovych was removed.
Which paints a very different picture than a tally of political life in the Russian-occupied territories in Ukraine and in Russia itself.
But one stupidly echoed and shouted by many Russian regime VIPs.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/senior-russian-official-threatens-polish-borders-moscow-mounts-aggression-against-european-nations
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-medvedev-floats-idea-pushing-back-polands-borders-2023-02-24/
https://www.dw.com/en/russia-steps-up-threats-against-republic-of-moldova/a-64612019
If Peterson the scumbag wants to justify Putin invading Ukraine again over “perceived” threat, how would that compare to multiple Kremlin leaders threatening the likes of Poland, the Baltic Republics, Georgia, and Moldova?
And even if these are lies and chest thumping, why should these nations be obliged to ignore the shit Openly Being Sprouted By the Russian Leadership?
Again, Peterson is not acting as any kind of honest analyst. He’s acting as a dishonest shill. And it shows.
Again: Why are other nations and people obliged NOT TO BELIEVE THE CRAP PUTIN’S LIEUTENANTS ARE SAYING IN PUBLIC?!?!
Translation: I’m a lying asshole playing Humpty Dumpty and claiming Godlike power to define words in an attempt to paper over how obviously false this statement is.
Also, “Define Europe”, Peterson.
Apparently Europe doesn’t include Georgia and Moldova in spite of the widespread consensus that it does.
But even by that metric that wouldn’t justify abuses and threats to Poland and the Baltic Three.
Correct, if only because Russia’s leadership recognizes their resources are now quite limited and incapable of world conquest. They are however motivated by regional dominance and control, and conquest is a tool in that.
This is rich coming from a liar who is very obviously swallowing not merely the Russian government’s narrative, but the most spectacular lies by Kremlin shills, going well and beyond what the Kremlin itself feels comfortable alleging. “250,000 killed”? Seriously?
Again, I have little love for “the media” but it has been less dishonest than Peterson has been in this regards.
Again. Dipshit is projecting.
He is quite literally accusing everybody else save apparently Scott Ritter of “total silence about the pertinent history” in this conflict, but NEVER ONCE has mentioned the 2014 invasion of Crimea. Which is ESPECIALLY relevant because NOBODY except the most deluded now denies it involved Russian Federation Special Forces.
Honestly this does a disservice to even the “mainstream accounts” who have had actual variability on this front and even have lapsed into some dovishness or even limited Kremlin shilling before that became too toxic (see: how the Squad has shut right the hell up about Ukraine).
But in any case, for whatever its flaws the “mainstream accounts” are far closer to reality than the crap Peterson is peddling. This war was supposed to end in a decisive decapitation strike. It hasn’t, and both sides have suffered massive losses, especially notable on Russia’s side due to how it frontloaded so many of its best troops and equipment as well as how it underperformed.
I’ll also like to change the wording a bit.
This is QUITE LITERALLY the narrative Peterson is projecting. Claiming that Ukraine is on the verge of defeat and has suffered a mythical 250,000 killed in action plus other casualties. The fact that idiot here didn’t think projecting so hard and putting mirrors of his words into the mouths of his opponents wouldn’t tip someone off underlines his incompetence and lack of imagination.
Now, are there SOME Unironic Ukrainian Shills making this narrative? Yes, yes there are. The “Ghost of Kyiv” thing is one of the constant references to it. But
A: They generally get called out for it sooner or later.
and
B: Even with all of that in mind, their narrative is STILL a hell of a lot closer to reality than Peterson’s is, on an OBJECTIVE level.
Politically, legally, and humanitarianly the Kremlin had zero legal justifications to invade Ukraine with the intention of partitioning it and suppressing its sovereign rights.
Militarily, what started out as a thunder run to Kyiv has collapsed into bloody attritional fighting (yet again) where progress is measured in yards and miles, with great cost to both sides, but particularly to the Russian military and its reputation.
Firstly: This is why I don’t trust much in the way of mainstream ranting on the matter.
