I wonder, with a voice like that, if this was totally random; nice voice!
I love this guy’s videos.
The Democrats have a recent record of screwing their primary voters, but the Republicans don’t, so I doubt this will go anywhere, physicsguy. It’s interesting to see, however, that some conservatives are now seeing that Trump isn’t really a program conservative.
Sabine has just put up another climate video where she “discovers” that actual planetary temperature measurements are really a mess. Unfortunately she does rely quite a bit on Mann and Hanson and is shocked that they disagree (which is unusual). She also still thinks the Paris accord of 1.5 degrees is meaningful, but focuses on whether we have crossed it or not. Never questions why 1.5 degrees is even meaningful. She is making slow progress, but…. I did leave a comment where I keep saying she needs to look at the work of people like John Christy and Richard Lindzen.
Kate, yes….I never thought of Trump as a true conservative in the usual definition, but as someone who has found out that the conservative positions are the ones that can save the country.
mann and co, have been playing games with the measurements, heat island effect and the like, yes why is 1.5 degrees a tipping point, because its a scam,
“Sabine has just put up another climate video where she “discovers” that actual planetary temperature measurements are really a mess.”
– physicsguy
Why has it taken scientists and smart people so long to grasp this? Big computers and algorithms are great tools. But you have to have quality data to arrive at answers that are correct and usable.
Arguments from authority have become their only tool. After Covid, people are beginning to see that the “scientific authorities” are often using erroneous or no data to make proclamations about “Danger Will Robbins!” Time to return to the scientific method of questioning everything. Especially climate science.
very rarely is the underlying data ever presented, like the ecru hack in 2009, that was the heart of the controversy with steyn and sindberg, with mann, the corporate press, has taken the latters side, and this is what the narrative has been crafted from, a few samizdat like boricuagato, and aegyptius, cover the foundations of the narrative
Conversation with President Trump by the folks at the All In Podcast. Wide range of topics, with good questions.
David Sacks points out that a month before Russia attacked Ukraine that Blinken had told Lavrov that not only would Ukraine join NATO but that the administration thought it was ok for the US to put nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Quite a provocation. (minute 24:00)
Former Trump legal advisor Jeff Clark dishes that Chief Justice John Roberts has requested that Biden’s DOJ responds by June 26th to Steve Bannon’s stay filing before Courts.
The filing would keep him from serving jail time for crossing the Kangaroo Pelosi Court on J6 through election season. The 26th will just be 4 days before his is required to report to prison for four months.
Adding to our physicsguy notice on Sabine Hossenfelder’s WAKEUP call on bad climate data, I would push this recent paper in the open access journal “Applications in Engineering Science in March.”
The subject is the topic of CO2 saturation, which halts is place as a greenhouse gas. Jan Kubicki and his colleagues are engineering profs at the Warsaw Military University of Technology, a team which has published on this topic but more narrowly three times in 2020 and 2022.
He surveys the historical science literature, reviews experimental lab and observational studies like Ole Humlum’s (Geophysicist in Norway), before concluding on reversing the conventional wisdom: relying too much on climate models instead of physical observations, the popular AGW via enhanced GHW is a theory in search of evidence. Instead the evidence supports the saturation thesis. Yet there remain areas of final scientific investigation to go. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666496823000456
I think it’s random, because he has plenty of videos of people with bad voices. He is unfailingly polite and respectful to all, but he gets smilier when there’s someone good, like this guy.
David Sacks points out
==
And how would David Sacks know that?
I think Sabine suffers from too much trust in how climate data is collected. The weather app I use relies on local, private weather stations. In the summer the station closest to my house is consistently 10-13 degrees hotter than the rest of the stations near by. I don’t use that station’s temperature readings as it is obviously wrong, it’s placed in the sun or something. If the data you collect is flawed, everything rolls down hill from there. I believe that NASA collects temperature readings from satellites. This seems to be one of the best ways to go.
@J. J. I believe that NASA collects temperature readings from satellites. This seems to be one of the best ways to go.
They also show warming, practically the same amount of warming, and it’s not such a slam-dunk obvious better way to do it, as you can read here.
Determining how the composition of the atmosphere affects global temperatures, and even measuring global temperatures, are very complex and difficult problems. It’s not wrong for climate scientists to do what they are doing, so much as it is for activists, journalists, and politicians to act as though there is more certainty than there really is. The scientists are generally much more candid about the accuracy of what they are doing, barring such publicity hounds as Mann. Pretty much anything you read in the blogosphere that uses data to question climate science was originally produced and published by a climate scientist, usually one in the mainstream. They simply wouldn’t publish such things if they were as bad as the activists, journalists, and politicians.
“And how would David Sacks know that?” – Art Deco
I don’t know. Sacks is a smart person with connections that might give him a line into the government gossip. I assume he wouldn’t make unsubstantiated claims of this magnitude without a source, but that’s just assumption on my part.
Lavrov is quoted by CNN on Dec. 3 2021 saying:
In his own remarks to the press after meeting with Blinken, Lavrov stressed that although Russia does “not want any conflicts” with NATO over Ukraine, it maintains the “right to choose ways to ensure its legitimate security interests.”
“And let’s not forget, of course, the proclaimed principle of indivisibility and security, including in the OSCE, in the NATO Council of Russia, which says that no one has the right to strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others,” he said, also adding that “the further advance of NATO to the East will definitely affect the fundamental interests” of Russia’s security.
Later in the story:
Putin called Wednesday for specific agreements that would rule out any further NATO expansion eastwards and deployment of its weaponry close to Russia’s borders.
On Tuesday, the Russian President said NATO military expansion close to Russian borders and any deployment of missile systems in Ukraine would be crossing a “red line.”
Reading between the lines indicates to me that the issue of NATO and deployment of missiles was discussed.
Well, here is a video, just released after 20 years, taken by a supposed Saudi “operative” shortly before 9/11, which the story linked to below says is proof that the Saudi taking the video was casing Capitol Hill, and was thus involved in the planning of 9/11.*
A good question to ask is, why release this clip just now?
I am certainly aware of the stories saying that a lot of high level/rich Saudis living here in the U.SA. hastily packed up and left the U.S. a few days before 9/11, some abandoning very expensive properties–never even locked their doors or compound gates as they fled–abandoned many possessions, and even left their cars behind, keys in the ignition, in their frantic rush to depart the U.S.
I am also aware of the reports that hours after the attacks of 9/11–and even though all civilian flights were supposedly grounded–the Bush administration allowed aircraft to fly Saudi nationals out of the country.
These two events above seem extremely suspicious.
However, the supposed “evidence” shown in the story linked below–assuming that this clip is the entirely of the “evidence”–is so vague that it could mean anything, and is certainly not a “smoking gun.”
”David Sacks points out that a month before Russia attacked Ukraine that Blinken had told Lavrov that not only would Ukraine join NATO but that the administration thought it was ok for the US to put nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Quite a provocation.”
Not this again. You have been corrected on this claim repeatedly on this very blog. Why do you insist on repeating it?
1) The Ukraine was and is ineligible to join NATO. To prevent the Ukraine from joining NATO all Russia had to do was absolutely nothing.
2) By one month prior to this latest invasion, Russia had already built multiple new airfields and army bases in Belarus along the Ukrainian border; stationed over 80 new battalion tactical groups in Belarus, Kursk, Belgorod, and Rostov-on-Don along the Ukrainian border; transferred multiple warships from their Pacific, Northern, and Baltic fleets to their Black Sea Fleet; and loaded up two entire amphibious assault groups with troops and cargo and sent them sailing towards Ukraine.
Therefore neither NATO nor Blinken is the cause of this invasion.
The satellite temperature data are more objective and disagree with the on land data over the period since 1979 when they are available. Listen to this interview with John Christy of the University of Alabama about the satellite data.
“Our satellite data show the Earth is warming at about a rate of 1.5 degrees C per century. That’s a warming that has happened in the geologic past, certainly, and it is a warming rate that is much more gradual than the dire predictions that tend to dominate the media and so on.”
If you look at the Ukraine-Russia War through the lens of a US attempt to depose Putin– using Ukraine as the pretext to put crippling sanctions on Russia, it doesn’t surprise me that our government would have made extremely provocative statements and later squashed the Istanbul treaty.
At the beginning of the war, Biden publicly said it was going to take regime change in Russia to end the war. Where the gang that couldn’t shoot straight in foggy bottom/Langley got it wrong was thinking they were going to be able to strangle the Russian economy.
German companies continued to export nitrocellulose to Russia– a key ingredient in gunpowder after sanctions were imposed.
Turkey, a NATO country imports 81% of it’s oil (24% of Russia’s total exports) from Russia– then exports some of it to EU countries.
The sanctions are driving alliances between Russia and other countries that will backfire on our interests in other parts of the world.
“They also show warming, practically the same amount of warming, and it’s not such a slam-dunk obvious better way to do it, as you can read here.” – Niketas C.
Although I didn’t make the statement, JFM did, I will respond.
You’re correct that the satellite measurements show warming. Just less warming than the climate models and the surface temperature records. As mentioned, it’s not a perfect solution to the problem of measuring temperature changes worldwide.
The issue, as I see it, has boiled down to four things.
1. Is CO2 the only driver of the rise in temperatures? A major point of contention. Though CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it’s unproven as the “control knob” of climate change. Much more must be shown because geological history shows that CO2 and temperature are not necessarily connected.
2. Is the amount of warming an existential crisis? At this point, no one knows. The AGW believers say it is without sufficient evidence to convince most people. Climate change as a crisis ranks quite low among the average person’s priorities.
3. Can humans do anything to control the climate? Another point of contention. Thus far, CO2 reduction has proven difficult, if not impossible on any scale that matters.
4. How can we maintain a modern standard of living in a changing climate? The presently proposed solution of curbing CO2 emissions by using wind and solar to power our modern economy is, with present technology, unworkable. The “deniers” are calling for adaptation to climate changes (Bjorn Lomborg), and/or a transition to nuclear power. (Anyone who has looked hard at wind and solar.)
The debate is a vigorous one, but because our climate is so complex and so much is unknown about its drivers, it appears to me that we have just begun the work of acquiring a deeper understanding of the climate processes.
I read the Watts Up With That blog weekly. https://wattsupwiththat.com/
The debate there is a good one. Many true climate scientists involved. I recommend it to anyone who wants to be informed about climate change.
actually that tape was released two years ago, I think Catherine Herridge, signalled it initially, one of the few real journalists, employed by a major network
(hence they treat her like a leper) the operative in question, had been the recipient of funds from Prince Bandar’s wife, he officially worked for an aerospace company,
the late Bob Graham, fictionalized some of this, in a novel he wrote around 2012,
the keys to the kingdom, this was four years before the reveal of the 28 pages, nor the real examination of Operation Encore, he meets with two of the hijackers in documentation recovered in London, by Scotland Yard, yet somehow Tony Blair didn’t know about it, I do remember isikoff was leaked of the connection to the two hijackers
from the operative, but it was in the white noise between the midterms and the start of the Iraq war, https://www.floridabulldog.org/2020/10/tampa-fugitive-described-secret-fbi-operation-encore-captured/#google_vignette another angle from the same m pie
This is called shifting of goalposts:
If you look at the Ukraine-Russia War through the lens of a US attempt to depose Putin– using Ukraine as the pretext to put crippling sanctions on Russia, it doesn’t surprise me that our government would have made extremely provocative statements and later squashed the Istanbul treaty.
First it was NATO, remember? Now it is the west trying to depose Putin by those devious means of forcing Putin to invade Ukraine so that sanctions could be imposed on The Russian Federation and cripple the Russian economy.
Something on stilts is now being peddled by Vlad’s apologists.
Autocrats can be remarkable insulated from economic pressure. But it appears that Vlad apologists are very concerned about economic disruptions resulting from the Russian war on Ukraine that Vlad had to start. (sarc x 11)
Brave AI search: nitrocellulose ( aka – gun cotton )
Is nitrocellulose used for small arms ammunition?
According to the search results, nitrocellulose is not commonly used in small arms ammunition. In fact, it has been largely replaced by other propellants, such as the Improved Military Rifle (IMR) line of extruded powder or the WC844 ball propellant, which is currently used in the 5.56×45mm NATO.
The search results suggest that nitrocellulose was previously used in small arms ammunition, but it has been phased out in favor of more modern and safer propellants. The reasons for this replacement are not explicitly stated in the search results, but it is likely due to the potential hazards associated with handling and storing nitrocellulose, as well as its tendency to produce noticeable smoke and residue.
In contrast, nitrocellulose is still used in some larger caliber ammunition, such as artillery and tank guns, where its high energy density and stability make it a suitable choice.
Per the article above who is selling nitrocellulose to Russia? China, Taiwan, USA to Turkey to Russia. Turkey, a member of NATO, is selling nitrocellulose to Russia? Inconceivable!
Due to the global shortage of nitrocellulose, its export to Russia is slowing down the production of artillery by NATO countries for Ukraine, the WSJ claims. At the same time, American analysts say that for greater effectiveness restrictions should be introduced against the companies supplying this substance.
Again those sneaky sanctions are going to get Putin deposed, it just took a war to get the ball rolling. (again sarc x 11)
The wasps are really bad this year. I just got stung in face by one of these little @#$&. This means war. War to the knife, knife to the hilt. Chemical weapons will be issued.
“ 2) Bald-Faced Hornets Are Very Aggressive
Bald-faced hornets will attack anyone or anything that invades their space, unlike other stinging insects that may only sting when they feel extremely threatened.
They are easily agitated by outside noises and are sensitive to vibrations, which often travel through the air.
For a hapless homeowner innocently mowing a lawn near an overhang that has a bald-faced hornet’s nest, a grim surprise awaits the turn of the next corner that may well result in a trip to the emergency room.
It is recommended that if such occurs, the best thing to do is to move briskly away from the scene and avoid swinging arms and making quick movements.
This is very easy to say and a lot harder to do when confronted with such a threat to bodily harm.
3) The Sting Of A Bald-Faced Hornet Is Wicked
The sting of a bald-faced hornet is truly painful and in the case of some people can cause severe allergic reactions.
Medical attention should be sought immediately if anyone who has been stung experiences difficulty breathing, swelling in the face, throat, or mouth, difficulty swallowing, anxiety, rapid pulse or dizziness.
4) They Have A Very Good Memory
Bald-faced hornets can remember faces, and unfortunately there is no witness protection program to help disguise identity if a human inadvertently returns to the nest area (or from the hornet’s perspective, the scene of the crime).
Once an intruder is within their sights, they will wait with all the patience of a hired hitman for their target to make another visit.
They have been known to fly past other people in order to sting the invader to their nest.
This has implications that go far beyond pain and emergency rooms, as insects are not usually thought to have that kind of social intelligence.
This adds a new and horrifying dimension to their capabilities to harm humans.”
mkent, my claim about the tension between Russia and the West concerning expansion of NATO goes back to the Clinton administration.
As to Ukraine being ineligible to join NATO, that only relates to the current situation.
Yes, Russia was building it’s forces around Ukraine. So what. It was a warning to take NATO off the table.
Rheinmetall is a very large armaments manufacturer.
Regarding Vlad and NATO his grand stratergery and war of choice against Ukraine, which followed Ukraine wanting to join the EU, an immediate consequence was Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
Why people expend so much effort apologizing for Putin and his dreams of a greater new Imperial Russia is beyond me.
om, it’s not shifting goalposts. You seem like a reasonably bright guy so I’m assuming you know this.
The goals of Ukraine are only tangentially aligned with the US/Western interests. The West is looking at Ukraine as a new market to control. Not to long ago Graham pointed out the West needed to drive Russia out of the Donbas as there is $10- $12 trillion of mineral resources just waiting to be extracted.
The global West wants Putin deposed in favor of a more Western aligned leader. One that would fall in line with the global agenda of fundamental transformation. Russia would still get their cut– only based on the interests of the WEF/Globalists.
om, I’m glad you discovered that the sanctions aren’t/weren’t having the effect they were supposed to.
Nitrocellulose is just one small example.
I keep reading that the sanctions are soon going to have an effect. Russia can’t keep up the war for more than x number of years. This, is the only hope of Ukraine winning as Zelensky has defined winning.
One of the things Trump said in his conversation on the All In podcast was he would take NATO off the table for Ukraine as part of any settlement. Since for the last 20 years that has never been tried– it might be time to try it.
My husband spent a career as an engineer in the electric generation and distribution business. He says that nuclear for the base load instead of coal or oil is a very good idea. Wind and solar, being unreliable (because the wind doesn’t always blow or the sun always shine) are not good enough for peak use. Natural gas is much lower on particulate emissions than oil and coal and can be brought online quickly to meet spike demand. So, nuclear and natural gas. Not wind and solar on a large scale.
”Yes, Russia was building it’s forces around Ukraine. So what. It was a warning to take NATO off the table.”
NATO was not on the table.
NATO was not on the table because the Ukraine was ineligible to join NATO. Therefore there was no need for a warning. There was no need for new military bases on the border. There was no need for a troop buildup. There was no need to amass an amphibious assault force. There was no need for an invasion. There was no need to rape thousands of Ukrainian women. There was no need to kidnap tens of thousands of Ukrainian children. There was no need to kill hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian civilians. There was no need to level whole cities to the ground.
Not a single one of those evil deeds was necessary to prevent the Ukraine from joining NATO — to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO all Russia had to do was absolutely nothing — but Russia did them anyway. What is your obsession with NATO that you constantly use it to excuse such evil?
Regarding Sabine and Climate Models: She doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Over the years, I’ve entertained myself analyzing the models and these are some of my conclusions
The fundamental assumptions that underlie the climate models are:
1 The models can make meaningful long term predictions
2 The Earth is naturally cold
3 The cold Earth can be heated by ”greenhouse gases”
All of these assumptions are wrong.
Here’s my discussion of 1 above.
Mathematics of the Models.
