Kiev Is Burning

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

My Grandfather spent 5 years in a POW camp as forced labour for the Nazis. My other Grandfather dragged himself off the beach at Dunkirk, eventually was part of the Graves detail burying the Polish Division at Monte Casino, and if that wasn't enough, they had him policing Palestine postwar. He had PTSD the rest of his life, that he imprinted on his unlucky Son.

My grandfather fought in the RCAF in WW2 and I had two great uncles badly wounded on the Western Front in WW1.  I would puke a bit on my own shoes if I ever tried to cloak myself in their actions and lives.      

Quote

All that has left me with a lifelong aversion to war.

Please.  You seek war like Gollum seeks the Ring of Power.  What you have an aversion to is admitting that all the globalist tripe and 'principles' you spout is all just talk because it moves the ball towards your goal.

Quote

You are of the Chamberlains of this world, the ones that think they can avoid the worst by ducking behind the sofa and abandoning all principles. 

Anyone in the West that would risk a nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine is fucking nuts.

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

The basic facts have not changed and probably will never change, as the geographic does not change. Instability in the Balkans will always have an impact on Germany. Be it the fear of loosing political control as in 1914 or the fear of a big refugee crisis as in the 1990ies.

If America had been a NATO ally of Germany's in 1914, the British would have switched sides in the Sarajevo Crisis in about 1 second flat.  

Sometimes they talk about NATO no longer being relevant,  but it is.  So long as the US and Germany are allies and don't go off on stupid adventures too far to the east, Europe will always be peaceful.  Let Russia peddle in its near abroad while NATO takes care of its own house, and everything will be fine.  Don't let Russia gain influence in the Balkans or anywhere else in the EU's sphere.  Also, don't try to push into Russia's sphere.   Let Putin get old and die of natural causes, then we'll look at it. 

[Stefan Kotsch]

It is certainly an illusion that one can negotiate "gentlemen's" agreements with political and religious extremists.  A democratic liberal state will be viewed by these governments at all times as a great threat to government power.  If no borders are shown, the political and religious extremists will spread like cancer, also against the neighbors.  As sure as the amen in church. That should have been taught by history.

(BTW.  The West is not made up of the "God's angel's".  The liberal democratic system is just a better tool to keep people's mistakes and weaknesses under control.  All governments without control have got fatally out of control with dreamlike certainty.)

Edited May 31, 2021 by Stefan Kotsch

[Ssnake]

4 hours ago, glenn239 said:

You'd have no problem with Croatia and Serbia basing Russian, Iranian and Chinese forces?

It doesn't matter what I think.

Germany views these countries as sovereign nations and will live with either decision. Of course, the EU would apply economic incentives and pressure to prevent that from happening - is one way of phrasing it. The other might be that these countries know what's in their interests, and aligning with Iran isn't, nor would I think that there would be majorities in these countries for a strategic shift towards China or even Russia.

What I don't see at all is what you seem to imply, that if Serbia would grant Russia the right for air bases and other military installation, that Germany or other European nations would use this as a pretext for a military invasion.

No matter how I look at it, your theory of "spheres of influence" seems to grant some third power the "right" or some sort of justification for military action simply because one nation is regarded as more powerful and therefore entitled to rule the fate of its neighbors. Call me naive, but I don't think foreign politics should operate on that premise.

[Nobu]

Ideally not, but realities borne of power sometimes interfere. Washington's Central American experience, particularly Op. JUST CAUSE in 1989, may be considered illustrations of this.

[Ssnake]

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. But it requires a special personality type of guy at the top of a powerful nation to impose his will on his neighbors with the implicit or explicit threat of military action, and to deter similarly powerful nations to refrain from interference (in practice, the interference would still happen, just with plausible deniability).

I'm just perplexed that someone who isn't a power-mad megalomaniac without at least a decent chance to become the Caliph in place of the Caliph might embrace this as a role model of how the world should be run. Which sounds as if Glenn is arguing this.

[Stuart Galbraith]

9 hours ago, Ssnake said:

It doesn't matter what I think.

Germany views these countries as sovereign nations and will live with either decision. Of course, the EU would apply economic incentives and pressure to prevent that from happening - is one way of phrasing it. The other might be that these countries know what's in their interests, and aligning with Iran isn't, nor would I think that there would be majorities in these countries for a strategic shift towards China or even Russia.

What I don't see at all is what you seem to imply, that if Serbia would grant Russia the right for air bases and other military installation, that Germany or other European nations would use this as a pretext for a military invasion.

No matter how I look at it, your theory of "spheres of influence" seems to grant some third power the "right" or some sort of justification for military action simply because one nation is regarded as more powerful and therefore entitled to rule the fate of its neighbors. Call me naive, but I don't think foreign politics should operate on that premise.