Secondly: While somewhat unlikely, flips of this magnitude DO happen in war. Case in point: Verdun in WWI (seriously, research the utterly poor state of its defenses prior to the German offensive, Operation Judgement), Szigetvár in 1566, Shiloh in the US Civil War, and I could go on.
Gee, who could have foreseen that an obviously unwell but secretive autocrat being secretive would lead to guessing about his health? Truly boggles the mind.
All of which is more than supported by assorted gossip and trial balloons from within Russia itself, ESPECIALLY high volume conflicts between Wagner Group and the Russian MOD, and between the FSB and Kadyrov’s Chechens.
Peterson wants to pretend all of this came out of nowhere, and some of it did but most of it is attempts to read the tea leaves.
Again, bullshit victim blaming as Peterson returns to form.
Ok, sure.
Ok, sure. I suppose I should be grateful that after several paragraphs of denying that nations have sovereign rights, that Russia invaded Crimea in 2014, that even Ukraine’s local Fascists happily recruit Russophone ethnic Russians, and that the war in Ukraine was provoked by Putin’s government, NOW Peterson is admitting the POSSIBILITY that NordStream wasn’t blown up by the US.
Better late than never?
Here is my smallest golf clap.
Absolute bullshit. As the people who have studied Soviet state terrorism can attest.
Inactive pipelines obviously weren’t going to be key to German industrial competitiveness and its population’s well being. And they weren’t evident to it in the latter as shown by how Germany weathered the winter of ’22-’23 DECENTLY.
Probably not good but not much.
See: An actual, proven case of terrorism by one NATO member nation against an ally, or at least an ally’s nationals.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/murder-pacific-why-did-french-agents-bomb-greenpeaces-rainbow/
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-sinking-of-the-rainbow-warrior
Oh also: Peterson REALLY shouldn’t be banging on the Terrorism drum in light of who Putin employs…..
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1129352400022659072.html
https://jamestown.org/program/the-kadyrov-ication-of-dagestan-2/
https://www.newsweek.com/ramzan-kadyrov-issues-warning-bryansk-attack-russia-1785081
… and who he is palling up with.
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202211059003
Ok, how and why?
Because your friend the pedophile, liar, and probable FSB asset told you at the same time he told you blatantly bogus death tallies?
The kicker is that this description fits handily to the Kremlin’s own policies, sans nationality change, especially in Ukraine from 2014-2021, as it became increasingly obvious to the Kremlin that the Ukrainian loyalists would not knuckle down to a sudden strike and that for a change the “Frozen conflict” wasn’t developing in the direction they wanted, as shown by territorial reclamation in the Donbas by the Loyalists.
Faced with the fact that their little Donbaschukuos were not ultimately sustainable independently, they increasingly deployed Russian assets and resources to prop them up, and – when they perceived a favorable opportunity (namely US weakness and appeasement) they struck.
We know how that’s ended up.
So does allowing a thug-ruled nuclear power to get whatever it wants by blackmail. Especially when it has loudmouthed idiots for leaders openly discussing attacks on Poland, Moldova, and the Baltics.
Then maybe the Kremlin should stop pushing nations in its “Near Abroad” to cozy up to the US and its friends for Sheer Self-Preservation.
In short j e, this piece and the scumbag who wrote it are utter drek on multiple levels. I’ve read worse, but only by so much.
om:
I wouldn’t be surprised if that claim is going to be made by the US right, and by the Russian government…
Both of whom of course want the world to believe that the current US government is “evil” and trying to push the world towards a nuclear exchange between the USA and Russia.
From what I’ve seen and heard, the Russkies were trying to force the MQ-9 to abort its mission and return to its launch point, came a bit too close and MQ-9 malfunctioned. Whether this happened in international airspace or not is a technicality, as the two countries have different ideas about what is international airspace in many places.
Of course the US violating Russian/Soviet airspace and the USSR/Russia taking potshots at the violating vehicles isn’t at all unheard of, it’s been happening since the 1940s. Meanwhile the USSR and Russia afaik have not violated US airspace (in part because they for a long time lacked the means to do so).
@JTW
For what it is worth I also view the current US government as evil, just not to the point where I am prepared to carry water for Putin.
Agreed.