(Do a web search for Chaos Theory for lots of fun and pretty pictures)
We are all acquainted with the weather forecasts on the evening news. They are good for a couple of days, somewhat doubtful for the coming week, and just entertainment for two or more weeks in advance.
The reason for this has been well known since the work of Prof. of Meteorology E. Lorenz of MIT in the 1960s to understand the limits of weather predictions. He called it the “butterfly effect”. A butterfly flaps its wings in the jungles of South America and two weeks later there is a Category 5 hurricane that devastates New York City and New England. It is caused by slight errors in initial conditions fed into the models such as temperature, pressure, and so on — the butterfly in the jungle. These errors inevitably lead to wildly different long term predictions even if the mathematical models are perfect, which they certainly are not. Reducing the size of the data errors helps, such as measuring the temperature to 0.1 degrees instead of 1 degree, but with rapidly decreasing improvement in forecasts. Lorenz eventually concluded that there is a two week limit to weather forecasts. Anything beyond that is meaningless.
The inability to make long range forecasts is a classic example of what is now known as Chaos Theory/Nonlinear Dynamics, a branch of mathematics which applies to many physical phenomena as well as mathematical equations and computer models. Fluids, the weather, and climate are well known examples of this. The basic lesson of Chaos Theory is that model predictions of nonlinear systems are only good a short time into future and then veer off into a plausible but incorrect direction making long range predication impossible.
This is acknowledged by the IPCC: (!!! The Big Admission !!!)
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation ensembles of model solutions.”
(IPCC 2001, Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, G.1 Data, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/07/WG1_TAR_TS.pdf)
Implicit in this statement is the belief that the computer models have some genuine predictive value and they somehow bracket the actual climate, which is completely unproven.
The modelers also do not know how to actually write equations for many of the processes involved in modeling the climate. As a result they resort to “parameterization”. “Parameterization in a weather or climate model is a method of replacing processes that are too small-scale or complex to be physically represented in the model by a simplified process.” Notice that they specifically include processes such as clouds and rain as too complex to model! ,
For the uninitiated, a “parameterization” is a black box that takes in the state of the weather and outputs clouds, rain, snow, etc. The parameters are knobs that are adjusted to produce desired results. Without a physical model and experimental validation, parameterization is just guess work and curve fitting. As the great twentieth century mathematician John von Neumann once said “with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk”.
There’s lots of other things wrong with the models, but there’s no Climate Hysteria once this is acknowledged.
RE: Reasons for the UFO coverup.
There is a long list of suggestions as to why such a coverup has been maintained for 80 some years.
Well, here’s a new possibility.
Perhaps the coverup can’t /won’t be done away with because, doing so will reveal the extent to which neither the President, nor the Congress, nor the people have any real control over the actions of our government.
Thus, underneath the facade of our supposed democratic republic a far different group of people, organizations, and priorities actually runs and controls things.
Re: Sabine Hossenfelder / Climate Change
She’s coming along. She’s honest enough and disenchanted enough with physics and academia to find her way out.
But it doesn’t happen over night.
Again, whatever training and IQ they may have, human beings are emotional and tribal. When all the smart people around you believe something and it’s important to be aligned with the smart people and your career depends on being aligned with the smart people, it’s hard to follow a truth risking all that.
____________________________________________
Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.
Brevet Major General George Armstrong Custer Lieutenant Colonel 7th United States Cavalry Regiment and the major portion of his regiment departed their camp on Rosebud Creek near its confluence with the Yellowstone River to locate and prevent the escape to the Big Horn Mountains of approximately 400 lodges of Dakota known as the Winter Roamers while Brevet Major General Alfred Terry Brigadier General, Commander of the Department of Dakota with the remainer of his force maneuvered to blocked the Dakota escape to the north. Since recent reconnaissance had tracked the Winter Roamer camp sites up the Rosebud as far as the Busby Bend, the Roamers were thought likely to be in the valley of the Little Big Horn River.
The command consisted of twenty-seven officers from the 7th Cavalry, three attached medical officers from the Department of Dakota and one attached Second Lieutenant from the 20th Infantry Regiment.
The enlisted portion consisted of 566 men of the 7th plus thirty-one Enlisted Indian Scouts, four of whom were Dakota, six attached Enlisted Indian Scouts from the 7th Infantry. These last were Crow enemies of the Dakota whom the Crow considered invaders.
And finally, the command included thirteen civilian employees of the Quartermaster Department along with two spectators.
@Brian E
Thank you for the link to the show, and I appreciate it.
David Sacks points out that a month before Russia attacked Ukraine that Blinken had told Lavrov that not only would Ukraine join NATO but that the administration thought it was ok for the US to put nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Quite a provocation. (minute 24:00)
I’m really, REALLY going to need a source on that from Sacks to take it very seriously, especially considering how Lavrov is one of the few wastes of biology comparable to Blinken in my distrust (and how Lavrov has repeatedly, blatantly, and flagrantly been caught lying about affairs in Ukraine and elsewhere, such as the “Little Green Men” claim).
I don’t know. Sacks is a smart person with connections that might give him a line into the government gossip. I assume he wouldn’t make unsubstantiated claims of this magnitude without a source, but that’s just assumption on my part.
Fair, though considering the number of supposedly smart people with connections that have made mind bogglingly stupid, dishonest, and/or misguided claims before (or some combination of the above, as the lies about the Laptop show) I have to note that simply won’t cut the mustard.
That said, I will be approaching the issue from another angle and, as per steelmanning the case, argue that it frankly does not matter.
The US has every right to station nuclear weapons in a consenting Ukraine as Russia does, or that Russia has to station nukes in Kaliningrad (I hate that term) or Belarus. Likewise, the right of Ukraine to seek accession to NATO and – if it were to meet the criteria – to join it is a fundamental right of a sovereign nation agreed to under the UN and by the Russian government, including in the Helsinki Final Act and the Astana Declaration.
In his own remarks to the press after meeting with Blinken, Lavrov stressed that although Russia does “not want any conflicts” with NATO over Ukraine, it maintains the “right to choose ways to ensure its legitimate security interests.”
The problem is that Russia had absolutely no “legitimate security interests” in invading and dismembering Ukraine under false pretenses. And we know this because even the Russian government itself avoided declaring its involvement in the war on the international stage as a combatant until 2022, and in fact tried to position itself as a neutral or interested party at Minsk I and II.
Had the Russian Government had legitimate security interests it was willing to publicly declare as a justification for – say – deploying military units to Crimea or the Donbas, I would have somewhat more sympathy (not much since I do not think they would pass a second look, but some) since at least then they could claim they were intervening during a period of crisis (that they largely exacerbated by trying to give the Bargain Bin Blank Cheque to Yanukovych, but details) to protect their nationals, interests, and neutral citizens ala the USMC in the Bluefields about a century ago.
But they didn’t.
The Little Green Men came under false pretenses, in false flag.
“And let’s not forget, of course, the proclaimed principle of indivisibility and security, including in the OSCE, in the NATO Council of Russia, which says that no one has the right to strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others,”
This is fucking hilarious to me on multiple levels coming from Lavrov, considering:
A: “Strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others” IS EXACTLY what the Russian governments have been doing since 1990 with violent force.
B: “The proclaimed principle of indivisibility and security… in the OSCE” does not stand alone, and must be weighed with other principles.
But since Lavrov so kindly wishes to discuss the OSCE, shall we discuss some of its principles?
“3. The security of each participating State is inseparably linked to that of all others. Each participating State has an equal right to security. We reaffirm the inherent right of each and every participating State to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve. Each State also has the right to neutrality. Each participating State will respect the rights of all others in these regards. They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States. Within the OSCE no State, group of States or organization can have any pre-eminent responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE area or can consider any part of the OSCE area as its sphere of influence. We will maintain only those military capabilities that are commensurate with our legitimate individual or collective security needs, taking into account obligations under international law, as well as the legitimate security concerns of other States. We further reaffirm that all OSCE principles and commitments, without exception, apply equally to each participating State, and we emphasize that we are accountable to our citizens and responsible to each other for their full implementation. We regard these commitments as our common achievement, and therefore consider them to be matters of immediate and legitimate concern to all participating States. “
Gee, why is Lavrov cherrypicking the “not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other states” and not…uh… Literally Anything Else in this Point or even the Astana Declaration (WHICH I NOTE HIS GOVERNMENT AGREED TO), especially the “free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve.. also has the right to neutrality…. respect the rights of all others in these regards….Apply equally to each participating state”?
Lavrov and his government have violated literally every OSCE principle there is by their invasion and state sponsored terrorism in Ukraine, and on some level Lavrov KNOWS this because he has to warp the “strengthen their security at the expense of others” principle beyond any resemblance whatsoever to its origin and act as if it supercedes all the rest…. while also ignorign the Russian government’s flagrant violation of the “strengthen their security at the expense of others” bit.
By the OSCE standards, Lavrov deserves the Ribbentrop treatment.
he said, also adding that “the further advance of NATO to the East will definitely affect the fundamental interests” of Russia’s security.
That’s true. It is also fucking irrelevant as a matter of law.
Russia’s government has the right to calculate its “fundamental interests” and ascertain how to best address them as it pleases. HOWEVER, it does NOT have the right to do so without scrutiny or outsider access.
Moreover, the Russian Government very blatantly and openly acknowledged that “the inherent right of each and every participating State to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance…” was an innate fundamental interest of all other nations in the OSCE, INCLUDING Ukraine and the NATO member states.
So even if I lobotomized myself and pretended that Putin’s government invaded Ukraine in order to forestall it joining NATO (spoiler: IT DID NOT, or at least not PRIMARILY, as shown by Finland and Sweden), or the EU (more likely/closer to the truth), the Arctic Council, or a Sporting League, it would not matter. This would still be a flagrant and knowingly illegal violation of Ukraine’s “inherent rights” and Russia’s obligations under the OSCE and others. One that it compounded by the creation of the Donbaschukuos and decision to absorb them into the Russian government.
All of this means that Lavrov is guilty of crimes against the peace and crimes against humanity at the BARE Minimum, and in a more just world would be hanged until dead.
Moreover, his gaslighting and extremely selective cherrypicking of OSCE principles shows that on some level he knows it (or at least knows that other parties would acknowledge him as such), which is Mens Rea, knowledge of guilt compounding said guilt.
And people wonder why Lavrov is a waste of protein who I view as comparably scummy and perfidious to Blinken.
Reading between the lines indicates to me that the issue of NATO and deployment of missiles was discussed.
Firstly: I have no reason to try and “read between the lines” of someone who is an absolutely remorseless, psychopathic liar when I have no particularly solid reason to believe there is any meaning or truth to be found. Lavrov in this very article tries to gaslight his audience on what the OSCE principles are and on what methods Russia’s pursuit of its “fundamental interests” would be in compliance with those principles, in violation of them, or flat out illegal under foundational laws like the Conventions for the Definition of Aggression.
Secondly: As mkent pointed out, any ascension of Ukraine to NATO or placing of missiles in it was far in the future due to the nature of NATO regulations for membership which meant that even had peacetime Ukrainian sentiment turned on a dime to support both, it would have been the pathway of many years (as was the case for Albania, Croatia, the Baltics, and so on). Moreover, this ignores the fact that Ukraine’s public across the board was opposed to seeking NATO membership or the basing of nuclear missiles by either side on its territory ( INDEED, THIS WAS ONE OF THE DRIVING REASONS FOR THE NEGOTIATIONS OF THE BUDAPEST MEMORANDUM, WHICH I NOTE THE RUSSIAN DICTATORSHIP ALSO VIOLATED).
Thirdly: Even HAD Ukraine joined NATO and placed missiles on its territory….. it would have every right to do so. The same rights Russia has to form an alliance (indeed, a Union State) with Belarus and to base nuclear weapons* on its soil with the consent of its dictatorship.
If you look at the Ukraine-Russia War through the lens of a US attempt to depose Putin– using Ukraine as the pretext to put crippling sanctions on Russia,
Firstly: why on earth would I look at this through that lens? Especially given Biden and Obama’s long history of appeasing the Kremlin, including even after the Russia Scares of 2016 onward?
Secondly: In what way would this even make sense?
If a “Ukraine-Russia War” was a “US attempt to depose Putin” by using “Ukraine as the pretext to put crippling sanctions on Russia”, why the hell would the US not use Putin’s ALREADY WELL DOCUMENTED involvement in the Ukraine War – complete with the illegal occupation and annexation of Crimea – as justification to do so?
This was MORE Than enough with the Stimson Doctrine regrading both Imperial Japan and the Soviet Union (at least until it was undermined by periodic and usually ill starred attempts at appeasement or “detente”).
Moreover, if the Russian dictatorship had evidence to believe this was the case, WHY WOULD IT DECIDE TO ESCALATE THE WAR and remove ANY ambiguity (implausible as it already was) that it was a combatant in the war with its “Special Military Operation”? Especially since such crippling sanctions WOULD NOT NECESSARILY GO AWAY even if the Russian government WON the war in Ukraine speedily?
Indeed, while I believe the Kremlin’s Diplomatic Staff to be a cabal of not particularly bright or honest scumbags, many of whom would richly deserve a bullet to the back of the brain, I DO think they are competent and knowledgeable enough to understand these points. After all, THEY NEGOTIATED many of the relevant documents such as Budapest and Astana, and had easy access to the earlier ones. If they had any practical or legal justification for these measures to pre-empt these arguments, I imagine they would have presented them already.
That Lavrov’s hypocritical gaslighting bullshit about OSCE principles while citing only one (which he helped violate anyway) is one of the best arguments they could put forth I think underlines the poverty of their case.
Moreover, actually looking through this lens – rather than merely citing it as possible chaff or defense – shows how incoherent and nonsensical the image from it is even from the Kremlin’s POV and how it could not be used to muster a legal justification for this invasion, and really doesn’t stand as a practical one. Especially if even one Kremlinoid gave a single solitary thought about how other countries would react to the abandonment of any pretense of plausible deniability.
So no, I do not think for a single second that the Kremlin thought that this was some kind of US provocation to justify overthrowing Putin, nor do I think that was actually the case of Joey scumbrains and co (though I fear they might try and weaponize it like we have).
it doesn’t surprise me that our government would have made extremely provocative statements and later squashed the Istanbul treaty.
It’s telling that this is being solid as “extremely provocative statements” when all of them are well within Ukraine’s rights as agreed to by the Russian government at Astana and Helsinki, among other things.
Moreover, it is telling that even if I granted every single one of these premises, the Kremlin still cannot blame anyone or any party more than itself for getting itself into this situation.
At the beginning of the war, Biden publicly said it was going to take regime change in Russia to end the war.
One of the few things I largely agree with on Biden, though I object to him saying that out loud. Moreover this only happened after 2022, following Putin’s systematic violations of Minsk I and II (which I note the likes of Biden and co spearheaded and are now trying to rebrand – ironically not unlike the Soviet and Putinite spin on Molotov-Ribbentrop- as “buying time to strengthen Ukraine”).
Where the gang that couldn’t shoot straight in foggy bottom/Langley got it wrong was thinking they were going to be able to strangle the Russian economy.
Not really. The Russian economy’s undergoing a slow strangulation, which is one reason why they’ve frequently overcorrected and why in many other aspects – especially consumer goods and liquid credit – the Kremlin is suffering. The shift to a war economy will help logistics but worsen that.
There were a lot of pollyannaish indicators at how readily sanctions could strangle the Russian economy and how quickly they might end the war, and those were nonsensical. But no less nonsensical is the attempts to argue “LOOK AT GLORIOUS STRONG RUSSIAN RUBLE! Plsignorehowstrongrubleunderminepurchasingpatternsandbadlyguttedconsumerconfidence.”
German companies continued to export nitrocellulose to Russia– a key ingredient in gunpowder after sanctions were imposed.
That is true, and I have no reason to believe that is uncommon. But you can’t eat Nitrocellulose. It is a poor substitute for Butter and Bread.
Turkey, a NATO country imports 81% of it’s oil (24% of Russia’s total exports) from Russia– then exports some of it to EU countries.
And it has used its position as middleman and the sanctions to drive a harder bargain and eat some of the lunch that’d otherwise go to Russia. Common transaction cost. Not ideal and not worth trusting the Turks, but still points out that even many of the indications where the sanctions have fallen short of utopian efficiency still hurt the Kremlin’s economy and help slowly
The sanctions are driving alliances between Russia and other countries that will backfire on our interests in other parts of the world.
I’m pretty sure that almost all of those alliances with “other countries” were already sworn enemies of us, and weren’t going to change if we stopped. This is something I pointed out regarding Biden and the appeasement of Iran (home of a lot of those Shaheed Drones used both in Ukraine and Israel).
mkent, my claim about the tension between Russia and the West concerning expansion of NATO goes back to the Clinton administration.
I’d say the HW Admin, if not Reagan.
But the thing is: they’ve also been ADDRESSED since then, at least. And continuously so. And again, Astana 2010 was inked under Obama with Russian consent. I don’t have a particularly HIGH opinion of Astana given its wording and decidedly weaksauce enforcement, but it certainly undermines the Russian claim of mortal fear if Ukraine was allowed to freely negotiate its statement.
As to Ukraine being ineligible to join NATO, that only relates to the current situation.
No, it was ineligible even before the war in much the same way Latvia was in 1994.
Yes, Russia was building it’s forces around Ukraine. So what. It was a warning to take NATO off the table.
The use of those forces – again, without provocation, without ultimatum to Ukraine, and so on – go beyond a “warning” and into a Crime that should see Putin and his entire cabinet get lethal injection, including the aforementioned Lavrov.
Moreover, leaving aside legal ambiguities about saber rattling and mustering on the border, the fact remains that a Russian invasion for the express purpose* of denying Ukrainian ascension to NATO, the EU, or FIFA would be a conscious violation of Ukraine’s rights and Russia’s obligations under – among other things – the OSCE and UN.