Quite so.

Russia has no more right to interfere in Ukraine, than Britain does in Eire. Or the US in Canada. Or the Chinese in Russia, for that matter. Is that the world we want? Does anyone actually bother to stop and think where this insanity will stop? Im not in love with American exceptionalism, but its a lot better than all the multipolar or bipolar world that came before it.

[glenn239]

15 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Germany views these countries as sovereign nations and will live with either decision. Of course, the EU would apply economic incentives and pressure to prevent that from happening - is one way of phrasing it. The other might be that these countries know what's in their interests, and aligning with Iran isn't, nor would I think that there would be majorities in these countries for a strategic shift towards China or even Russia.

The point being, how Germany and the EU conduct their Balkans policy is up to them, and it must be part of the NATO mission.  It's not up to Canada, or the US to decide.  Germany and the EU decides.  And whatever that decision is, certainly not is the EU to take it marching orders from Russia or China in the Balkans.

Quote

What I don't see at all is what you seem to imply, that if Serbia would grant Russia the right for air bases and other military installation, that Germany or other European nations would use this as a pretext for a military invasion.

I never said that.  I said that the EU couldn't possibly be happy with China or Russia creating a sphere of influence for themselves in the Balkans.

Quote

No matter how I look at it, your theory of "spheres of influence" seems to grant some third power the "right" or some sort of justification for military action simply because one nation is regarded as more powerful and therefore entitled to rule the fate of its neighbors. Call me naive, but I don't think foreign politics should operate on that premise.

Pretty sure that one of the longest standing doctrines of international relations, literally thousands or even tens of thousands of years old is not "my" theory.   

There was a time when a more globalist posture was comparatively harmless, but seems to me the West's economies have become so delicate in the pursuit of profit and efficiency that we cannot afford to have a real war because our economies would collapse and our peoples would starve.   Spheres of influence is a clear and easily understood doctrine by which the adults can take charge, impose some limitations on what can and cannot be entertained.  The world is too dangerous a place now, we need to stick to our critical interests and not let globalist Custer types lead us into a catastrophe.  (Custer never survived his idiocy, but I'm sure if he had he would have displayed the other talent of this type by blaming everyone but himself for what happened).

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by glenn239

[glenn239]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Russia has no more right to interfere in Ukraine, than Britain does in Eire. 

The globalist crusader types are always long on the sales brochure, short on the details of payment.  They make outrageous claims of what can be accomplished, but when the wreckage of a country is the inevitable outcome, they sweep the ruins off the news, blather their excuses on why someone else is to blame, and move onto their next crusade.   At some point the 7th Cavalry needs to wake up before it's too late and remove these Custers from command.

They talk endlessly about Hitler while delivering endless Vietnams.

At best if NATO tries to expand into Ukraine, the country will be partitioned.  At worst, it'll turn into a worse outcome than  even another Syria - the war could spill over into a nuclear exchange in which NATO might disintegrate.  And that's the problem with your "advice".  You're not really about what's the best course for keeping Ukraine intact and independent, what level of risk is acceptable to NATO, even what possible outcome could occur that justifies the peril.  No, you're really about using Ukraine as live bait in a confrontation with Russia.  

Edited June 1, 2021 by glenn239

[seahawk]

18 hours ago, Ssnake said:

It doesn't matter what I think.

Germany views these countries as sovereign nations and will live with either decision. Of course, the EU would apply economic incentives and pressure to prevent that from happening - is one way of phrasing it. The other might be that these countries know what's in their interests, and aligning with Iran isn't, nor would I think that there would be majorities in these countries for a strategic shift towards China or even Russia.

What I don't see at all is what you seem to imply, that if Serbia would grant Russia the right for air bases and other military installation, that Germany or other European nations would use this as a pretext for a military invasion.

No matter how I look at it, your theory of "spheres of influence" seems to grant some third power the "right" or some sort of justification for military action simply because one nation is regarded as more powerful and therefore entitled to rule the fate of its neighbors. Call me naive, but I don't think foreign politics should operate on that premise.

That ignores one big problem. The West has more options of enforcing its will than Russia. Economic sanctions are just another tool to enforce your will, but they are the practically also just a use of power and pressure to get what you want. The only difference to Russia is that Russia lacks the same tools to enforce its power.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Whose fault is that? We laid out the red carpet for Russia in the 1990's. They were the ones who turned their back on membership of NATO, maybe even the EU if they had asked nicely. No, they wanted to play the game of 'The Evil West', now we are supposed to listen to their complaints about how many tools we have at our disposal and they dont?

Well we cant shoot down airliners full of people. We cant kill our political oponents with radiological material or battlefield chemical weapons. We cant even threaten Russia with nuclear weapons. Id say they are more than equipped to create mayhem, and they do very well at it.