They have a fair few times, mostly in regards to Alaska. It is mostly a means issue.
https://www.voanews.com/amp/russian-surveillance-aircraft-spotted-near-alaskan-air-space-/6696289.html
Sorry again Neo, can you please delete my comment to Bunge again (as well as this one)? Another formatting issue I just caught now. Will correct (For real this time).
@MBunge
For once, Mike, we agree. Though I suspect for very different reasons.
Reading your dishonest, hypocritical prattle it is easier to understand how the US lost the peace in the Vietnam War. And as Neo pointed out, the US didn’t “sleepwalk” into Vietnam. It had been active for almost a quarter century in the region before sending in combat troops, and it had a very clear idea of what it wanted to accomplish at almost every stage of the conflict (albeit sometimes very contradictorily), but not how to achieve such outcomes.
But as I’ve come to conclude after reading and analyzing your writing, you have essentially zero interest in historical reality beyond the extent to which you perceive it can be used as a cudgel to smear, demonize, and insult your opponents. Which is why you are so quick to assume those that take different lessons from history than you do are doing so merely for emotional grandstanding or for other insincere reasons.
You wish to assume we are on the same level you are.
Oh, NOW Mike Bunge is concerned about having an INTELLIGENT CONVERSATION is he?!?
Quick show of hands: who’s convinced?
Well, not me.
Because some of us weren’t born yesterday, and were around to see you smear, lie, evade, and wheedle. All of which makes reasoned and logical discussion Impossible with you, especially on this subject. And I increasingly think that such behavior is calculated to make intelligent discussion impossible, for reasons I have covered here.
https://www.thenewneo.com/2023/02/23/one-answer-to-the-question-of-whether-the-ukraine-war-is-a-quagmire/#comment-2668414
https://www.thenewneo.com/2023/03/04/open-thread-3-4-23/#comment-2670631
For all of my many, many, MANY misgivings about om and how he approaches things – especially on the subject – om is at least consistent and a known quantity. You know what you get with them. So you can take or ignore om as is needed.
You on the other hand? You want to play Schrodinger’s Asshole. You apparently have no greater agenda on this issue than to screw with attempts to actually discuss this matter and to preen about your imaginary superiority to all comers.
Other people write slogans or catchphrases? You say that’s “Childish” and “Simplistic.”
But other people provide in-depth historical analysis? You engage in dishonest, bad-faith strawmanning, first that “Not every bad guy is Hitler” (a fact I agreed with) and when that doesn’t work (because some of us remember the 1930s beyond the adventures of Le Austrian Painter) you impugn their intent and claim that it is being done out of “self-righteous emotionalism.”
….. which is a form of logical fallacy by trying to invalidate an argument by attacking its (supposed, fictional) reasons WHY it was presented when such things are completely Goddamn Irrelevant to the factual merits of such an analogy.
People ignore recent history to focus on the more modern history? You generally ignore that or find other ways to discount it, even if it contradicts what you have argued before.
When people provide reasoned sources from grassroots analysts (in format and substance not that different from our host) you loudly ask why people are using a Youtube Guy or the like rather than the MSM (that you know is corrupt and unreliable and so do we). In between completely unconvincing and thoroughly insincere claims that you never badmouthed Youtube Guy or whoever the source is and you’re “salty” people take you (correctly) as doing so by obvious strategem.
But when people do cite “mainstream” sources you largely criticize them for doing so. And god forbid you ever acknowledge attempts to triangulate the truth by preponderance of sources, both independence grassroots and mainstream.
You shotgun out often poorly-vetted and poorly-researched analogies (like the “Cuban Missile Crisis in Ukraine” analogy) and sources (like the one I tore apart for positioning a stupidly, counterfactually rosy picture of the wartime Russian economy because of things like consumer goods still being available in MOSCOW the Imperial Capital) with the obvious expectation we take them seriously.
And when some of us DO take them seriously inasmuch as we give them due consideration, which often involves caustically criticizing their shortfalls, you try to play the victim and say that you NEVER said the things you were very obviously saying-by-way-of-proxy and that anybody who says otherwise is strawmanning you.