*The invasion was not, in fact, for the express purpose of preventing Ukrainian ascension to NATO or any of those other bodies (which it was not eligible for) but over the real and alleged humanitarian crisis in the Donbas and Crimea… which I note the Kremlin had a leading role in engineering as we have discussed before. Which is why I largely view focusing too much on NATO to be a distraction since not only was (as mkent pointed out) NATO not on the table for Ukraine, but even if it had been Russia had no legal justification to violently invade the country to prevent it.
(I also note that the Cuban Missile Crisis analogy also fails, considering how the US permitted and tolerated the existence of defensive nuclear weapons in Cuba; it only went on war footing to prevent the deployment of nuclear weapons capable of striking nations outside of Cuba. CORRECTLY as it turns out given Che and the Castros’ posturing during the crisis.)
The goals of Ukraine are only tangentially aligned with the US/Western interests.
Not so tangentially given decades of relations and cooperation and arguably interests going back further (which British merchants in the 1600s dreading farming collapses in the “Wild Fields” for fear of a catastrophic rise in food prices).
But so what of it?
Politics and diplomacy are often about working for common purposes with those that align with us, even if tangentially. I do not see this objection being raised towards attempts to communicate with Russia on real or alleged terrorism.
The West is looking at Ukraine as a new market to control. Not to long ago Graham pointed out the West needed to drive Russia out of the Donbas as there is $10- $12 trillion of mineral resources just waiting to be extracted.
Fair, among other reasons.
The global West wants Putin deposed in favor of a more Western aligned leader.
And frankly we have more than enough justification to want such a thing, and one of my greater problems with Foggy Bottom is that they generally HAVEN’T wanted such a thing, hence the track record of appeasement (even almost up to the very day of the invasion and in some cases even after, such as Biden and co trying to use Putin as a backdoor with Iran).
One that would fall in line with the global agenda of fundamental transformation. Russia would still get their cut– only based on the interests of the WEF/Globalists.
And none of that gives me any reason whatsoever to believe Putin or his cabal deserve to stay in power or have not committed egregious crimes. I have no love for the WEF (and Putin I note has been more than happy to cooperate with them when he believes it fits, such as Obama’s ill fated attempts to help gin up a “Russian Silicon Valley”). My view on what serves the West best is almost diametrically opposed to theirs.
That does not, however, mean it cannot be “tangentially aligned” in the case of certain goals, in much the same reason I doubt either Putin or the WEF want Daesh to dominate the Middle East, and how I imagine even Daesh does not want the world to suddenly run out of breathable air.
om, I’m glad you discovered that the sanctions aren’t/weren’t having the effect they were supposed to.
They’re having at least some of the effect, but they aren’t perfect.
Nitrocellulose is just one small example.
Indeed.
I keep reading that the sanctions are soon going to have an effect.
They’re already having an effect. If you don’t believe that, look at how the value of the Ruble has ping ponged, and has been subject to incredibly harsh central control. Among other things such as rationing of certain gifts and even some export bans.
That doesn’t mean they equal the full effects of what dreamers about the sanctions hoped they’d have with Putin out of office by the end of 2022, or even what they’d realistically be able to achieve if enforced rigorously and uniformly by a united front. But an impact they do have.
Russia can’t keep up the war for more than x number of years. This, is the only hope of Ukraine winning as Zelensky has defined winning.
I’m more skeptical of that; I think a conventional Ukrainian victory is fairly unlikely (at least now) but I can’t entirely rule it out, in much the same way that those that believed the Croats could never muster a conventional force to defeat Milosevic or Karadzic after seeing Vukovar would’ve been blindsided by Operation Storm.
One of the things Trump said in his conversation on the All In podcast was he would take NATO off the table for Ukraine as part of any settlement.
Which is one case I respectfully disagree with Trump, though I still support him and in any case believe such a promise would be of nil import given the nature of the war.
Since for the last 20 years that has never been tried– it might be time to try it.
I fail to see why.
NATO was not on the table for Ukraine for “the last 20 years” BOTH because Ukraine was ineligible to join NATO, and the Ukrainian public by and large did not WANT to be in NATO for similar reasons to why they did not want missiles.
I flatly reject the idea that Putin’s invasion and attempted dismemberment of Ukraine was anything like a major reason for the invasion, and I think Russian government behavior and calculations show that. And also why while I have scant love for Sweden and Finland’s current governments I do appreciate them calling Putin’s bluff and seriously discrediting that argument.
In any case, Putin hasn’t tried being a perfidious, ratfaced, backstabbing, oathbreaking POS for much longer than 20 years, as the Georgians and even Belarusians can attest. Maybe it’s time to change that. I do not support regime change as a condition for ending the war (even if realistically I believe it may be needed), but I would read certain obituaries with a great deal of glee. Unchristian of me? Perhaps. But that’s on me and God.
Then we should just ignore Jens Stoltenberg’s statement on April 29, 2024
On membership, Mr Stoltenberg said: “Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO. Ukraine will become a member of NATO. The work we are undertaking now puts you on an irreversible path towards NATO membership, so that when the time is right, Ukraine can become a NATO member straightaway.”
Follow up on the baldfaced hornets.
At 16:15 PDT chemical weapons were released to tactical units. 16:20 enemy position was hit. About 2 hours later after careful observation from a distance through binoculars, a follow-up strike was launched. Enemy force was observed destroyed. No friendly casualties other than the initial sting in the face. It hurts. Feels like I got kicked in the face. Then I watched Mel Gibson and the 7th Cavalry fight in the Ia Drang Valley.
My previous comment was directed to mkent, not to Turtler. I’ve been away from my computer and missed Turtler’s lengthy rebuttal.
Chases Eagles, I applaud your battle plan and it’s effective implementation. Doing battle and suffering only a single wound against as tenacious and relentless foe as the hornet should result in a medal.
@Chase Eagles
Congrats indeed, whatever the differences Brian E and I face, I echo his admiration for you. Hornets are nasty critters and it is good you weren’t seriously injured in the valiant and well fought battle.
Also, @Brian E
I need to proofread more I suppose
By
“I flatly reject the idea that Putin’s invasion and attempted dismemberment of Ukraine was anything like a major reason for the invasion,”
I meant to write something like
“I flatly reject the idea that keeping Ukraine out of NATO was anything like a major reason for Putin’s invasion and attempted dismemberment of Ukraine.”
Herp deep on me. This I guess is what I get for writing large scale posts when somewhat sleepy, and for that I apologize.
Brain E chides me for supposedly not knowing that economic sanctions have complex effects and all too often businessmen and corporatoons will sell rope to their intended executioners.
That’s never been said or happened before, eh, Brain E?
Exactly what part of the Ukrainian nation and Ukrainian economy does the US and the rest of the evil West plan to dominate? Sunflower seeds and other grains? Natural gas and petroleum, aka Burisma? Vladdy’s army and air force are doing their “damned” (used in the Biblical sense) best to obliterate Ukraine, the nation and economy.
Brain E is indeed fixated on NATO, noticing that after Russia started a war in Europe against one nation Russia is not to be trusted to stay within Russia’s borders. Ukraine wasn’t in NATO, and isn’t in NATO, but should be in NATO.
Our right to vote is a sacred one. Our ability as Americans to choose our leaders—and the direction of our country—must never be taken for granted. Unfortunately, there are many principled and patriotic men and women—hunters—who are disengaged from our country’s democratic process. The truth is many American hunters do not vote.
We are surely approaching the End of Days….
(AKA Repent before it’s too late….)
0:00 Air-to-air drones
0:33 WWI comparison
1:30 Drones favor the defender
2:25 The element of surprise
3:25 Drones and artillery
4:36 Breaking the deadlock
5:53 Drones and turtle tanks
Putin still wants total control over Ukraine – Anders Puck Nielsen
0:00 Talk about peace
0:50 Ukraine’s summit on peace
3:28 Putin’s peace plan
4:23 Putin’s demands
5:33 Demilitarization and denazification
7:40 War aims haven’t changed
9:10 What Putin wanted to achieve
9:33 A glimpse into Putin’s mind
10:33 Does Putin want peace?
Turtler, the point I’ve been trying to make about NATO is that has been a consistent long-term objection by Russia to NATO expansion. There are certainly other goals Russia had regarding Ukraine, but we should call their bluff on NATO. Take NATO off the table.
The problem the West faces is Russia effectively called our bluff. NATO at this point seems to be a paper tiger. Europe is ill-equipped to defend itself– which leads to one of my issues– the defense of Europe still falls on the US. We have our own issues, and there is still free-riding going on in NATO.
My speculation about regime change in Russia as a goal of the US wasn’t based on it being a plan, but more a strategy of opportunity. Russia had amassed a force at the border and rather than diffuse the situation, did we exacerbate it by hardline response that only made the war inevitable?
IMO, this makes sense when you consider the very slow response by the Europeans and the Biden administration to rearm Ukraine after their initial victories pushing back Russian armies that had overextended themselves.
It almost seems like we wanted the war to drag on– in fact Graham’s famous comment that this was the best money we’d ever spent– killing Russians without one dead American.
I might have more confidence about your position that Ukraine might prevail had Ukraine set it’s goals as to restoring the pre-2022 borders. Given the nature of offensive warfare without air dominance, I don’t think Ukraine has the manpower or the West the resolve to spend the kind of money necessary to achieve that goal. Remember, Russia has learned from their mistakes as well.
If I’m right, and Ukraine continues to lose territory for the next year or two, when does Ukraine cut their losses and negotiate a settlement? Zelensky made it clear that the war was over if the US didn’t provide the funding for this year.
Quite frankly the Donbas and Crimea situation should have been divided in 1991-94. Other former Soviet era countries were able to settle disputes short of war.
I don’t buy the notion that Russia could take all of Ukraine, let alone push through Poland to old Europe. But Russia can certainly make the cost of restoring western Ukraine much more expensive. Given their indebtedness to the IMF and other lenders– who will own Ukraine when the bombs quit falling?
”Then we should just ignore Jens Stoltenberg’s statement on April 29, 2024”
Is this a question? Yes, when discussing the events of February 2022 statements made in April 2024 can be safely ignored, at least until the invention of time travel.
But since you brought it up, yes the events of February 2022 changed the relation between far eastern Europe and NATO. Now that Russia has been shown to be without a doubt a genocidal conquerer of foreign lands, NATO membership will in time include Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, and, eventually, Koenigsberg.
And the Russians will have no one to blame but themselves.
The year was 2017. Gosh, seems like just yesterday.
Brain E:
Clearly ignores the facts to carry on his information shaping operation.
Many in NATO did not take the threat posed by The Russian Federation seriously in the 1990-2022 era. Many but not all. Unfortunately Germany was one of the many and Hungary still doesn’t. Germany is no longer in that mindset. But Brain E still considers NATO a paper tiger. Funny but his man Vlad rails about the war the the West and NATO is waging against poor Roosia,
I don’t buy the notion that Russia could take all of Ukraine, let alone push through Poland to old Europe. But Russia can certainly make the cost of restoring western Ukraine much more expensive. Given their indebtedness to the IMF and other lenders– who will own Ukraine when the bombs quit falling?
How much are you and Vladdy going to be satisfied with? A Ukraine with no access to the Black Sea?
What is this Old Europe you speak of Brain E?
You have noticed that Poland is already a part of the toothless, worthless, useless even in the Cold War (and we all know The Russian Federation is a model international state eternally at peace with her neighbors) abomination NATO. So with Ukraine restored to a Russian version of Belarus what exactly would keep The Russian Federation from teaching Poland and the Baltics a lesson, or reabsorbing part or all of them Brain E?
So now Brain E is worried about who will “own” Ukraine once his man Vladdy stops bombing the F out of the necessities for a modern state? Oh yeah that’s the real estate mind thinking? Make the whole country into a fix-er-upper and flip it, to who? I’d say turnaround is fair play, Ukraine should bomb the everloving F out of all Russian assets that have military utility. That won’t happen to the degree necessary so don’t soil yourself Brain E.
@Brian E
Turtler, the point I’ve been trying to make about NATO is that has been a consistent long-term objection by Russia to NATO expansion.
And the points I’ve been trying to make are thus:
Firstly: Russian aggression, imperiousness, pretensions to hegemony or territorail dismemberment, and power politics have been an even more consistent long term objection by Russia’s neighbors than NATO expansion has been to Russia. Moreover, they have never withdrawn those objections (nor had any legal need to) unlike in cases like Helsinki or Astana where Moscow made (however insincere) lip service about the countries in their near abroad having the right to self determination.
Secondly: Russia has EVERY RIGHT to put forth its objections to NATO expansion. However, it does not have the legal right to act upon them in a criminal fashion, especially not one so nakedly deceitful.
Thirdly: I find obsessing over NATO expansion as the proximate or direct cause for the wars in Ukraine to be fundamentally wrongheaded, in much the same way as doing so for the wars in Georgia and the Transnistrian War to be. The chronology, legal matters, and other factors make it fairly clear the Kremlin’s actions and those of its local proxies were not motivated primarily by NATO expansion (and certainly not the threat of immediate of it) but by other factors such as ethnic expansionism, resource conflicts, and corruption.
All of those points get glossed over by taking Lavrov’s self-serving, dishonest bullshit about NATO expansion too seriously as the cause of the war. Especially since I keep pointing out the very diplomatic and national rights that supposedly grant Minsk’s far more illegitimate, criminal, dictatorial, and racist regime than any post-Maidan Ukrainian government the right to enter a “Union State” with Russia and allow the stationing of Russian Nuclear Weapons Systems* on its territory allow Ukraine to seek NATO entrance.
Of course, Lavrov does not bother addressing the two faced nature of his posturing and demands or ask why his government is allowed to do so. Because that would give the game away.
So we go back to the point.
This system has to run either by naked force, or by international law.
If run by international law, the Russian dictatorship must be forced to recognize Ukraine’s international rights and those of its neighbors to go their own way (or not). Like it already did multiple times before at Astana and Helsinki.
If run by brute force, then the West has every right to take out its big stick and thwack the Kremlin over the head to impose a penalty on it to see who breaks first.
There are certainly other goals Russia had regarding Ukraine, but we should call their bluff on NATO. Take NATO off the table.
I find this unnecessary, which is one reason why I disagree with Trump on this issue. Sweden and Finland already called Putin’s bluff on the matter and did so successfully. All pretenses that the war in Ukraine was primarily about stopping the expansion of NATO should have died upon Finland’s ascension and the Kremlin’s acceptance of it. Indeed, by doing so Putin etc. al. acknowledged that those countries have inherent rights that the Kremlin either can’t or practically cannot overturn by force of arms, as outlined by things like the Helsinki Final Act and Astana.
Of course, Ukraine is also a party to those agreements and has similar rights.
I do not see the point in conceding a point to an enemy (as Putin and his likeminded minions certainly have proven to be) when it is not necessary. Calling its bluff can be done by simply beating the Kremlin over the head over and over again with Sweden and Finland and how the Kremlin decided it could not or would not go to war to prevent their joining into NATO.
Which utterly destroys any legal pretense that such a casus belli was legal, moral, or just, which is also why I oppose giving any more air time to it for the same reason I reject treating the supposed complaints of Hamas with more time than is necessary to refute them, or Democrat claims that Millwaukee is a bastion of voter integrity by likewise.
To do otherwise is frankly to give an utterly insincere and self-evidently false narrative undue legitimacy and attention, and what attention I do want it to get comes from banging the proponents of it over the head with counterexamples.
The problem the West faces is Russia effectively called our bluff.
Called our bluff? Perhaps. Effectively? that remains to be seen.
Georgia in 2008 has better claims for that. And Georgia 2008 is also a good reason why I generally oppose appeasement for the Kremlin.
NATO at this point seems to be a paper tiger.
“Seems like.”
Those two words do a hell of a lot of weight carrying in that statement.
And while I am somewhat sympathetic to them, the fact remains:
A: That does not address the legal or moral rights or national self-interest involved in allowing Putin to play Kwantung Army in Ukraine like his goons have been allowed to in Transnistria and Georgia.
B: NATO is still one of the most formidable military alliances there is.
C: The less Paper-Tigery members of the Alliance (especially outside France and particularly Germany) also tend to be the ones that are more stalwart about opposing the Kremlin’s war. Poland was the third Coalition Ally in Iraq, and the Baltics, Poles, and Ukrainians fought, killed, and died with us through Afghanistan and Iraq when many NATO members either refused to show up or simply went to relatively “safe” postings.
So forgive me if banging the “NATO Weak” or “NATO Bad” drums as a justification for abandoning or dialing down support to Ukraine strike me as PARTICULARLY tin-eared, given how the reaction to “NATO Weak” would be seeking more muscular allies capable of carrying their weight.. like Poland, the Baltics, Finland, and so forth.
Europe is ill-equipped to defend itself–
Against Islamic terrorism and demographic rot? We agree.
Against the Russian Federation or the PRC? I disagree. Especially given how the Kremlin has spent half a generation fighting over trench lines in Ukraine now.
Moreover, I do not see how allowing the Kremlin to dominate Ukraine as it has many times over would make Europe *more* capable of defending itself, or helping to defend us.
which leads to one of my issues– the defense of Europe still falls on the US. We have our own issues, and there is still free-riding going on in NATO.
I agree on all of those points, and one of the areas I most agree with Trump on is the effort to screw with NATO free riding and get more support for the Alliance, and fewer scumbags like Chirac and the Spanish Left.
But I find one of the best ways to do that being having those more committed to the alliance, more militarily capable, and more able to shame, humiliate, or demand support from the freeloaders. Poland, Czechia, the Baltics, and Finland have all helped to one degree or another in that, as has even Ukraine (in spite of my misgivings about its governments).
My speculation about regime change in Russia as a goal of the US wasn’t based on it being a plan, but more a strategy of opportunity.
A strategy of opportunity I would be broadly supportive of given the post-Soviet and anti-Western and anti-American orientation of the Kremlin, though one I have precious little reason to believe was the case.