In short, for all of your lip service to saying you want consideration and an intelligent discussion, scrutinizing your words and actions shows that there is no way for people to engage with you in a way you deem worthy of respectful, intelligent engagement… If they disagree with you on this issue. Which means you repudiate the very essence of intelligent discussion and reasoned disagreement. Ironically while accusing others (including myself) of being driven by emotional posturing while you quite literally make it the basis of your entire stance.
You are intellectually cowardly, dishonest, rude, and a titan of the bad faith argument. And dealing with your balderdash makes me regret that I am spending time outlining this when I still have not responded to the latest comments on this subject from Brian E and a few others.
It’s painfully obvious to those of us who have followed your comments on this subject for a while that you don’t have anything like a consistent set of principles on this, Mike. So do us all a favor and either grow up, or at least stop pretending to be the victim.
I know I’m sick of it. I can only imagine the act grows thin for others too, likely including our host. Who has had to call you out not a few times for this nonsense.
This massive distraction brought to you by….
…the usual suspects…!!
“Growing fears of war escalation as Russia warns it will ‘consider any action with US weaponry as openly hostile’ after Reaper drone was downed over Black Sea – but Washington vows ‘we won’t stop’ “—-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11862029/Russia-claims-won-race-recover-downed-Reaper-drone-Black-Sea.html
Reason for distraction: Iran is close to break out.
Ancillary factors: Saudi Arabia’s recent “rapprochement” with the Mullahs, reportedly “brokered” by China (said—by all the “experts”—to be a tremendous gain for Chinese influence in the region and a huge blow against American (read “Biden” ‘s) “interests” and “influence”!!)
Question: But what if what actually happened is that China “brokered” this “rapprochement” with the blessings of America (read “Biden”)? IOW, what if America (read “Biden”) tasked China with this particular mission, viz. to by hook or by crook “convince”/”persuade”/”cajole”/”threaten”/”bribe”—ah, now we’re talkin’—SA to “cozy up” (in a manner of speaking) to the Islamic “Republic” of Iran?
Reason: Time for “Biden” to cut the Little Satan off at the knees (while trying to conceal(!) that it is committed to cutting the Little Satan off at the knees). AKA “JCPOA revisited”…
File under (for the umpteenth time): Weapons of Mass Distraction…(“Distraction” meaning all those myriad of crises engineered over the past two plus years by “Biden” and “his” uber-loyal media/infotech/antifa/BLM Praetorian Guard…)
China is our main enemy, so why are we making them more powerful the sanctions put them in the driver seat and they backfired hugely. Now there was no war under trump, putin was in his cage no matter what mueller and vindman kept pushing because the war was a method to diminish this country
Its all a piece the j6 maskirovna the lockdowns which were complementary to a bio warfare exercise. When we comtinue on doing ridiculous amd dangerous things you have to wonder
We did sleepwalk into vietnam as we locked area expert lansdale out of the picture he was busy on mongoose largely and diletantes like harriman were in the drivers seat
@miguel cervantes
Agreed, with possible reservations Re: Iran and Pakistan and maybe the Saudis.
Firstly: I fail to see how the sanctions are making them more powerful, except maybe in their relations with Russia which was the trajectory they were going anyway due to demographics and Putin’s long held belief that it is better to align against the West than with it.
But let’s assume for the sake of the argument that they are making the PRC more powerful.
To which I say Secondly…. well?
The PRC is one of the most evil regimes to ever be constituted on this Earth, but it is not the only threat nor will it be the only threat. And frankly sometimes punishing another malcontent to send a salutary message to the others is worth accepting another growing in power. Especially when the two malcontents are Allied to a greater or lesser degree and have been for years (in particular the Beijing Olympics meeting between Putin and Xi outlined major cooperation and was an important signpost on the road to this war).
In regards to Putin’s Russia that is a price I am prepared to pay since the sanctions were about pushing Russia out of the driver’s seat.
I don’t agree. The purpose of the sanctions was to hurt Putin’s ability to prosecute the war and his political leverage, esp in the West. The sanctions were not apocalyptically successful like some wishful thinkers or straw men posited but they are helping with both objectives.