But in any case the Kremlin could have avoided most of the sanctions it has suffered by the arcane art of “Not escalating the war in Ukraine.” Apparently that was either beyond the ken of the Kremlin’s brain trust, or it wasn’t but they saw Biden and his handlers as a good opportunity to sucker punch the US and humiliates us and the Brits by escalating the war to Ukraine without even the SMIDGEON of a legal or ethical justification, especially since they have not claimed to be trying to restore Yanukovych as “Legitimate” President (because hey, he won an election; Oath, what is that?) or some other thing.
Both of which put the ball and the blame squarely in the Kremlin’s court.
Russia had amassed a force at the border and rather than diffuse the situation, did we exacerbate it by hardline response that only made the war inevitable?
Frankly, I don’t know and I don’t give a fuck because that is deeper into the conjectural woods than even I am comfortable with, and above all deeper into the conjectural woods than it is necessary or useful to go to. We fundamentally do not know “What if”. Or even if “What if” was possible. For all we know, Putin would’ve not (further) invaded Ukraine without such “provocation”. For all we know, Putin would have responded to the lack of such by believing he had the A-Ok to formally declare war.
Probably not in either case, but we don’t know.
In any case, it doesn’t matter.
Complaints about “exacerbating” the situation from the US are useful for post facto histories and analysis, but do nothing to change the fact that the situation existed because of the Kremlin’s rank illegality.
Conversely, we can safely say that FDR “exacerbated the situation” by refusing to meet with Blueblooded Quasi-Fascist Japanese PM Prince Konoe to discuss the Japanese occupations of China and French Indochina in 1940-1, due to not wanting to give undue legitimacy to the Japanese invasions and occupations. FDR did not know that Konoe was distressed at how Japanese politics were running away even from his control and what he recognized as an unwinnable war between Japan and the West was dawning, and that he had obtained permission from Hirohito to make broad, sweeping concessions ranging from the withdrawal of Japanese forces from Indochina and China and an end to the “Sacred War” against the Republic of China. Concessions that might have been worse than useless and likely would’ve gotten Konoe assassinated (as he believed) but which also might have been everything and even avoided the Pacific War.
But FDR did not have comprehensive knowledge of Japanese politics (indeed, most Japanese did not), and his actions were reasonable. He was also correct to point out that Japanese aggression and criminality had caused the situation to reach that boiling point, and that it would cause this to bubble over further.
One does not need to idolize FDR in order to acknowledge this, indeed I have grown less fond of him the more I know and view him as an usurping egomaniac with eerily authoritarian leanings. Ditto with Brandon, Obama, Foggy Bottom, Nuland, and the WEF (though without most of what redeeming features FDR had).
But if we are at the point where we are philosophically debating if US “provocations” “exacerbated” a crisis caused by the Kremlin violating its OSCE obligations and international law to partition a neighboring country, I think it’s time to take a step back and return to brass tacks. Legally and ethically speaking, a “hardline” response towards the Kremlin’s bullshit WAS THE CORRECT RESPONSE. The argument is if it was the pragmatic response, and particularly for the US.
We likely disagree on that for various reasons, especially as I do because I have scant trust or faith in the Kremlin honoring its agreements or modus vivendis unless it either sees the incentive to do so, or is compelled by force majeure. But if the Kremlin did not wish to be bound by such legal and ethical considerations, it should have simply refused to hop on board or – if on board – reneged, as we did regarding things like the Rome Treaty.
IMO, this makes sense when you consider the very slow response by the Europeans and the Biden administration to rearm Ukraine after their initial victories pushing back Russian armies that had overextended themselves.
I have little love for the Europeans or Biden, but delays in rearmaments don’t make a lot of sense if regime change is the goal, unless the goal was to get the Kremlin trapped in some kind of Super-Afghanistan manpower sink over the next several years and gradually sink Kremlin support. I also don’t think it holds up much as the Allies were generally attentive to Ukrainian support and gave a lot of what they could (outside of some notable cases like the Germans in general and long range weapons), with the latest issues with German and US elections and Biden playing hide-the-salami in Omnibus bills helping to slacken it.
I don’t entirely know what motivated Biden etc. al.’s actions beyond the fact it almost certainly isn’t the motives they loudly claim. But I also don’t view that is entirely necessary. Moreover, Biden cannot remember what he did last night outside of some cases and his handlers are malevolent nitwits with a history of seeking to demonize Russia on the domestic stage but seek appeasement abroad.
That does not mean your thesis is impossible, but I think it is unlikely.
It almost seems like we wanted the war to drag on–
in fact Graham’s famous comment that this was the best money we’d ever spent– killing Russians without one dead American.
Well there have been some dead Americans but those tend to be volunteers. But honestly I cannot entirely fault them for that. Much of the current “leadership” hoped to quickly put the Ukraine war from 2014 under the rug with the likes of Minsk I and II, but the failure of that (especially in 2022) seems to have humiliated them. They also seem to have capitalized on it as a domestic club to beat us with, and in any case their brighter sparks likely concluded that no quick victory over the Kremlin in Ukraine would be possible (after about 8 years of war prior to 2022), so the goal was to exhaust and bleed them. Which I largely agree on.
I might have more confidence about your position that Ukraine might prevail had Ukraine set it’s goals as to restoring the pre-2022 borders.
The problem I see is that fundamentally Crimea is hard to sustain without the coast and vice versa. The Russians learned that the hard way in the 1850s and they were by no means the first, given the more brutal, enslaving and genocidal ancestors of the Crimean Tatars before.
In any case, the Ukrainians have no reason to believe Russia would honor the 2022 borders (whatever those are supposed to be), as Putin still will not put forth concrete proposals of peace and has claimed to unilaterally annex Ukrainian territory. As such I think they do not have much of a choice but to fight.
Moreover, we saw similar cases with the Croats and Bosniaks in the Yugoslav Wars, though not to the same degree given how far less imposing the naval obstacles were (though they were still there).
Given the nature of offensive warfare without air dominance, I don’t think Ukraine has the manpower or the West the resolve to spend the kind of money necessary to achieve that goal.
I I do not know, but I think it is possible. In any case, I do not see TOO much downside in seeing if they can while hopefully tying up and bleeding the Kremlin out. Moreover the West – for all of its issues – is interested in helping the Ukrainians contest the air, as the F-35 order shows.
(I actually am somewhat leery of this given the risk of them being captured or destroyed and examined, but I suppose if we’re not using them to contest our most dangerous aerial adversaries like the Russian Federation and the PRC, what are they for that couldn’t be done by less sophisticated and costly platforms?)
Remember, Russia has learned from their mistakes as well.
I agree absolutely, which is one reason I think the conflict’s goal is in doubt. but not all of those learnings are to Putin’s benefit, as Prigozhin’s Mutiny and the anti-conscription and mobilization unrest show (which has started to manifest in weaker form in Ukraine, I will note).
In any case the war will be long and hard, and if we wished to deter the Kremlin from further misadventures at the expense of our prestige and our most reliable European partners, that is exactly how we hope it should be for them. Should the Ukrainians wish to bow out, I leave that to them, but so long as they are willing to fight I am inclined to support them.
If I’m right, and Ukraine continues to lose territory for the next year or two, when does Ukraine cut their losses and negotiate a settlement?
I defer to the Ukrainians there.
Zelensky made it clear that the war was over if the US didn’t provide the funding for this year.
Frankly I think Zelenskyy is overstating that, or speaking only for the Kyiv Government. Which sounds a bit redundant or counterintuitive until you rememberthe guerilla war.
Quite frankly the Donbas and Crimea situation should have been divided in 1991-94.
And I wouldn’t have opposed that. But that isn’t how the cookie crumbled. If Putin had approached Ukraine with such a proposal in exchange for other consideration like nuclear deterrence back, I’d have been amiable to the two talking it out with US mediation at most.
But that’s not what happened.
It’s also why while I actually have no ironclad opposition to Crimea and the Donbas joining Russia in principle or the abstract, I do oppose recognizing them doing so or allowing them when done In This Specific, Criminal Way. Especially one that humiliated the US and upended the kind of security arrangements that helped.
Other former Soviet era countries were able to settle disputes short of war.
Yes, they were. Including some Russian and Ukrainian ones. But that isn’t a permanent settlement if one side decides to keep pulling the Takesy backsies card. As the Kremlin did.
I don’t buy the notion that Russia could take all of Ukraine, let alone push through Poland to old Europe.
I’m less concerned about whether they could so much as if they might try to, especially given the culture of recklessness, escalation, and chest thumping in the Kremlin. I’m worried some game of Cykaphone that starts with talking about how Crimea is Russia or the Donbas is Russia and talking about how Russia could seize Gotland compounds- as we already have signs of it – with talk of Moldova and Poland being “Denazified”, until eventually we have some got trying to pull the Call of Duty Modern Warfare II plotline and starting a world war.
Which is pretty much exactly what happened in Japan from 1931 to 1941.
But Russia can certainly make the cost of restoring western Ukraine much more expensive. Given their indebtedness to the IMF and other lenders– who will own Ukraine when the bombs quit falling?
I leave that to the financial wizards so long as the Kremlin does not. In any case, I do not believe the Russian dictatorship has any right or legitimacy to own Eastern or Southern Ukraine, and should be made to pay for attempting it, in part to help deter it from trying similar nonsense and to weaken our enemies while strengthening our more reliable allies in Europe.
Where does one begin the countries that ruinously locked down their people where freedom of speech is becoming a memory where to speak the Eord gets you jail but you speak the shahada gets you awards why has larry fink gone on all on ukraine because he is a great humanitarian how about sock puppet trudeau clearly miss chemezov nee
freedland is really in charge they care about speech or association ask the truckers ask the farmers in iowa so spare me
Now i know why ukraine cannot give up bandera petlura mazeppa that covers about 300 years however the foolish promise of regime change is why putin will not give up
Either
So what is the end goal the former is unlimely so is the latter cui bono from this war continuing on this path escalating to a larger european contest see the link about bond villains also the last kingsman film about the great war
A) Bald faced hornets – never found them that aggressive, unlike yellow jackets. Three years in a row they built a nest in a rhododendron bush. Our dog would run past it all the time, shaking the branches. I’d run the lawnmower within a couple of feet. They never bothered either of us. OTOH, got stung multiple times by yellow jackets, before I found the nests and killed them using a large jar over the entrance.
B) Pennsylvania hunters- I’m pessimistic that getting them to vote would help Trump. Hunters are mostly working class. In PA, that means union, and that means Democrat and Solidarity. Many will break for Trump, but not enough to overcome Union pressure. If there is vote-by-mail, damned few, because the union will have someone in their kitchen to “assist”.
C) Oakland – Can you blame them? The team is already committed to move to LV. It’s like a guy announcing he’s leaving his wife for another woman, but expecting meals and laundry service until he gets around to moving his stuff out.
Re: Pride month
I noticed the new Pride Flag today. It’s the old rainbow flag made even more inclusive with black, brown, light blue, pink and white stripes added in a triangle on the left:
Note that the design looks like it was based on the Palestinian flag with a lot more colors.
I’m sure it’s a coincidence.
Israel waited too long before getting rid of the Palestinians—driving them from the Gaza & West Bank, IMHO. They are struggling now to get rid of Hamas – considered a ‘mini-army’ of around 40,000 back on 10/16/2023. Here’s ISW’s latest report – Iran Update, June 23, 2024:
Hamas appears to be accelerating its reconstitution effort in the Gaza Strip. Hamas is actively recruiting 18-year-olds and has attempted to conduct training for new recruits. Recruitment is one element of the second stage of reconstitution, regeneration. Reconstitution consists of two general tasks, reorganization and regeneration. Reorganization involves a commander redistributing the resources at their disposal to restore attrited units to a minimal level of effectiveness. Regeneration is a more complex, time-intensive, and resource-intensive process “that requires large-scale replacement of personnel, equipment, and supplies.” This process includes training of new personnel. Active Hamas recruitment efforts indicate that at least some Hamas commanders have begun to regenerate the forces under their command.
Hamas will likely continue to try to exploit the lack of Israeli forces throughout much of the Gaza Strip by executing both reorganization and regeneration efforts to reconstitute itself. A commander usually must disengage their force from opposing forces to successfully and efficiently reconstitute. Hamas took advantage of Israeli withdrawals in much of the Gaza Strip to rebuild the combat power of degraded local battalions, integrate new forces, and prepare them for further combat activities.
Hamas appears to be successfully reconstituting itself militarily and politically in areas where the IDF is no longer present.
Wikipedia Baldface
“Technically a species of yellowjacket wasp, it is not one of the true hornets, which are in the genus Vespa. Colonies contain 400 to 700 workers, the largest recorded colony size in its genus, Dolichovespula.[1] It builds a characteristic large hanging paper nest up to 58 cm (23 in) in length. Workers aggressively defend their nest by repeatedly stinging invaders.[2]”
…” Their aggressive defensive nature, though, makes them a threat to humans who wander too close to a nest or when a nest is constructed too close to human habitation. They vigorously defend the nest, with workers stinging repeatedly, as is common among social bees and wasps. The bald-faced hornet has a unique defense in that it can squirt or spray venom from the stinger into the eyes of vertebrate nest intruders. The venom causes immediate watering of the eyes and temporary blindness.[4]”
A bit of my own speculation on expected tactical Russian setbacks in Ukraine.
The west will allow Ukrainians to use Patriots to target and down Russian warplanes over Russia. This will negate the utility of Russian FAB3000 glide bombs. Those have 3000kg of HE. Without these glide bombs Russian advances stall out.
With adequate supplies of western SAM systems and reloads Russian destruction of Ukrainian energy (electricity) and urban infrastructure becomes less rapacious though still barborous.
Some say Russia is learning, learning to discard all scruples. Why some carry their water is a profound continuing mystery.
What is next, attacking the civilian nuclear power plants on the Denipro that Russia seized in 2022 and control?
The situation leading to a pitcher getting a win without officially facing a batter is hardly unusual. It is simply the result of an inning ending on a pickoff. A couple other things have to happen but it seems likely it has happened before.
OK I looked it up before edit expired. From MLB.com:
Because Newcomb was the pitcher of record when the A’s took the lead, he was credited with the win despite not officially facing a batter, becoming the 27th pitcher (and the first in A’s history) to do so since 1901 and the first since Tony Watson did it for the Giants on Aug. 30, 2020. [It was also a pickoff – FOAF]
@miguel cervantes
Where does one begin
Anywhere you want.
the countries that ruinously locked down their people where freedom of speech is becoming a memory where to speak the Eord gets you jail but you speak the shahada gets you awards why has larry fink gone on all on ukraine because he is a great humanitarian how about sock puppet trudeau clearly miss chemezov nee freedland is really in charge they care about speech or association ask the truckers ask the farmers in iowa so spare me
Which is all well said, and again why we go back to the fact that we need to focus on our own issues first. And why if it comes down to the US or Ukraine, then I am more than prepared to throw Ukraine under the bus, and if I thought the US’s cause and liberation from the woke benefitted from abandoning Ukraine that is what I would do.
But I don’t see it. Moreover, what tends not to get as much attention is the fact that Putin has either started or imitated many of those trends; we have the same corrupt “national” Covid Vaccine, appeasement of Islamists, heresy in church, shilling with Iran, and so much worse that we identify with the Woke. Sure, the Kremlin is better on some things than our own corrupt rot like knowing what it wants and having a healthier grasp on the benefits of patriotism and nationalism, but that’s offset by its indifference to human life or rights and hostility to us.
Now i know why ukraine cannot give up bandera petlura mazeppa that covers about 300 years
I don’t think that is the issue. Even if they DID Hypothetically give them all up, that would provide no incentive or compelling force to stop Putin from trying to partition or conquer their country. After all, the Kremlin’s interests in the country stretched back hundreds of years before all of them. Indeed, Mazepa started out as one of their vassals in a system imposed in the 1600s before he ultimately turned on them through a combination of mistreatment and ambition.
Ukraine going “Ok, we give up Mazepa and Petliura and Bandera” would probably accomplish farq all beyond the Kremlin going “Ok, that’s nice. But we still want to conquer you and harness your resources and territory.”
Conversely, all three of them didn’t really factor in. So long as Ukraine was doing more or less what the Kremlin demanded it was ok with them talking about Mazepa, Petliura, and Bandera.
however the foolish promise of regime change is why putin will not give up Either
I’m not so inclined to give them that much credit. I opposed Biden and co’s scummy demand for regime change, precisely because I viewed it as counterproductive (and I am one who actually wants regime change in Russia). But the Kremlin wasn’t going to give up before or without that promise, and it was at least better than the weak wristed, appeasement oriented policies that have put Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine in violent, oppressive purgatories.
I have my disagreements with Kennan but I think his point that the Kremlin is not very attentive to the language of reason but is very attentive to the language of force.
So what is the end goal
That depends, and it is where many disagree. So I can speak for myself, but that would be the removal of all Russian occupation forces from Ukraine’s internationally recognized (that is, pre-2014) Borders, and the destruction or crippling of its Black Sea Fleet to avoid further mischief.
Perhaps as an extension, the removal of the Kremlin’s forces from Moldovan and Georgian territory, as well as that of their proxies. I recognize many like Brandon’s handlers hold greater ambitions such as regime change or the WEFization of Eastern Europe, but that is where I stand.
the former is unlimely so is the latter
Agreed.
cui bono from this war continuing on this path escalating to a larger european contest see the link about bond villains also the last kingsman film about the great war
Honestly I like the Kingsman series and found the latest one to be the best, but as a student of history it was half decent at best. As bad as Rah Rah Rasputin was (and he was quite bad) he was a loyal Tsarist Absolutist and moreover something of a Pacifist who opposed Russian involvement in WWI (even in defense of Serbia and Montenegro) on grounds it would endanger the dynasty and absolute monarchy. I appreciate they cast more attention onto Hanussen/Steinschneider, who like Ludendorff and others are really one of the underappreciated monsters of history, but “The Shepherd” I found to be dumb. It also ignores that as far as international conspiracies to spark a world war, you don’t need to look further afield than Berlin and Vienna for that (with a side helping of Unity or Death in Belgrade and Sarajevo).