No, there absolutely was. That is one of the painfully few things the pile of drek written by Peterson got right, and one reason why Trump’s supply of lethal aid was so important. It was just a much more limited war in which Putin tacitly acted through proxies or false flagged military units and the Ukrainian loyalists and wider world pretended not to notice.
Agreed. Unfortunately Putin probably knew that too. Which is one reason he decided to act when and how he did.
Another reason why I want open ended aid in limited categories. I want Putin to lose but I do not want WW3 starting. Certainly not yet.
Fair, but that doesn’t change the fact that we have to ge through the situations in front of us. I for one favor cleaning house here first but that does not mean we can’t keep looking at how the situation develops.
The problem is that by the time Lansdale went in the US had been involved in Indochina for years, and indeed Lansdale’s appointment was part of a push back against the former OSS mission head’s exceptionally naive and close relationship with Ho.
Swiss miss….
(Or, “The drone’s not the only thing that’s taken a tumble”…)
Various commenters, over the past several days, have touched on the Credit Suisse iteration of “Reichenbach Falls”…in connection with the latest bank “issues” in the US.
“Markets Price In Central Bank Panic As Credit Suisse Risk Soars”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/credit-suisse-sparks-global-de-risking-after-top-investor-bails
Curious grafs:
‘…As we detailed earlier, Credit Suisse Group AG’s shares reached their lowest point ever, dropping by as much as 10%. This is the eighth consecutive session of decline…. In addition to these challenges, the troubled Swiss bank now faces a new problem: its top shareholder has said they will not invest any further due to the sharp decline in valuations.
‘ “The answer is absolutely not, for many reasons outside the simplest reason, which is regulatory and statutory,” Saudi National Bank Chairman Ammar Al Khudairy told Bloomberg TV in an interview on Wednesday.
‘ That was in response to a question about whether Credit Suisse would receive fresh injections if another liquidity crisis emerged.
‘ Saudi National Bank, which is 37% owned by the kingdom’s sovereign wealth fund, is Credit Suisse’s largest shareholder as of late 2022 after acquiring a 9.9% stake. Al Khudairy said there are no plans at the moment to take the stake over the 10% threshold because of regulatory hurdles. In the last several months, since the bank’s equity has been on a waterfall lower, the Saudis have lost more than 500 million francs on their position.
‘ The news the Saudis are perhaps done supporting the troubled Swiss bank sent shares down as much as 25% to a new record low in Zurich….’
And so…will the centre hold?
They the schwab gang tried to crush the russian economy thats johnson biden macron schultz it backfired it made our currency even less of a legal tender the other bloc binds russia china india brazil and kingdom this is winning!
Michael Lind on the overall picture…(but is he missing anything?).
“Knight Takes Rook in Cold War II;
“The new global conflict with Russia and China is playing out like a game of 3D chess, with the U.S. up in some areas but losing in others”—
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/knight-takes-rook-cold-war-2
H/T Powerline blog.
“China is our main enemy, so why are we making them more powerful the sanctions put them in the driver seat and they backfired hugely….?”
Maybe…because “China is [NOT] our main enemy”? (Or not even OUR enemy, at all…)
Wait a minute! Just who is this “OUR” you speak of, amigo?
@miguel cervantes
Well good. I have little love for those people but the Kremlin should deal with the Russian economy being crushed for this. And I am not about to knee jerk and oppose or support something because the globalist goons do the opposite, for the same reason I am not about to support Boko Haram because Obama gave virtue signals about opposing it.
Not really. No.
Utter codswallop.
BRICS is not a bloc. Nor has it ever really been one. The classic counter proof of this is the Sino-Indian border wars. Ergo, it can hardly be “winning” when it doesn’t coherently exist in spite of some half baked attempts to make it.
The SCO is a more United bloc and it might actually stand a chance of coherent and united action unlike BRICS, but it is also facing catastrophic demographic rot and inner turmoil, especially in China.
Of course it is we are demolishing our reserve status alienating india the biggest counterweight to china the saudis isolating israel how does this make tactical much less strategic sense
@Barry Meislin
Well written on the whole, and useful to remember that this is just one struggle among many.