As far as “cui bono”, I think any answer to that question needs to at least address Putin and the other Kremlin hawks that view Ukraine as their patrimony and “rightful” territory (which they can’t stop giving away in their pronunciations, such as Lavrov’s idiotic and hypocritical slips regarding the OSCE showing he does not view Ukraine as entitled to the same OSCE rights he demands for Russia), and the power the emergency state gives them. In that I fear they are mirrored by the globalists out West like Biden, and one reason I hope this war is wrapped up quickly and the Kremlin is sent packing is so that Obama and co cannot escalate the war and use emergency powers to justify going after us.
…which is precisely why “he” may well need this war to continue….
I mean what’s a little more subterfuge, all things being equal…?
He hasnt fired gerasimov who came up with this stupid plan maybe he wants to humiliate him, now shoigu is beyond humiliation like a yak
All of the big players rah rahimg this war have gotten nothing right, i credit men of good will like colonel kemp and folks here but the rest of the gang like general
nat x or any of the cnn msnbc brain trust i use that word advisedly the ones who fell for the ghost of kiev the afghan bounties the gaza hospital
@Miguel Cervantes
He hasnt fired gerasimov who came up with this stupid plan maybe he wants to humiliate him, now shoigu is beyond humiliation like a yak
Humiliation is moderately important in authoritarian shame societies (like Kremlin politics have been for a long time) where it can serve as a barometer for weakness and prestige, but it is ultimately cheap compared to freedom and life. If Putin truly wished to punish Gerasimov and Shoigu we would expect them to be demoted at a minimum, and imprisoned or disappeared at worst like we saw with the naval fiascos and several FSB men. That tells me that no matter how badly they screwed up he ultimately sees more use in keeping them on side for whatever reason (likely due to a mixture of closeness and patronage)..
All of the big players rah rahimg this war have gotten nothing right,
Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones, and we all ultimately live in houses with glass in them. Including you and I.
And to be sure, I have gotten many things wrong (including that Putin would not escalate the war, or that if he did he would likely occupy Kyiv or parts of it). But I have also gotten many things right, such as that he would ultimately seek to intervene to support his puppet troops in the Donbas as they lost ground during the long undeclared war, that the Russian military was not some all crushing force, and that appeasement would ultimately be a waste of time as Putin’s ambitions and sentiments would lead him to align against us, as we saw with Georgia.
And while I utterly despise the likes of Biden and Nuland (and will gladly point to many of their failures, such as the idea that the Ukrainian government would need to go into exile from Kyiv, and their general bungling and appeasement and politicization and corruption) even I will not deny credit where it is due, such as pointing out that Putin was lying about many of his pretenses.
i credit men of good will like colonel kemp and folks here but the rest of the gang like general nat x or any of the cnn msnbc brain trust i use that word advisedly the ones who fell for the ghost of kiev the afghan bounties the gaza hospital
Indeed. Though it looks like the Ghost of Kyiv was a mixture of conflating a bunch of different air pilots together with some propaganda, and while ultimately false (or a “composite” or “aspirational story”) was not exactly out of the realm of possibility for a high intensity peer on peer air war’s story. As for the Gaza Hospital I was always skeptical given the lack of credible outside sources from a Hamas propaganda mill, but I assumed that IF the IDF had done it, the IDF had a good reason for it (like we have seen many times over).
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Pretty Good.
And, I do love the very positive, friendly Man playing the guitar.
So in an interesting case of what I assume is projection, MSN is reporting that there is a movement to replace Trump at the RNC.
https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/politics/trump-campaign-seeks-to-head-off-convention-revolt-from-its-right-flank/ar-BB1oGNzp
I wonder, with a voice like that, if this was totally random; nice voice!
I love this guy’s videos.
The Democrats have a recent record of screwing their primary voters, but the Republicans don’t, so I doubt this will go anywhere, physicsguy. It’s interesting to see, however, that some conservatives are now seeing that Trump isn’t really a program conservative.
Sabine has just put up another climate video where she “discovers” that actual planetary temperature measurements are really a mess. Unfortunately she does rely quite a bit on Mann and Hanson and is shocked that they disagree (which is unusual). She also still thinks the Paris accord of 1.5 degrees is meaningful, but focuses on whether we have crossed it or not. Never questions why 1.5 degrees is even meaningful. She is making slow progress, but…. I did leave a comment where I keep saying she needs to look at the work of people like John Christy and Richard Lindzen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Dqz7P-mORs
Kate, yes….I never thought of Trump as a true conservative in the usual definition, but as someone who has found out that the conservative positions are the ones that can save the country.
mann and co, have been playing games with the measurements, heat island effect and the like, yes why is 1.5 degrees a tipping point, because its a scam,
Woodward and Bernstein redux:
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2024/06/21/samuel-woodward-describes-how-he-stabbed-former-classmate-blaze-bernstein-to-death/
Odd little coincidence.
you’ll be surprised to know the atomwaffen is nicely funded by the bureau for reasons,
it took six years for that to go to trial?
oh
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/06/22/european-newspaper-says-citizens-better-get-used-to-not-having-electricity-all-the-time/
https://www.dossier.today/p/a-hamas-linked-newspaper-is-accusing
https://babylonbee.com/news/walt-disney-posthumously-fired-by-walt-disney-company-for-being-white-male
“Sabine has just put up another climate video where she “discovers” that actual planetary temperature measurements are really a mess.”
– physicsguy
Why has it taken scientists and smart people so long to grasp this? Big computers and algorithms are great tools. But you have to have quality data to arrive at answers that are correct and usable.
Arguments from authority have become their only tool. After Covid, people are beginning to see that the “scientific authorities” are often using erroneous or no data to make proclamations about “Danger Will Robbins!” Time to return to the scientific method of questioning everything. Especially climate science.
very rarely is the underlying data ever presented, like the ecru hack in 2009, that was the heart of the controversy with steyn and sindberg, with mann, the corporate press, has taken the latters side, and this is what the narrative has been crafted from, a few samizdat like boricuagato, and aegyptius, cover the foundations of the narrative
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/propaganda-playbook-for-climate-activists
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/made-to-measure-climate-hobgoblins
Conversation with President Trump by the folks at the All In Podcast. Wide range of topics, with good questions.
David Sacks points out that a month before Russia attacked Ukraine that Blinken had told Lavrov that not only would Ukraine join NATO but that the administration thought it was ok for the US to put nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Quite a provocation. (minute 24:00)
In conversation with President Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blqIZGXWUpU
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2024/06/22/extreme-left-violence-le-pen-party-candidate-hospitalised-following-masked-men-attack/
Former Trump legal advisor Jeff Clark dishes that Chief Justice John Roberts has requested that Biden’s DOJ responds by June 26th to Steve Bannon’s stay filing before Courts.
The filing would keep him from serving jail time for crossing the Kangaroo Pelosi Court on J6 through election season. The 26th will just be 4 days before his is required to report to prison for four months.
SEE X here, with letter and document from Roberts.
https://x.com/JeffClarkUS/status/1804180540225933758
Adding to our physicsguy notice on Sabine Hossenfelder’s WAKEUP call on bad climate data, I would push this recent paper in the open access journal “Applications in Engineering Science in March.”
The subject is the topic of CO2 saturation, which halts is place as a greenhouse gas. Jan Kubicki and his colleagues are engineering profs at the Warsaw Military University of Technology, a team which has published on this topic but more narrowly three times in 2020 and 2022.
He surveys the historical science literature, reviews experimental lab and observational studies like Ole Humlum’s (Geophysicist in Norway), before concluding on reversing the conventional wisdom: relying too much on climate models instead of physical observations, the popular AGW via enhanced GHW is a theory in search of evidence. Instead the evidence supports the saturation thesis. Yet there remain areas of final scientific investigation to go. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666496823000456
Over at Powerlineblog in April, John Hinderaker gives us an almost non-technical primer on the Kubicki, et al, paper.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/04/will-more-co2-warm-the-atmosphere.php
Kate:
I think it’s random, because he has plenty of videos of people with bad voices. He is unfailingly polite and respectful to all, but he gets smilier when there’s someone good, like this guy.
David Sacks points out
==
And how would David Sacks know that?
I think Sabine suffers from too much trust in how climate data is collected. The weather app I use relies on local, private weather stations. In the summer the station closest to my house is consistently 10-13 degrees hotter than the rest of the stations near by. I don’t use that station’s temperature readings as it is obviously wrong, it’s placed in the sun or something. If the data you collect is flawed, everything rolls down hill from there. I believe that NASA collects temperature readings from satellites. This seems to be one of the best ways to go.
@J. J. I believe that NASA collects temperature readings from satellites. This seems to be one of the best ways to go.
They also show warming, practically the same amount of warming, and it’s not such a slam-dunk obvious better way to do it, as you can read here.
Determining how the composition of the atmosphere affects global temperatures, and even measuring global temperatures, are very complex and difficult problems. It’s not wrong for climate scientists to do what they are doing, so much as it is for activists, journalists, and politicians to act as though there is more certainty than there really is. The scientists are generally much more candid about the accuracy of what they are doing, barring such publicity hounds as Mann. Pretty much anything you read in the blogosphere that uses data to question climate science was originally produced and published by a climate scientist, usually one in the mainstream. They simply wouldn’t publish such things if they were as bad as the activists, journalists, and politicians.
“And how would David Sacks know that?” – Art Deco
I don’t know. Sacks is a smart person with connections that might give him a line into the government gossip. I assume he wouldn’t make unsubstantiated claims of this magnitude without a source, but that’s just assumption on my part.
Lavrov is quoted by CNN on Dec. 3 2021 saying:
Later in the story:
Reading between the lines indicates to me that the issue of NATO and deployment of missiles was discussed.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/02/politics/antony-blinken-sergey-lavrov-us-russia-meeting-intl/index.html
RE: Proof of Saudi Involvement in planning 9/11?
Well, here is a video, just released after 20 years, taken by a supposed Saudi “operative” shortly before 9/11, which the story linked to below says is proof that the Saudi taking the video was casing Capitol Hill, and was thus involved in the planning of 9/11.*
A good question to ask is, why release this clip just now?
I am certainly aware of the stories saying that a lot of high level/rich Saudis living here in the U.SA. hastily packed up and left the U.S. a few days before 9/11, some abandoning very expensive properties–never even locked their doors or compound gates as they fled–abandoned many possessions, and even left their cars behind, keys in the ignition, in their frantic rush to depart the U.S.
I am also aware of the reports that hours after the attacks of 9/11–and even though all civilian flights were supposedly grounded–the Bush administration allowed aircraft to fly Saudi nationals out of the country.
These two events above seem extremely suspicious.
However, the supposed “evidence” shown in the story linked below–assuming that this clip is the entirely of the “evidence”–is so vague that it could mean anything, and is certainly not a “smoking gun.”
* See https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/breaking-new-video-shows-saudi-official-plotting-9/
”David Sacks points out that a month before Russia attacked Ukraine that Blinken had told Lavrov that not only would Ukraine join NATO but that the administration thought it was ok for the US to put nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Quite a provocation.”
Not this again. You have been corrected on this claim repeatedly on this very blog. Why do you insist on repeating it?
1) The Ukraine was and is ineligible to join NATO. To prevent the Ukraine from joining NATO all Russia had to do was absolutely nothing.
2) By one month prior to this latest invasion, Russia had already built multiple new airfields and army bases in Belarus along the Ukrainian border; stationed over 80 new battalion tactical groups in Belarus, Kursk, Belgorod, and Rostov-on-Don along the Ukrainian border; transferred multiple warships from their Pacific, Northern, and Baltic fleets to their Black Sea Fleet; and loaded up two entire amphibious assault groups with troops and cargo and sent them sailing towards Ukraine.
Therefore neither NATO nor Blinken is the cause of this invasion.
The satellite temperature data are more objective and disagree with the on land data over the period since 1979 when they are available. Listen to this interview with John Christy of the University of Alabama about the satellite data.
“Our satellite data show the Earth is warming at about a rate of 1.5 degrees C per century. That’s a warming that has happened in the geologic past, certainly, and it is a warming rate that is much more gradual than the dire predictions that tend to dominate the media and so on.”
https://academicinfluence.com/interviews/earth-sciences/john-christy
If you look at the Ukraine-Russia War through the lens of a US attempt to depose Putin– using Ukraine as the pretext to put crippling sanctions on Russia, it doesn’t surprise me that our government would have made extremely provocative statements and later squashed the Istanbul treaty.
At the beginning of the war, Biden publicly said it was going to take regime change in Russia to end the war. Where the gang that couldn’t shoot straight in foggy bottom/Langley got it wrong was thinking they were going to be able to strangle the Russian economy.
German companies continued to export nitrocellulose to Russia– a key ingredient in gunpowder after sanctions were imposed.
Turkey, a NATO country imports 81% of it’s oil (24% of Russia’s total exports) from Russia– then exports some of it to EU countries.
The sanctions are driving alliances between Russia and other countries that will backfire on our interests in other parts of the world.
“They also show warming, practically the same amount of warming, and it’s not such a slam-dunk obvious better way to do it, as you can read here.” – Niketas C.
Although I didn’t make the statement, JFM did, I will respond.
You’re correct that the satellite measurements show warming. Just less warming than the climate models and the surface temperature records. As mentioned, it’s not a perfect solution to the problem of measuring temperature changes worldwide.
The issue, as I see it, has boiled down to four things.
1. Is CO2 the only driver of the rise in temperatures? A major point of contention. Though CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it’s unproven as the “control knob” of climate change. Much more must be shown because geological history shows that CO2 and temperature are not necessarily connected.
2. Is the amount of warming an existential crisis? At this point, no one knows. The AGW believers say it is without sufficient evidence to convince most people. Climate change as a crisis ranks quite low among the average person’s priorities.
3. Can humans do anything to control the climate? Another point of contention. Thus far, CO2 reduction has proven difficult, if not impossible on any scale that matters.
4. How can we maintain a modern standard of living in a changing climate? The presently proposed solution of curbing CO2 emissions by using wind and solar to power our modern economy is, with present technology, unworkable. The “deniers” are calling for adaptation to climate changes (Bjorn Lomborg), and/or a transition to nuclear power. (Anyone who has looked hard at wind and solar.)
The debate is a vigorous one, but because our climate is so complex and so much is unknown about its drivers, it appears to me that we have just begun the work of acquiring a deeper understanding of the climate processes.
I read the Watts Up With That blog weekly.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/
The debate there is a good one. Many true climate scientists involved. I recommend it to anyone who wants to be informed about climate change.
actually that tape was released two years ago, I think Catherine Herridge, signalled it initially, one of the few real journalists, employed by a major network
(hence they treat her like a leper) the operative in question, had been the recipient of funds from Prince Bandar’s wife, he officially worked for an aerospace company,
the late Bob Graham, fictionalized some of this, in a novel he wrote around 2012,
the keys to the kingdom, this was four years before the reveal of the 28 pages, nor the real examination of Operation Encore, he meets with two of the hijackers in documentation recovered in London, by Scotland Yard, yet somehow Tony Blair didn’t know about it, I do remember isikoff was leaked of the connection to the two hijackers
from the operative, but it was in the white noise between the midterms and the start of the Iraq war,
https://www.floridabulldog.org/2020/10/tampa-fugitive-described-secret-fbi-operation-encore-captured/#google_vignette another angle from the same m pie
This is called shifting of goalposts:
First it was NATO, remember? Now it is the west trying to depose Putin by those devious means of forcing Putin to invade Ukraine so that sanctions could be imposed on The Russian Federation and cripple the Russian economy.
Something on stilts is now being peddled by Vlad’s apologists.
Autocrats can be remarkable insulated from economic pressure. But it appears that Vlad apologists are very concerned about economic disruptions resulting from the Russian war on Ukraine that Vlad had to start. (sarc x 11)
Brave AI search: nitrocellulose ( aka – gun cotton )
Is nitrocellulose used for small arms ammunition?
https://babel.ua/en/news/105473-despite-the-sanctions-russia-has-doubled-its-imports-of-nitrocellulose-which-is-used-in-the-production-of-artillery-shells
Per the article above who is selling nitrocellulose to Russia? China, Taiwan, USA to Turkey to Russia. Turkey, a member of NATO, is selling nitrocellulose to Russia? Inconceivable!
Again those sneaky sanctions are going to get Putin deposed, it just took a war to get the ball rolling. (again sarc x 11)
The wasps are really bad this year. I just got stung in face by one of these little @#$&. This means war. War to the knife, knife to the hilt. Chemical weapons will be issued.
“ 2) Bald-Faced Hornets Are Very Aggressive
Bald-faced hornets will attack anyone or anything that invades their space, unlike other stinging insects that may only sting when they feel extremely threatened.
They are easily agitated by outside noises and are sensitive to vibrations, which often travel through the air.
For a hapless homeowner innocently mowing a lawn near an overhang that has a bald-faced hornet’s nest, a grim surprise awaits the turn of the next corner that may well result in a trip to the emergency room.
It is recommended that if such occurs, the best thing to do is to move briskly away from the scene and avoid swinging arms and making quick movements.
This is very easy to say and a lot harder to do when confronted with such a threat to bodily harm.
3) The Sting Of A Bald-Faced Hornet Is Wicked
The sting of a bald-faced hornet is truly painful and in the case of some people can cause severe allergic reactions.
Medical attention should be sought immediately if anyone who has been stung experiences difficulty breathing, swelling in the face, throat, or mouth, difficulty swallowing, anxiety, rapid pulse or dizziness.
4) They Have A Very Good Memory
Bald-faced hornets can remember faces, and unfortunately there is no witness protection program to help disguise identity if a human inadvertently returns to the nest area (or from the hornet’s perspective, the scene of the crime).
Once an intruder is within their sights, they will wait with all the patience of a hired hitman for their target to make another visit.
They have been known to fly past other people in order to sting the invader to their nest.
This has implications that go far beyond pain and emergency rooms, as insects are not usually thought to have that kind of social intelligence.
This adds a new and horrifying dimension to their capabilities to harm humans.”
mkent, my claim about the tension between Russia and the West concerning expansion of NATO goes back to the Clinton administration.
As to Ukraine being ineligible to join NATO, that only relates to the current situation.
Yes, Russia was building it’s forces around Ukraine. So what. It was a warning to take NATO off the table.
Another nitrocellulose reference:
https://www.rheinmetall.com/en/products/propellants/propulsion/nc-rm-pvk
Rheinmetall is a very large armaments manufacturer.
Regarding Vlad and NATO his grand stratergery and war of choice against Ukraine, which followed Ukraine wanting to join the EU, an immediate consequence was Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
Why people expend so much effort apologizing for Putin and his dreams of a greater new Imperial Russia is beyond me.
om, it’s not shifting goalposts. You seem like a reasonably bright guy so I’m assuming you know this.
The goals of Ukraine are only tangentially aligned with the US/Western interests. The West is looking at Ukraine as a new market to control. Not to long ago Graham pointed out the West needed to drive Russia out of the Donbas as there is $10- $12 trillion of mineral resources just waiting to be extracted.
The global West wants Putin deposed in favor of a more Western aligned leader. One that would fall in line with the global agenda of fundamental transformation. Russia would still get their cut– only based on the interests of the WEF/Globalists.
om, I’m glad you discovered that the sanctions aren’t/weren’t having the effect they were supposed to.
Nitrocellulose is just one small example.
I keep reading that the sanctions are soon going to have an effect. Russia can’t keep up the war for more than x number of years. This, is the only hope of Ukraine winning as Zelensky has defined winning.
One of the things Trump said in his conversation on the All In podcast was he would take NATO off the table for Ukraine as part of any settlement. Since for the last 20 years that has never been tried– it might be time to try it.
My husband spent a career as an engineer in the electric generation and distribution business. He says that nuclear for the base load instead of coal or oil is a very good idea. Wind and solar, being unreliable (because the wind doesn’t always blow or the sun always shine) are not good enough for peak use. Natural gas is much lower on particulate emissions than oil and coal and can be brought online quickly to meet spike demand. So, nuclear and natural gas. Not wind and solar on a large scale.
”Yes, Russia was building it’s forces around Ukraine. So what. It was a warning to take NATO off the table.”
NATO was not on the table.
NATO was not on the table because the Ukraine was ineligible to join NATO. Therefore there was no need for a warning. There was no need for new military bases on the border. There was no need for a troop buildup. There was no need to amass an amphibious assault force. There was no need for an invasion. There was no need to rape thousands of Ukrainian women. There was no need to kidnap tens of thousands of Ukrainian children. There was no need to kill hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian civilians. There was no need to level whole cities to the ground.
Not a single one of those evil deeds was necessary to prevent the Ukraine from joining NATO — to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO all Russia had to do was absolutely nothing — but Russia did them anyway. What is your obsession with NATO that you constantly use it to excuse such evil?
Regarding Sabine and Climate Models: She doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Over the years, I’ve entertained myself analyzing the models and these are some of my conclusions
The fundamental assumptions that underlie the climate models are:
1 The models can make meaningful long term predictions
2 The Earth is naturally cold
3 The cold Earth can be heated by ”greenhouse gases”
All of these assumptions are wrong.
Here’s my discussion of 1 above.
Mathematics of the Models.
(Do a web search for Chaos Theory for lots of fun and pretty pictures)
We are all acquainted with the weather forecasts on the evening news. They are good for a couple of days, somewhat doubtful for the coming week, and just entertainment for two or more weeks in advance.
The reason for this has been well known since the work of Prof. of Meteorology E. Lorenz of MIT in the 1960s to understand the limits of weather predictions. He called it the “butterfly effect”. A butterfly flaps its wings in the jungles of South America and two weeks later there is a Category 5 hurricane that devastates New York City and New England. It is caused by slight errors in initial conditions fed into the models such as temperature, pressure, and so on — the butterfly in the jungle. These errors inevitably lead to wildly different long term predictions even if the mathematical models are perfect, which they certainly are not. Reducing the size of the data errors helps, such as measuring the temperature to 0.1 degrees instead of 1 degree, but with rapidly decreasing improvement in forecasts. Lorenz eventually concluded that there is a two week limit to weather forecasts. Anything beyond that is meaningless.
The inability to make long range forecasts is a classic example of what is now known as Chaos Theory/Nonlinear Dynamics, a branch of mathematics which applies to many physical phenomena as well as mathematical equations and computer models. Fluids, the weather, and climate are well known examples of this. The basic lesson of Chaos Theory is that model predictions of nonlinear systems are only good a short time into future and then veer off into a plausible but incorrect direction making long range predication impossible.
This is acknowledged by the IPCC: (!!! The Big Admission !!!)
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation ensembles of model solutions.”
(IPCC 2001, Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, G.1 Data,
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/07/WG1_TAR_TS.pdf)
Implicit in this statement is the belief that the computer models have some genuine predictive value and they somehow bracket the actual climate, which is completely unproven.
The modelers also do not know how to actually write equations for many of the processes involved in modeling the climate. As a result they resort to “parameterization”. “Parameterization in a weather or climate model is a method of replacing processes that are too small-scale or complex to be physically represented in the model by a simplified process.” Notice that they specifically include processes such as clouds and rain as too complex to model! ,
For the uninitiated, a “parameterization” is a black box that takes in the state of the weather and outputs clouds, rain, snow, etc. The parameters are knobs that are adjusted to produce desired results. Without a physical model and experimental validation, parameterization is just guess work and curve fitting. As the great twentieth century mathematician John von Neumann once said “with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk”.
There’s lots of other things wrong with the models, but there’s no Climate Hysteria once this is acknowledged.
RE: Reasons for the UFO coverup.
There is a long list of suggestions as to why such a coverup has been maintained for 80 some years.
Well, here’s a new possibility.
Perhaps the coverup can’t /won’t be done away with because, doing so will reveal the extent to which neither the President, nor the Congress, nor the people have any real control over the actions of our government.
Thus, underneath the facade of our supposed democratic republic a far different group of people, organizations, and priorities actually runs and controls things.
Re: Sabine Hossenfelder / Climate Change
She’s coming along. She’s honest enough and disenchanted enough with physics and academia to find her way out.
But it doesn’t happen over night.
Again, whatever training and IQ they may have, human beings are emotional and tribal. When all the smart people around you believe something and it’s important to be aligned with the smart people and your career depends on being aligned with the smart people, it’s hard to follow a truth risking all that.
____________________________________________
Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.
–Janis Joplin/Kris Kristofferson, “Me and Bobby McGee (Official Music Video)”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cg-j0X09Ag
On this day in 1876
Brevet Major General George Armstrong Custer Lieutenant Colonel 7th United States Cavalry Regiment and the major portion of his regiment departed their camp on Rosebud Creek near its confluence with the Yellowstone River to locate and prevent the escape to the Big Horn Mountains of approximately 400 lodges of Dakota known as the Winter Roamers while Brevet Major General Alfred Terry Brigadier General, Commander of the Department of Dakota with the remainer of his force maneuvered to blocked the Dakota escape to the north. Since recent reconnaissance had tracked the Winter Roamer camp sites up the Rosebud as far as the Busby Bend, the Roamers were thought likely to be in the valley of the Little Big Horn River.
The command consisted of twenty-seven officers from the 7th Cavalry, three attached medical officers from the Department of Dakota and one attached Second Lieutenant from the 20th Infantry Regiment.
The enlisted portion consisted of 566 men of the 7th plus thirty-one Enlisted Indian Scouts, four of whom were Dakota, six attached Enlisted Indian Scouts from the 7th Infantry. These last were Crow enemies of the Dakota whom the Crow considered invaders.
And finally, the command included thirteen civilian employees of the Quartermaster Department along with two spectators.
@Brian E
Thank you for the link to the show, and I appreciate it.
I’m really, REALLY going to need a source on that from Sacks to take it very seriously, especially considering how Lavrov is one of the few wastes of biology comparable to Blinken in my distrust (and how Lavrov has repeatedly, blatantly, and flagrantly been caught lying about affairs in Ukraine and elsewhere, such as the “Little Green Men” claim).
Fair, though considering the number of supposedly smart people with connections that have made mind bogglingly stupid, dishonest, and/or misguided claims before (or some combination of the above, as the lies about the Laptop show) I have to note that simply won’t cut the mustard.
That said, I will be approaching the issue from another angle and, as per steelmanning the case, argue that it frankly does not matter.
The US has every right to station nuclear weapons in a consenting Ukraine as Russia does, or that Russia has to station nukes in Kaliningrad (I hate that term) or Belarus. Likewise, the right of Ukraine to seek accession to NATO and – if it were to meet the criteria – to join it is a fundamental right of a sovereign nation agreed to under the UN and by the Russian government, including in the Helsinki Final Act and the Astana Declaration.
The problem is that Russia had absolutely no “legitimate security interests” in invading and dismembering Ukraine under false pretenses. And we know this because even the Russian government itself avoided declaring its involvement in the war on the international stage as a combatant until 2022, and in fact tried to position itself as a neutral or interested party at Minsk I and II.
Had the Russian Government had legitimate security interests it was willing to publicly declare as a justification for – say – deploying military units to Crimea or the Donbas, I would have somewhat more sympathy (not much since I do not think they would pass a second look, but some) since at least then they could claim they were intervening during a period of crisis (that they largely exacerbated by trying to give the Bargain Bin Blank Cheque to Yanukovych, but details) to protect their nationals, interests, and neutral citizens ala the USMC in the Bluefields about a century ago.
But they didn’t.
The Little Green Men came under false pretenses, in false flag.
This is fucking hilarious to me on multiple levels coming from Lavrov, considering:
A: “Strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others” IS EXACTLY what the Russian governments have been doing since 1990 with violent force.
B: “The proclaimed principle of indivisibility and security… in the OSCE” does not stand alone, and must be weighed with other principles.
But since Lavrov so kindly wishes to discuss the OSCE, shall we discuss some of its principles?
https://www.osce.org/mc/74985
“3. The security of each participating State is inseparably linked to that of all others. Each participating State has an equal right to security. We reaffirm the inherent right of each and every participating State to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve. Each State also has the right to neutrality. Each participating State will respect the rights of all others in these regards. They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States. Within the OSCE no State, group of States or organization can have any pre-eminent responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE area or can consider any part of the OSCE area as its sphere of influence. We will maintain only those military capabilities that are commensurate with our legitimate individual or collective security needs, taking into account obligations under international law, as well as the legitimate security concerns of other States. We further reaffirm that all OSCE principles and commitments, without exception, apply equally to each participating State, and we emphasize that we are accountable to our citizens and responsible to each other for their full implementation. We regard these commitments as our common achievement, and therefore consider them to be matters of immediate and legitimate concern to all participating States. “
Gee, why is Lavrov cherrypicking the “not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other states” and not…uh… Literally Anything Else in this Point or even the Astana Declaration (WHICH I NOTE HIS GOVERNMENT AGREED TO), especially the “free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve.. also has the right to neutrality…. respect the rights of all others in these regards….Apply equally to each participating state”?
Lavrov and his government have violated literally every OSCE principle there is by their invasion and state sponsored terrorism in Ukraine, and on some level Lavrov KNOWS this because he has to warp the “strengthen their security at the expense of others” principle beyond any resemblance whatsoever to its origin and act as if it supercedes all the rest…. while also ignorign the Russian government’s flagrant violation of the “strengthen their security at the expense of others” bit.
By the OSCE standards, Lavrov deserves the Ribbentrop treatment.
That’s true. It is also fucking irrelevant as a matter of law.
Russia’s government has the right to calculate its “fundamental interests” and ascertain how to best address them as it pleases. HOWEVER, it does NOT have the right to do so without scrutiny or outsider access.
Moreover, the Russian Government very blatantly and openly acknowledged that “the inherent right of each and every participating State to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance…” was an innate fundamental interest of all other nations in the OSCE, INCLUDING Ukraine and the NATO member states.
So even if I lobotomized myself and pretended that Putin’s government invaded Ukraine in order to forestall it joining NATO (spoiler: IT DID NOT, or at least not PRIMARILY, as shown by Finland and Sweden), or the EU (more likely/closer to the truth), the Arctic Council, or a Sporting League, it would not matter. This would still be a flagrant and knowingly illegal violation of Ukraine’s “inherent rights” and Russia’s obligations under the OSCE and others. One that it compounded by the creation of the Donbaschukuos and decision to absorb them into the Russian government.
All of this means that Lavrov is guilty of crimes against the peace and crimes against humanity at the BARE Minimum, and in a more just world would be hanged until dead.
Moreover, his gaslighting and extremely selective cherrypicking of OSCE principles shows that on some level he knows it (or at least knows that other parties would acknowledge him as such), which is Mens Rea, knowledge of guilt compounding said guilt.
And people wonder why Lavrov is a waste of protein who I view as comparably scummy and perfidious to Blinken.
Firstly: I have no reason to try and “read between the lines” of someone who is an absolutely remorseless, psychopathic liar when I have no particularly solid reason to believe there is any meaning or truth to be found. Lavrov in this very article tries to gaslight his audience on what the OSCE principles are and on what methods Russia’s pursuit of its “fundamental interests” would be in compliance with those principles, in violation of them, or flat out illegal under foundational laws like the Conventions for the Definition of Aggression.
Secondly: As mkent pointed out, any ascension of Ukraine to NATO or placing of missiles in it was far in the future due to the nature of NATO regulations for membership which meant that even had peacetime Ukrainian sentiment turned on a dime to support both, it would have been the pathway of many years (as was the case for Albania, Croatia, the Baltics, and so on). Moreover, this ignores the fact that Ukraine’s public across the board was opposed to seeking NATO membership or the basing of nuclear missiles by either side on its territory ( INDEED, THIS WAS ONE OF THE DRIVING REASONS FOR THE NEGOTIATIONS OF THE BUDAPEST MEMORANDUM, WHICH I NOTE THE RUSSIAN DICTATORSHIP ALSO VIOLATED).
Thirdly: Even HAD Ukraine joined NATO and placed missiles on its territory….. it would have every right to do so. The same rights Russia has to form an alliance (indeed, a Union State) with Belarus and to base nuclear weapons* on its soil with the consent of its dictatorship.
Firstly: why on earth would I look at this through that lens? Especially given Biden and Obama’s long history of appeasing the Kremlin, including even after the Russia Scares of 2016 onward?
Secondly: In what way would this even make sense?
If a “Ukraine-Russia War” was a “US attempt to depose Putin” by using “Ukraine as the pretext to put crippling sanctions on Russia”, why the hell would the US not use Putin’s ALREADY WELL DOCUMENTED involvement in the Ukraine War – complete with the illegal occupation and annexation of Crimea – as justification to do so?
This was MORE Than enough with the Stimson Doctrine regrading both Imperial Japan and the Soviet Union (at least until it was undermined by periodic and usually ill starred attempts at appeasement or “detente”).
Moreover, if the Russian dictatorship had evidence to believe this was the case, WHY WOULD IT DECIDE TO ESCALATE THE WAR and remove ANY ambiguity (implausible as it already was) that it was a combatant in the war with its “Special Military Operation”? Especially since such crippling sanctions WOULD NOT NECESSARILY GO AWAY even if the Russian government WON the war in Ukraine speedily?
Indeed, while I believe the Kremlin’s Diplomatic Staff to be a cabal of not particularly bright or honest scumbags, many of whom would richly deserve a bullet to the back of the brain, I DO think they are competent and knowledgeable enough to understand these points. After all, THEY NEGOTIATED many of the relevant documents such as Budapest and Astana, and had easy access to the earlier ones. If they had any practical or legal justification for these measures to pre-empt these arguments, I imagine they would have presented them already.
That Lavrov’s hypocritical gaslighting bullshit about OSCE principles while citing only one (which he helped violate anyway) is one of the best arguments they could put forth I think underlines the poverty of their case.
Moreover, actually looking through this lens – rather than merely citing it as possible chaff or defense – shows how incoherent and nonsensical the image from it is even from the Kremlin’s POV and how it could not be used to muster a legal justification for this invasion, and really doesn’t stand as a practical one. Especially if even one Kremlinoid gave a single solitary thought about how other countries would react to the abandonment of any pretense of plausible deniability.
So no, I do not think for a single second that the Kremlin thought that this was some kind of US provocation to justify overthrowing Putin, nor do I think that was actually the case of Joey scumbrains and co (though I fear they might try and weaponize it like we have).
It’s telling that this is being solid as “extremely provocative statements” when all of them are well within Ukraine’s rights as agreed to by the Russian government at Astana and Helsinki, among other things.
Moreover, it is telling that even if I granted every single one of these premises, the Kremlin still cannot blame anyone or any party more than itself for getting itself into this situation.
One of the few things I largely agree with on Biden, though I object to him saying that out loud. Moreover this only happened after 2022, following Putin’s systematic violations of Minsk I and II (which I note the likes of Biden and co spearheaded and are now trying to rebrand – ironically not unlike the Soviet and Putinite spin on Molotov-Ribbentrop- as “buying time to strengthen Ukraine”).
Not really. The Russian economy’s undergoing a slow strangulation, which is one reason why they’ve frequently overcorrected and why in many other aspects – especially consumer goods and liquid credit – the Kremlin is suffering. The shift to a war economy will help logistics but worsen that.
There were a lot of pollyannaish indicators at how readily sanctions could strangle the Russian economy and how quickly they might end the war, and those were nonsensical. But no less nonsensical is the attempts to argue “LOOK AT GLORIOUS STRONG RUSSIAN RUBLE! Plsignorehowstrongrubleunderminepurchasingpatternsandbadlyguttedconsumerconfidence.”
That is true, and I have no reason to believe that is uncommon. But you can’t eat Nitrocellulose. It is a poor substitute for Butter and Bread.