That said regarding the article you link,
Ironically the PRC itself does not use such a definition. It talks about itself as being a Future peer of the US, but not one yet. That is why the tech stealing and shipbuilding are so crucial.
The USSR was a superpower in all of those dimensions too. And indeed in most aspects it was more comparable to the US than the PRC is now.
If you believe market information overtly dependent on the CCP, who is kind of known for cooking the books.
India has a host of problems but it has been making significant inroads, especially under Modi and market liberalization. It has also much more transparent unlike the CCP so you broadly know what you are getting with its statistics.
On the whole it is a good article but I feel that the author seriously overstated the CCP’s progress.
India needs oil they buy it from russia or the kingdom they supported iraq against iran if memory serves we buy discounted oil from india instead of drilling our own
The willow projecf comes with more stringd than the gordian knot
@miguel cervantes
Considering how the Saudis laughed the CCP out of the room when they proposed buying oil with Yuan I don’t think the demolition is going that well. The dollar has a host of problems with it but it is still far, far better than most currencies, especially totalitarian black boxes like the Ruble and Yuan
How so?
The Indians have not come out strongly in favor of the sanctions or against Russia but they sure as hell have not come out in favor of Putin. Especially given their very public chastisements of him for nuclear threats towards Ukraine and cutthroat renegotiations. If anything the sanctions have helped them make money hand over fist from the Russians serving as a willing middleman, which is not an outcome the West is opposed to on the whole.
There were attempts towards this but I doubt they will be too lasting, especially given how Iran is an existential threat to the Sunni monarchies and how the Yemen war grinds on.
For starters, I think you are MASSIVELY overstating many of these things, in particular how likely “detente” with the Saudis and Iranians is likely to last and how alienated the Indians are from the West.
But beyond that, it’s important not to allow Putin publicly snubbing us with violent force to go completely unanswered.
Correct, and they have extracted premium concessions from Russia in terms of price in exchange for continuing to do business with them.
I’d need to check. India’s relations in the Iran-Iraq war are pretty tertiary but I can believe it due to how much of a rogue state Iran was.
Though given how they have hated Pakistan and Pakistan was on negative terms with Iran that would be complicated.
Agreed, and I think that is a great failure of our policy. But it hardly means the Indians hate us or are prepared to wave the Russian tricolor, let alone the CCP ensign.
The enemy of free people everywhere they do regard themselves as the middle kingdom with 4000 years of history behind them
Remember after white nationalist hindu nationalist was one of the crime think categories thats not accidental
Oh
https://web.archive.org/web/20230311161206/https://www.shine.cn/biz/company/1710195156/
I am trying to imagine how hard it would be to control an SU-27 at the very slow speed it would need to harass an MQ-9. Sure, the SU-27 could fly past at normal cruising speed, and that would presumably work for the fuel dumping maneuver. But to try to “tip” the Reaper by flying close and lifting a wing tip, or otherwise trying to alter the drone’s path by influencing the airflow over the wings, would require highly precise flying by the jet fighter at speeds very close to the stall. The Russian pilot would also have poor visibility, flying close to the Reaper at a high angle of attack.
Given these circumstances the outcome could have been much worse: loss of the SU-27 at the very least, and perhaps fatal for the pilot.
The Russian ambassador to the US is blaming the incident on the US. That’s not surprising. And I just saw that the US is blaming the Russian pilot for “poor piloting.” That’s not surprising either. I tend to believe, based on previous close encounters, that the Russian pilot found himself with no margin for error but with degraded maneuverability because of the slow speed of the intercept.
I also believe we’ll have another encounter, probably with worse results.
Miguel:
Buying oil from India, probably not crude more likely refined products, is not the same as drilling for our own oil or refining oil from where ever the crude comes from. India doesn’t produce much crude oil at all. Not much at all. Got that? India buys oil from, wait for it, Russia and other suppliers.
Once again, your arguments don’t hold up.
Don’t be a Bunge.
“On the whole it is a good article but I feel that the author seriously overstated the CCP’s progress.”
OK.