And it has used its position as middleman and the sanctions to drive a harder bargain and eat some of the lunch that’d otherwise go to Russia. Common transaction cost. Not ideal and not worth trusting the Turks, but still points out that even many of the indications where the sanctions have fallen short of utopian efficiency still hurt the Kremlin’s economy and help slowly
I’m pretty sure that almost all of those alliances with “other countries” were already sworn enemies of us, and weren’t going to change if we stopped. This is something I pointed out regarding Biden and the appeasement of Iran (home of a lot of those Shaheed Drones used both in Ukraine and Israel).
I’d say the HW Admin, if not Reagan.
But the thing is: they’ve also been ADDRESSED since then, at least. And continuously so. And again, Astana 2010 was inked under Obama with Russian consent. I don’t have a particularly HIGH opinion of Astana given its wording and decidedly weaksauce enforcement, but it certainly undermines the Russian claim of mortal fear if Ukraine was allowed to freely negotiate its statement.
No, it was ineligible even before the war in much the same way Latvia was in 1994.
The use of those forces – again, without provocation, without ultimatum to Ukraine, and so on – go beyond a “warning” and into a Crime that should see Putin and his entire cabinet get lethal injection, including the aforementioned Lavrov.
Moreover, leaving aside legal ambiguities about saber rattling and mustering on the border, the fact remains that a Russian invasion for the express purpose* of denying Ukrainian ascension to NATO, the EU, or FIFA would be a conscious violation of Ukraine’s rights and Russia’s obligations under – among other things – the OSCE and UN.
*The invasion was not, in fact, for the express purpose of preventing Ukrainian ascension to NATO or any of those other bodies (which it was not eligible for) but over the real and alleged humanitarian crisis in the Donbas and Crimea… which I note the Kremlin had a leading role in engineering as we have discussed before. Which is why I largely view focusing too much on NATO to be a distraction since not only was (as mkent pointed out) NATO not on the table for Ukraine, but even if it had been Russia had no legal justification to violently invade the country to prevent it.
(I also note that the Cuban Missile Crisis analogy also fails, considering how the US permitted and tolerated the existence of defensive nuclear weapons in Cuba; it only went on war footing to prevent the deployment of nuclear weapons capable of striking nations outside of Cuba. CORRECTLY as it turns out given Che and the Castros’ posturing during the crisis.)
Not so tangentially given decades of relations and cooperation and arguably interests going back further (which British merchants in the 1600s dreading farming collapses in the “Wild Fields” for fear of a catastrophic rise in food prices).
But so what of it?
Politics and diplomacy are often about working for common purposes with those that align with us, even if tangentially. I do not see this objection being raised towards attempts to communicate with Russia on real or alleged terrorism.
Fair, among other reasons.
And frankly we have more than enough justification to want such a thing, and one of my greater problems with Foggy Bottom is that they generally HAVEN’T wanted such a thing, hence the track record of appeasement (even almost up to the very day of the invasion and in some cases even after, such as Biden and co trying to use Putin as a backdoor with Iran).
And none of that gives me any reason whatsoever to believe Putin or his cabal deserve to stay in power or have not committed egregious crimes. I have no love for the WEF (and Putin I note has been more than happy to cooperate with them when he believes it fits, such as Obama’s ill fated attempts to help gin up a “Russian Silicon Valley”). My view on what serves the West best is almost diametrically opposed to theirs.
That does not, however, mean it cannot be “tangentially aligned” in the case of certain goals, in much the same reason I doubt either Putin or the WEF want Daesh to dominate the Middle East, and how I imagine even Daesh does not want the world to suddenly run out of breathable air.
They’re having at least some of the effect, but they aren’t perfect.
Indeed.
They’re already having an effect. If you don’t believe that, look at how the value of the Ruble has ping ponged, and has been subject to incredibly harsh central control. Among other things such as rationing of certain gifts and even some export bans.
That doesn’t mean they equal the full effects of what dreamers about the sanctions hoped they’d have with Putin out of office by the end of 2022, or even what they’d realistically be able to achieve if enforced rigorously and uniformly by a united front. But an impact they do have.
I’m more skeptical of that; I think a conventional Ukrainian victory is fairly unlikely (at least now) but I can’t entirely rule it out, in much the same way that those that believed the Croats could never muster a conventional force to defeat Milosevic or Karadzic after seeing Vukovar would’ve been blindsided by Operation Storm.
Which is one case I respectfully disagree with Trump, though I still support him and in any case believe such a promise would be of nil import given the nature of the war.
I fail to see why.
NATO was not on the table for Ukraine for “the last 20 years” BOTH because Ukraine was ineligible to join NATO, and the Ukrainian public by and large did not WANT to be in NATO for similar reasons to why they did not want missiles.
I flatly reject the idea that Putin’s invasion and attempted dismemberment of Ukraine was anything like a major reason for the invasion, and I think Russian government behavior and calculations show that. And also why while I have scant love for Sweden and Finland’s current governments I do appreciate them calling Putin’s bluff and seriously discrediting that argument.
In any case, Putin hasn’t tried being a perfidious, ratfaced, backstabbing, oathbreaking POS for much longer than 20 years, as the Georgians and even Belarusians can attest. Maybe it’s time to change that. I do not support regime change as a condition for ending the war (even if realistically I believe it may be needed), but I would read certain obituaries with a great deal of glee. Unchristian of me? Perhaps. But that’s on me and God.
Then we should just ignore Jens Stoltenberg’s statement on April 29, 2024
Follow up on the baldfaced hornets.
At 16:15 PDT chemical weapons were released to tactical units. 16:20 enemy position was hit. About 2 hours later after careful observation from a distance through binoculars, a follow-up strike was launched. Enemy force was observed destroyed. No friendly casualties other than the initial sting in the face. It hurts. Feels like I got kicked in the face. Then I watched Mel Gibson and the 7th Cavalry fight in the Ia Drang Valley.
My previous comment was directed to mkent, not to Turtler. I’ve been away from my computer and missed Turtler’s lengthy rebuttal.
Chases Eagles, I applaud your battle plan and it’s effective implementation. Doing battle and suffering only a single wound against as tenacious and relentless foe as the hornet should result in a medal.
@Chase Eagles
Congrats indeed, whatever the differences Brian E and I face, I echo his admiration for you. Hornets are nasty critters and it is good you weren’t seriously injured in the valiant and well fought battle.
Also, @Brian E
I need to proofread more I suppose
By
“I flatly reject the idea that Putin’s invasion and attempted dismemberment of Ukraine was anything like a major reason for the invasion,”
I meant to write something like
“I flatly reject the idea that keeping Ukraine out of NATO was anything like a major reason for Putin’s invasion and attempted dismemberment of Ukraine.”
Herp deep on me. This I guess is what I get for writing large scale posts when somewhat sleepy, and for that I apologize.
Brain E chides me for supposedly not knowing that economic sanctions have complex effects and all too often businessmen and corporatoons will sell rope to their intended executioners.
That’s never been said or happened before, eh, Brain E?
Exactly what part of the Ukrainian nation and Ukrainian economy does the US and the rest of the evil West plan to dominate? Sunflower seeds and other grains? Natural gas and petroleum, aka Burisma? Vladdy’s army and air force are doing their “damned” (used in the Biblical sense) best to obliterate Ukraine, the nation and economy.
Brain E is indeed fixated on NATO, noticing that after Russia started a war in Europe against one nation Russia is not to be trusted to stay within Russia’s borders. Ukraine wasn’t in NATO, and isn’t in NATO, but should be in NATO.
Russia is worse than Bald Faced Hornets.
Am not sure this is Factual; however, Would you believe over half a million registered hunters in the state of PA didn’t vote in the last election? Other states have huge numbers also – DEMs are going to take the hunters firearms away, and hunters ain’t voting!?
HUNT THE VOTE:
We are surely approaching the End of Days….
(AKA Repent before it’s too late….)
“A’s pitcher records win without facing batter in statistical anomaly
Sean Newcomb threw just two pitches”—
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/as-pitcher-records-win-without-facing-batter-statistical-anomaly
Sad thing about the Oakland game is the stadium was probably empty. They are only averaging around 7,000 per game.
Open Thread – Sunday ( No Perun)
Perun appears to be AWOL so
Can these drones break the frontline deadlock? – Anders Puck Nielsen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htYY8VwN-9g
Putin still wants total control over Ukraine – Anders Puck Nielsen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvu1KdbNXlg
Turtler, the point I’ve been trying to make about NATO is that has been a consistent long-term objection by Russia to NATO expansion. There are certainly other goals Russia had regarding Ukraine, but we should call their bluff on NATO. Take NATO off the table.
The problem the West faces is Russia effectively called our bluff. NATO at this point seems to be a paper tiger. Europe is ill-equipped to defend itself– which leads to one of my issues– the defense of Europe still falls on the US. We have our own issues, and there is still free-riding going on in NATO.
My speculation about regime change in Russia as a goal of the US wasn’t based on it being a plan, but more a strategy of opportunity. Russia had amassed a force at the border and rather than diffuse the situation, did we exacerbate it by hardline response that only made the war inevitable?
IMO, this makes sense when you consider the very slow response by the Europeans and the Biden administration to rearm Ukraine after their initial victories pushing back Russian armies that had overextended themselves.
It almost seems like we wanted the war to drag on– in fact Graham’s famous comment that this was the best money we’d ever spent– killing Russians without one dead American.
I might have more confidence about your position that Ukraine might prevail had Ukraine set it’s goals as to restoring the pre-2022 borders. Given the nature of offensive warfare without air dominance, I don’t think Ukraine has the manpower or the West the resolve to spend the kind of money necessary to achieve that goal. Remember, Russia has learned from their mistakes as well.
If I’m right, and Ukraine continues to lose territory for the next year or two, when does Ukraine cut their losses and negotiate a settlement? Zelensky made it clear that the war was over if the US didn’t provide the funding for this year.
Quite frankly the Donbas and Crimea situation should have been divided in 1991-94. Other former Soviet era countries were able to settle disputes short of war.
I don’t buy the notion that Russia could take all of Ukraine, let alone push through Poland to old Europe. But Russia can certainly make the cost of restoring western Ukraine much more expensive. Given their indebtedness to the IMF and other lenders– who will own Ukraine when the bombs quit falling?
”Then we should just ignore Jens Stoltenberg’s statement on April 29, 2024”
Is this a question? Yes, when discussing the events of February 2022 statements made in April 2024 can be safely ignored, at least until the invention of time travel.
But since you brought it up, yes the events of February 2022 changed the relation between far eastern Europe and NATO. Now that Russia has been shown to be without a doubt a genocidal conquerer of foreign lands, NATO membership will in time include Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, and, eventually, Koenigsberg.
And the Russians will have no one to blame but themselves.
Speaking of time travel, this just in:
Per Snopes,
No, Trump Did Not Call Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists ‘Very Fine People’
The year was 2017. Gosh, seems like just yesterday.
Brain E:
Clearly ignores the facts to carry on his information shaping operation.
Many in NATO did not take the threat posed by The Russian Federation seriously in the 1990-2022 era. Many but not all. Unfortunately Germany was one of the many and Hungary still doesn’t. Germany is no longer in that mindset. But Brain E still considers NATO a paper tiger. Funny but his man Vlad rails about the war the the West and NATO is waging against poor Roosia,
How much are you and Vladdy going to be satisfied with? A Ukraine with no access to the Black Sea?
What is this Old Europe you speak of Brain E?
You have noticed that Poland is already a part of the toothless, worthless, useless even in the Cold War (and we all know The Russian Federation is a model international state eternally at peace with her neighbors) abomination NATO. So with Ukraine restored to a Russian version of Belarus what exactly would keep The Russian Federation from teaching Poland and the Baltics a lesson, or reabsorbing part or all of them Brain E?
So now Brain E is worried about who will “own” Ukraine once his man Vladdy stops bombing the F out of the necessities for a modern state? Oh yeah that’s the real estate mind thinking? Make the whole country into a fix-er-upper and flip it, to who? I’d say turnaround is fair play, Ukraine should bomb the everloving F out of all Russian assets that have military utility. That won’t happen to the degree necessary so don’t soil yourself Brain E.
@Brian E
And the points I’ve been trying to make are thus:
Firstly: Russian aggression, imperiousness, pretensions to hegemony or territorail dismemberment, and power politics have been an even more consistent long term objection by Russia’s neighbors than NATO expansion has been to Russia. Moreover, they have never withdrawn those objections (nor had any legal need to) unlike in cases like Helsinki or Astana where Moscow made (however insincere) lip service about the countries in their near abroad having the right to self determination.
Secondly: Russia has EVERY RIGHT to put forth its objections to NATO expansion. However, it does not have the legal right to act upon them in a criminal fashion, especially not one so nakedly deceitful.
Thirdly: I find obsessing over NATO expansion as the proximate or direct cause for the wars in Ukraine to be fundamentally wrongheaded, in much the same way as doing so for the wars in Georgia and the Transnistrian War to be. The chronology, legal matters, and other factors make it fairly clear the Kremlin’s actions and those of its local proxies were not motivated primarily by NATO expansion (and certainly not the threat of immediate of it) but by other factors such as ethnic expansionism, resource conflicts, and corruption.
All of those points get glossed over by taking Lavrov’s self-serving, dishonest bullshit about NATO expansion too seriously as the cause of the war. Especially since I keep pointing out the very diplomatic and national rights that supposedly grant Minsk’s far more illegitimate, criminal, dictatorial, and racist regime than any post-Maidan Ukrainian government the right to enter a “Union State” with Russia and allow the stationing of Russian Nuclear Weapons Systems* on its territory allow Ukraine to seek NATO entrance.
Of course, Lavrov does not bother addressing the two faced nature of his posturing and demands or ask why his government is allowed to do so. Because that would give the game away.
So we go back to the point.
This system has to run either by naked force, or by international law.
If run by international law, the Russian dictatorship must be forced to recognize Ukraine’s international rights and those of its neighbors to go their own way (or not). Like it already did multiple times before at Astana and Helsinki.
If run by brute force, then the West has every right to take out its big stick and thwack the Kremlin over the head to impose a penalty on it to see who breaks first.
I find this unnecessary, which is one reason why I disagree with Trump on this issue. Sweden and Finland already called Putin’s bluff on the matter and did so successfully. All pretenses that the war in Ukraine was primarily about stopping the expansion of NATO should have died upon Finland’s ascension and the Kremlin’s acceptance of it. Indeed, by doing so Putin etc. al. acknowledged that those countries have inherent rights that the Kremlin either can’t or practically cannot overturn by force of arms, as outlined by things like the Helsinki Final Act and Astana.
Of course, Ukraine is also a party to those agreements and has similar rights.
I do not see the point in conceding a point to an enemy (as Putin and his likeminded minions certainly have proven to be) when it is not necessary. Calling its bluff can be done by simply beating the Kremlin over the head over and over again with Sweden and Finland and how the Kremlin decided it could not or would not go to war to prevent their joining into NATO.
Which utterly destroys any legal pretense that such a casus belli was legal, moral, or just, which is also why I oppose giving any more air time to it for the same reason I reject treating the supposed complaints of Hamas with more time than is necessary to refute them, or Democrat claims that Millwaukee is a bastion of voter integrity by likewise.
To do otherwise is frankly to give an utterly insincere and self-evidently false narrative undue legitimacy and attention, and what attention I do want it to get comes from banging the proponents of it over the head with counterexamples.
Called our bluff? Perhaps. Effectively? that remains to be seen.
Georgia in 2008 has better claims for that. And Georgia 2008 is also a good reason why I generally oppose appeasement for the Kremlin.
“Seems like.”
Those two words do a hell of a lot of weight carrying in that statement.
And while I am somewhat sympathetic to them, the fact remains:
A: That does not address the legal or moral rights or national self-interest involved in allowing Putin to play Kwantung Army in Ukraine like his goons have been allowed to in Transnistria and Georgia.
B: NATO is still one of the most formidable military alliances there is.
C: The less Paper-Tigery members of the Alliance (especially outside France and particularly Germany) also tend to be the ones that are more stalwart about opposing the Kremlin’s war. Poland was the third Coalition Ally in Iraq, and the Baltics, Poles, and Ukrainians fought, killed, and died with us through Afghanistan and Iraq when many NATO members either refused to show up or simply went to relatively “safe” postings.
So forgive me if banging the “NATO Weak” or “NATO Bad” drums as a justification for abandoning or dialing down support to Ukraine strike me as PARTICULARLY tin-eared, given how the reaction to “NATO Weak” would be seeking more muscular allies capable of carrying their weight.. like Poland, the Baltics, Finland, and so forth.
Against Islamic terrorism and demographic rot? We agree.
Against the Russian Federation or the PRC? I disagree. Especially given how the Kremlin has spent half a generation fighting over trench lines in Ukraine now.
Moreover, I do not see how allowing the Kremlin to dominate Ukraine as it has many times over would make Europe *more* capable of defending itself, or helping to defend us.
I agree on all of those points, and one of the areas I most agree with Trump on is the effort to screw with NATO free riding and get more support for the Alliance, and fewer scumbags like Chirac and the Spanish Left.
But I find one of the best ways to do that being having those more committed to the alliance, more militarily capable, and more able to shame, humiliate, or demand support from the freeloaders. Poland, Czechia, the Baltics, and Finland have all helped to one degree or another in that, as has even Ukraine (in spite of my misgivings about its governments).
A strategy of opportunity I would be broadly supportive of given the post-Soviet and anti-Western and anti-American orientation of the Kremlin, though one I have precious little reason to believe was the case.
But in any case the Kremlin could have avoided most of the sanctions it has suffered by the arcane art of “Not escalating the war in Ukraine.” Apparently that was either beyond the ken of the Kremlin’s brain trust, or it wasn’t but they saw Biden and his handlers as a good opportunity to sucker punch the US and humiliates us and the Brits by escalating the war to Ukraine without even the SMIDGEON of a legal or ethical justification, especially since they have not claimed to be trying to restore Yanukovych as “Legitimate” President (because hey, he won an election; Oath, what is that?) or some other thing.