What I believe Lind appears to have missed is that the current US administration, such as it is, does NOT VIEW China as a threat (or even as a competitor), in spite of the occasional rhetorical warnings it throws in China’s direction from time to time presumably to assuage the right wing of the political spectrum (or, for that matter, to assuage the odd Democratic party so-called “centrist” on foreign policy).
In fact, Lind is looking at China through pre-“Fundamental Transformation” (i.e., pre-2009) spectacles. IOW, he seems to have missed that, in fact, “Biden” DOES view China as an actual, or potential, or desirable, ally…consistent with what Schwab has declaimed about the PRC being “the model” to be followed, etc., etc., etc….IOW an INSPIRATION!
(Does one have to ask at this stage, The model for what exactly?…)
Miguel, SSVB would appear to be, simply, the icing on the cake….
No wonder it had to be bailed out(?)…
Lol bung talking about “intelligent discussion”, I’m sure that was on your mind when you rudely insulted the host.
“An MQ-9 reconnaissance drone on a routine mission…”
First, why should we believe this was a “routine mission”? Because our government said so?
According to sources I’ve heard, pieces of the drone were recovered approximately 60 km from Sevastopol, which means it may have been doing reconnaissance for the Ukrainians.
We know the US is providing targeting intelligence for the Ukrainians.
The US says it’s in deep water (up to 5,000 ft) and not likely recoverable. The Russians say they have the capability and will recover it.
So at this point, the score is one pipeline by the US and one drone by Russia.
Like machines have in fictional, action-genre films;
[Why] don’t these drones have [radio-signal controlled, destroy-the-flying-drone devices in them], so the US military can destroy the drone(s), so it [won’t fall into enemy hands]?
Hmm.
TR, according to defense officials, they did wipe the hard drives with bleach, so to speak, before it made a hard landing– if you can believe them.
“Russia’s defense ministry blamed the drone for the crash and said that its Su-27 jets did not come into contact with the U.S. aircraft.
[snip]
…two Russian Su-27 aircraft “dumped fuel on and flew in front of the MQ-9 in a reckless, environmentally unsound and unprofessional manner.”
Heaven forbid the Russkies flew in an “environmentally unsound” manner. It’s been reported global temperatures spiked during the incident.
I want to see the video before I’ll believe the US government– since they were so forthcoming and transparent with other events.
Like the drone that was reversed engineered by thr iranians after 2012
Thanks for the info, Brian E. 😀
I’m just hoping that this is a C grade/run-of-the-mill flying drone, + not a top secret one, that we don’t want Russia, or any other nation, to obtain.
Military secrets, what a pain. Hoo boy! 🙂
Brain E:
Tomorrow will you commingle Nord Stream pipelines and MQ-9 and say it was US and Ukraine that brought the drone down? International air space must be approved by Russia now? Routine is what Russia says routine is?
Don’t be shy.
TR:
Use the internet search thing, an example “Aviaiton Week MQ-9” yields
https://aviationweek.com/shows-events/afa-air-space-cyber-conference/mq-9-attritable-aircraft-contender
Attritable in part means cheap enough to loose to a hostile opponent. Not super duper super secret stuff IMO. Not fast, stealthy, or cutting edge.
Thanks om. 😀
You know how it goes- A US soldier loses his pistol overseas, + the news makes it sound like A B1-B bomber is dropping bombs on Moscow. 😀
Talked to a carrier pilot–Viet Nam era–about low-speed maneuvering. For various reasons, control inputs have to be more forthright at low speeds, the air passing over the control surfaces having less pressure on them.
Lots of room for error.
Richard Aubrey:
That’s what I was trying to say in my precious post. Now that we have seen video of the flyby, int is obvious the Russian pilot[s] was/were flying on the edge of a stall. They actually swooped down to get a good look at their target, then pulled up to slow themselves and get (slightly) higher than the drone. In that configuration they had degraded controllability and less visibility. So until the Russian pilot tells his story, I can well believe he misjudged on his second pass and struck a part of the drone. Had that misjudgment been slightly greater, the SU-27 would have been severely damaged, perhaps lost.