Both of which put the ball and the blame squarely in the Kremlin’s court.
Frankly, I don’t know and I don’t give a fuck because that is deeper into the conjectural woods than even I am comfortable with, and above all deeper into the conjectural woods than it is necessary or useful to go to. We fundamentally do not know “What if”. Or even if “What if” was possible. For all we know, Putin would’ve not (further) invaded Ukraine without such “provocation”. For all we know, Putin would have responded to the lack of such by believing he had the A-Ok to formally declare war.
Probably not in either case, but we don’t know.
In any case, it doesn’t matter.
Complaints about “exacerbating” the situation from the US are useful for post facto histories and analysis, but do nothing to change the fact that the situation existed because of the Kremlin’s rank illegality.
Conversely, we can safely say that FDR “exacerbated the situation” by refusing to meet with Blueblooded Quasi-Fascist Japanese PM Prince Konoe to discuss the Japanese occupations of China and French Indochina in 1940-1, due to not wanting to give undue legitimacy to the Japanese invasions and occupations. FDR did not know that Konoe was distressed at how Japanese politics were running away even from his control and what he recognized as an unwinnable war between Japan and the West was dawning, and that he had obtained permission from Hirohito to make broad, sweeping concessions ranging from the withdrawal of Japanese forces from Indochina and China and an end to the “Sacred War” against the Republic of China. Concessions that might have been worse than useless and likely would’ve gotten Konoe assassinated (as he believed) but which also might have been everything and even avoided the Pacific War.
But FDR did not have comprehensive knowledge of Japanese politics (indeed, most Japanese did not), and his actions were reasonable. He was also correct to point out that Japanese aggression and criminality had caused the situation to reach that boiling point, and that it would cause this to bubble over further.
One does not need to idolize FDR in order to acknowledge this, indeed I have grown less fond of him the more I know and view him as an usurping egomaniac with eerily authoritarian leanings. Ditto with Brandon, Obama, Foggy Bottom, Nuland, and the WEF (though without most of what redeeming features FDR had).
But if we are at the point where we are philosophically debating if US “provocations” “exacerbated” a crisis caused by the Kremlin violating its OSCE obligations and international law to partition a neighboring country, I think it’s time to take a step back and return to brass tacks. Legally and ethically speaking, a “hardline” response towards the Kremlin’s bullshit WAS THE CORRECT RESPONSE. The argument is if it was the pragmatic response, and particularly for the US.
We likely disagree on that for various reasons, especially as I do because I have scant trust or faith in the Kremlin honoring its agreements or modus vivendis unless it either sees the incentive to do so, or is compelled by force majeure. But if the Kremlin did not wish to be bound by such legal and ethical considerations, it should have simply refused to hop on board or – if on board – reneged, as we did regarding things like the Rome Treaty.
I have little love for the Europeans or Biden, but delays in rearmaments don’t make a lot of sense if regime change is the goal, unless the goal was to get the Kremlin trapped in some kind of Super-Afghanistan manpower sink over the next several years and gradually sink Kremlin support. I also don’t think it holds up much as the Allies were generally attentive to Ukrainian support and gave a lot of what they could (outside of some notable cases like the Germans in general and long range weapons), with the latest issues with German and US elections and Biden playing hide-the-salami in Omnibus bills helping to slacken it.
I don’t entirely know what motivated Biden etc. al.’s actions beyond the fact it almost certainly isn’t the motives they loudly claim. But I also don’t view that is entirely necessary. Moreover, Biden cannot remember what he did last night outside of some cases and his handlers are malevolent nitwits with a history of seeking to demonize Russia on the domestic stage but seek appeasement abroad.
That does not mean your thesis is impossible, but I think it is unlikely.
Well there have been some dead Americans but those tend to be volunteers. But honestly I cannot entirely fault them for that. Much of the current “leadership” hoped to quickly put the Ukraine war from 2014 under the rug with the likes of Minsk I and II, but the failure of that (especially in 2022) seems to have humiliated them. They also seem to have capitalized on it as a domestic club to beat us with, and in any case their brighter sparks likely concluded that no quick victory over the Kremlin in Ukraine would be possible (after about 8 years of war prior to 2022), so the goal was to exhaust and bleed them. Which I largely agree on.
The problem I see is that fundamentally Crimea is hard to sustain without the coast and vice versa. The Russians learned that the hard way in the 1850s and they were by no means the first, given the more brutal, enslaving and genocidal ancestors of the Crimean Tatars before.
In any case, the Ukrainians have no reason to believe Russia would honor the 2022 borders (whatever those are supposed to be), as Putin still will not put forth concrete proposals of peace and has claimed to unilaterally annex Ukrainian territory. As such I think they do not have much of a choice but to fight.
Moreover, we saw similar cases with the Croats and Bosniaks in the Yugoslav Wars, though not to the same degree given how far less imposing the naval obstacles were (though they were still there).
I I do not know, but I think it is possible. In any case, I do not see TOO much downside in seeing if they can while hopefully tying up and bleeding the Kremlin out. Moreover the West – for all of its issues – is interested in helping the Ukrainians contest the air, as the F-35 order shows.
(I actually am somewhat leery of this given the risk of them being captured or destroyed and examined, but I suppose if we’re not using them to contest our most dangerous aerial adversaries like the Russian Federation and the PRC, what are they for that couldn’t be done by less sophisticated and costly platforms?)
I agree absolutely, which is one reason I think the conflict’s goal is in doubt. but not all of those learnings are to Putin’s benefit, as Prigozhin’s Mutiny and the anti-conscription and mobilization unrest show (which has started to manifest in weaker form in Ukraine, I will note).
In any case the war will be long and hard, and if we wished to deter the Kremlin from further misadventures at the expense of our prestige and our most reliable European partners, that is exactly how we hope it should be for them. Should the Ukrainians wish to bow out, I leave that to them, but so long as they are willing to fight I am inclined to support them.
I defer to the Ukrainians there.
Frankly I think Zelenskyy is overstating that, or speaking only for the Kyiv Government. Which sounds a bit redundant or counterintuitive until you rememberthe guerilla war.
And I wouldn’t have opposed that. But that isn’t how the cookie crumbled. If Putin had approached Ukraine with such a proposal in exchange for other consideration like nuclear deterrence back, I’d have been amiable to the two talking it out with US mediation at most.
But that’s not what happened.
It’s also why while I actually have no ironclad opposition to Crimea and the Donbas joining Russia in principle or the abstract, I do oppose recognizing them doing so or allowing them when done In This Specific, Criminal Way. Especially one that humiliated the US and upended the kind of security arrangements that helped.
Yes, they were. Including some Russian and Ukrainian ones. But that isn’t a permanent settlement if one side decides to keep pulling the Takesy backsies card. As the Kremlin did.
I’m less concerned about whether they could so much as if they might try to, especially given the culture of recklessness, escalation, and chest thumping in the Kremlin. I’m worried some game of Cykaphone that starts with talking about how Crimea is Russia or the Donbas is Russia and talking about how Russia could seize Gotland compounds- as we already have signs of it – with talk of Moldova and Poland being “Denazified”, until eventually we have some got trying to pull the Call of Duty Modern Warfare II plotline and starting a world war.
Which is pretty much exactly what happened in Japan from 1931 to 1941.
I leave that to the financial wizards so long as the Kremlin does not. In any case, I do not believe the Russian dictatorship has any right or legitimacy to own Eastern or Southern Ukraine, and should be made to pay for attempting it, in part to help deter it from trying similar nonsense and to weaken our enemies while strengthening our more reliable allies in Europe.
https://redstate.com/streiff/2024/06/23/breaking-terrorists-attack-synagogue-churches-and-police-in-russian-region-n2175862
Where does one begin the countries that ruinously locked down their people where freedom of speech is becoming a memory where to speak the Eord gets you jail but you speak the shahada gets you awards why has larry fink gone on all on ukraine because he is a great humanitarian how about sock puppet trudeau clearly miss chemezov nee
freedland is really in charge they care about speech or association ask the truckers ask the farmers in iowa so spare me
Now i know why ukraine cannot give up bandera petlura mazeppa that covers about 300 years however the foolish promise of regime change is why putin will not give up
Either
So what is the end goal the former is unlimely so is the latter cui bono from this war continuing on this path escalating to a larger european contest see the link about bond villains also the last kingsman film about the great war
A) Bald faced hornets – never found them that aggressive, unlike yellow jackets. Three years in a row they built a nest in a rhododendron bush. Our dog would run past it all the time, shaking the branches. I’d run the lawnmower within a couple of feet. They never bothered either of us. OTOH, got stung multiple times by yellow jackets, before I found the nests and killed them using a large jar over the entrance.
B) Pennsylvania hunters- I’m pessimistic that getting them to vote would help Trump. Hunters are mostly working class. In PA, that means union, and that means Democrat and Solidarity. Many will break for Trump, but not enough to overcome Union pressure. If there is vote-by-mail, damned few, because the union will have someone in their kitchen to “assist”.
C) Oakland – Can you blame them? The team is already committed to move to LV. It’s like a guy announcing he’s leaving his wife for another woman, but expecting meals and laundry service until he gets around to moving his stuff out.
Re: Pride month
I noticed the new Pride Flag today. It’s the old rainbow flag made even more inclusive with black, brown, light blue, pink and white stripes added in a triangle on the left:
Behold the Progress Pride Flag!
https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/the-progress-pride-flag
Note that the design looks like it was based on the Palestinian flag with a lot more colors.
I’m sure it’s a coincidence.
Israel waited too long before getting rid of the Palestinians—driving them from the Gaza & West Bank, IMHO. They are struggling now to get rid of Hamas – considered a ‘mini-army’ of around 40,000 back on 10/16/2023. Here’s ISW’s latest report –
Iran Update, June 23, 2024:
Wikipedia Baldface
“Technically a species of yellowjacket wasp, it is not one of the true hornets, which are in the genus Vespa. Colonies contain 400 to 700 workers, the largest recorded colony size in its genus, Dolichovespula.[1] It builds a characteristic large hanging paper nest up to 58 cm (23 in) in length. Workers aggressively defend their nest by repeatedly stinging invaders.[2]”
…” Their aggressive defensive nature, though, makes them a threat to humans who wander too close to a nest or when a nest is constructed too close to human habitation. They vigorously defend the nest, with workers stinging repeatedly, as is common among social bees and wasps. The bald-faced hornet has a unique defense in that it can squirt or spray venom from the stinger into the eyes of vertebrate nest intruders. The venom causes immediate watering of the eyes and temporary blindness.[4]”
A bit of my own speculation on expected tactical Russian setbacks in Ukraine.
The west will allow Ukrainians to use Patriots to target and down Russian warplanes over Russia. This will negate the utility of Russian FAB3000 glide bombs. Those have 3000kg of HE. Without these glide bombs Russian advances stall out.
With adequate supplies of western SAM systems and reloads Russian destruction of Ukrainian energy (electricity) and urban infrastructure becomes less rapacious though still barborous.
Some say Russia is learning, learning to discard all scruples. Why some carry their water is a profound continuing mystery.
What is next, attacking the civilian nuclear power plants on the Denipro that Russia seized in 2022 and control?
The situation leading to a pitcher getting a win without officially facing a batter is hardly unusual. It is simply the result of an inning ending on a pickoff. A couple other things have to happen but it seems likely it has happened before.
OK I looked it up before edit expired. From MLB.com:
Because Newcomb was the pitcher of record when the A’s took the lead, he was credited with the win despite not officially facing a batter, becoming the 27th pitcher (and the first in A’s history) to do so since 1901 and the first since Tony Watson did it for the Giants on Aug. 30, 2020. [It was also a pickoff – FOAF]
@miguel cervantes
Anywhere you want.
Which is all well said, and again why we go back to the fact that we need to focus on our own issues first. And why if it comes down to the US or Ukraine, then I am more than prepared to throw Ukraine under the bus, and if I thought the US’s cause and liberation from the woke benefitted from abandoning Ukraine that is what I would do.
But I don’t see it. Moreover, what tends not to get as much attention is the fact that Putin has either started or imitated many of those trends; we have the same corrupt “national” Covid Vaccine, appeasement of Islamists, heresy in church, shilling with Iran, and so much worse that we identify with the Woke. Sure, the Kremlin is better on some things than our own corrupt rot like knowing what it wants and having a healthier grasp on the benefits of patriotism and nationalism, but that’s offset by its indifference to human life or rights and hostility to us.
I don’t think that is the issue. Even if they DID Hypothetically give them all up, that would provide no incentive or compelling force to stop Putin from trying to partition or conquer their country. After all, the Kremlin’s interests in the country stretched back hundreds of years before all of them. Indeed, Mazepa started out as one of their vassals in a system imposed in the 1600s before he ultimately turned on them through a combination of mistreatment and ambition.
Ukraine going “Ok, we give up Mazepa and Petliura and Bandera” would probably accomplish farq all beyond the Kremlin going “Ok, that’s nice. But we still want to conquer you and harness your resources and territory.”
Conversely, all three of them didn’t really factor in. So long as Ukraine was doing more or less what the Kremlin demanded it was ok with them talking about Mazepa, Petliura, and Bandera.
I’m not so inclined to give them that much credit. I opposed Biden and co’s scummy demand for regime change, precisely because I viewed it as counterproductive (and I am one who actually wants regime change in Russia). But the Kremlin wasn’t going to give up before or without that promise, and it was at least better than the weak wristed, appeasement oriented policies that have put Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine in violent, oppressive purgatories.
I have my disagreements with Kennan but I think his point that the Kremlin is not very attentive to the language of reason but is very attentive to the language of force.
That depends, and it is where many disagree. So I can speak for myself, but that would be the removal of all Russian occupation forces from Ukraine’s internationally recognized (that is, pre-2014) Borders, and the destruction or crippling of its Black Sea Fleet to avoid further mischief.
Perhaps as an extension, the removal of the Kremlin’s forces from Moldovan and Georgian territory, as well as that of their proxies. I recognize many like Brandon’s handlers hold greater ambitions such as regime change or the WEFization of Eastern Europe, but that is where I stand.
Agreed.
Honestly I like the Kingsman series and found the latest one to be the best, but as a student of history it was half decent at best. As bad as Rah Rah Rasputin was (and he was quite bad) he was a loyal Tsarist Absolutist and moreover something of a Pacifist who opposed Russian involvement in WWI (even in defense of Serbia and Montenegro) on grounds it would endanger the dynasty and absolute monarchy. I appreciate they cast more attention onto Hanussen/Steinschneider, who like Ludendorff and others are really one of the underappreciated monsters of history, but “The Shepherd” I found to be dumb. It also ignores that as far as international conspiracies to spark a world war, you don’t need to look further afield than Berlin and Vienna for that (with a side helping of Unity or Death in Belgrade and Sarajevo).
As far as “cui bono”, I think any answer to that question needs to at least address Putin and the other Kremlin hawks that view Ukraine as their patrimony and “rightful” territory (which they can’t stop giving away in their pronunciations, such as Lavrov’s idiotic and hypocritical slips regarding the OSCE showing he does not view Ukraine as entitled to the same OSCE rights he demands for Russia), and the power the emergency state gives them. In that I fear they are mirrored by the globalists out West like Biden, and one reason I hope this war is wrapped up quickly and the Kremlin is sent packing is so that Obama and co cannot escalate the war and use emergency powers to justify going after us.
…which is precisely why “he” may well need this war to continue….
I mean what’s a little more subterfuge, all things being equal…?
“Biden Admin Asked Amazon To Hide Vaccine-Critical Books During Pandemic”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/biden-admin-asked-amazon-hide-vaccine-critical-books-during-pandemic
He hasnt fired gerasimov who came up with this stupid plan maybe he wants to humiliate him, now shoigu is beyond humiliation like a yak
All of the big players rah rahimg this war have gotten nothing right, i credit men of good will like colonel kemp and folks here but the rest of the gang like general
nat x or any of the cnn msnbc brain trust i use that word advisedly the ones who fell for the ghost of kiev the afghan bounties the gaza hospital
@Miguel Cervantes
Humiliation is moderately important in authoritarian shame societies (like Kremlin politics have been for a long time) where it can serve as a barometer for weakness and prestige, but it is ultimately cheap compared to freedom and life. If Putin truly wished to punish Gerasimov and Shoigu we would expect them to be demoted at a minimum, and imprisoned or disappeared at worst like we saw with the naval fiascos and several FSB men. That tells me that no matter how badly they screwed up he ultimately sees more use in keeping them on side for whatever reason (likely due to a mixture of closeness and patronage)..
Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones, and we all ultimately live in houses with glass in them. Including you and I.
And to be sure, I have gotten many things wrong (including that Putin would not escalate the war, or that if he did he would likely occupy Kyiv or parts of it). But I have also gotten many things right, such as that he would ultimately seek to intervene to support his puppet troops in the Donbas as they lost ground during the long undeclared war, that the Russian military was not some all crushing force, and that appeasement would ultimately be a waste of time as Putin’s ambitions and sentiments would lead him to align against us, as we saw with Georgia.
And while I utterly despise the likes of Biden and Nuland (and will gladly point to many of their failures, such as the idea that the Ukrainian government would need to go into exile from Kyiv, and their general bungling and appeasement and politicization and corruption) even I will not deny credit where it is due, such as pointing out that Putin was lying about many of his pretenses.
Indeed. Though it looks like the Ghost of Kyiv was a mixture of conflating a bunch of different air pilots together with some propaganda, and while ultimately false (or a “composite” or “aspirational story”) was not exactly out of the realm of possibility for a high intensity peer on peer air war’s story. As for the Gaza Hospital I was always skeptical given the lack of credible outside sources from a Hamas propaganda mill, but I assumed that IF the IDF had done it, the IDF had a good reason for it (like we have seen many times over).