[wilhelm]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

And that's the problem with your "advice".  You're not really about what's the best course for keeping Ukraine intact and independent, what level of risk is acceptable to NATO, even what possible outcome could occur that justifies the peril.  No, you're really about using Ukraine as live bait in a confrontation with Russia.  

I think anybody with a modicum of intellect on this site has known this glaringly obvious fact for years already.

 

If, say, Bashkortostan or Udmurtia underwent minor political unhappiness, he would become the all-knowing champion of those cultures rights and history overnight, deluge flooding online with this "concern" for as long as it was expedient, then simply discard it after it ran its usefulness, for the next vehicle.

Edited June 1, 2021 by wilhelm

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, wilhelm said:

I think anybody with a modicum of intellect on this site has known this glaringly obvious fact for years already.

If, say, Bashkortostan or Udmurtia underwent minor political unhappiness, he would become the all-knowing champion of those cultures rights and history overnight, deluge flooding online with this "concern" for as long as it was expedient, then simply discard it after it ran its usefulness, for the next vehicle.

Sir Edward Grey would have called what you are describing as, 'being more Ukrainian than the Ukrainians'.  In the day, this was a bad accusation to have levelled at oneself, because it meant that one was an agitator, acting dishonestly to stir up wars between third parties on the basis of a hidden agenda.

A moment on the Hitler stuff that Stuart spews endlessly here.  He goes on and on and Chamberlain, but anyone with a modicum of intellect, as you say, knows that in 1933 the West could have marched to Berlin and stuck Hitler's head on a  pike, and the tiny German army would not have moved a finger as the Anglo-French were marching in, nor as they were marching back out.   Had the coalition that won WW1 been intact in 1933, Hitler could never have risen because he'd have been removed quickly by it.  Stuart talks about Munich, but to my eye the dice were cast in 1935 with the stupidest fucking treaty that Britain may ever signed - the Anglo-German Naval Pact.  A completely useless device whose sole apparent purpose was to screw the French and put paid to the Treaty of Versailles.  .  

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by glenn239

[Stuart Galbraith]

https://www.euractiv.com

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has blamed the European Union for having suspended “the mutually beneficial architecture of cooperation” and for pushing to “shut Russia out,” following a meeting with his Portuguese counterpart Augusto Santos Silva in Moscow.

Lavrov made the comments on Monday (31 May) following an “EU-Russia” meeting, organised in Moscow by the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) and the Portuguese presidency of the Council of the EU.

Describing the current state of EU-Russian relations using military terminology, Lavrov heaped all the blame for their deterioration onto the West.

“New dividing lines are again being created in Europe; they are moving further east and becoming ever deeper, like trenches on the front line”, he said, according to an official transcript.

“Today [the] multilevel, mutually beneficial architecture of cooperation has been suspended, to put it mildly, at the EU’s initiative. The EU has decided to shut Russia out”, Lavrov said.

He repeated the Russian narrative, according to which the pro-Western revolution in Ukraine was a coup d’état fomented by the West, not mentioning the annexation by his country of Crimea and the installation of pro-Russian puppet regimes in the Ukrainian provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk.

There is a lot more, I recommend reading the whole thing. But there was also this:-

Which is the closest to an admission we have heard yet that the Donbass rebellion was, and remains, entirely a construct of the Putin regime.

'Say, that's a real nice Ukraine you have there, be a real shame if something happened to it'.

 

 

 

[Simon Tan]

Bashkorkia produces some really fabilous honey FWIW. I don't know how any of you can hope to match the Slav Whisperer(tm). Even on ignore he takes up an inordinate amount of space.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Feel free to contribute other than whining Simon. If you still can of course.

[KV7]

18 minutes ago, Simon Tan said:

Bashkorkia produces some really fabilous honey FWIW. I don't know how any of you can hope to match the Slav Whisperer(tm). Even on ignore he takes up an inordinate amount of space.

Their balsams are excellent.

[Stuart Galbraith]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-security-russia-idUSKCN2DE125

 

MOSCOW (Reuters) - The Russian military will closely monitor upcoming naval drills co-hosted by Ukraine and the United States and react if necessary to protect its own national security, the Russian defence ministry said on Wednesday.

The annual Sea Breeze drills, which are focused on the Black Sea area, will involve personnel from a number of NATO countries and are set to take place from June 28 to July 10, the ministry said in a statement.

Moscow said the drills went well beyond what it called Ukraine’s own Black Sea zone.

“The Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation will closely monitor the preparations and the Ukrainian-American ‘Sea Breeze’ exercises themselves...and if necessary respond appropriately to the situation in the interests of ensuring Russia’s military security,” the ministry said.

Tensions between Russia and Ukraine remain acutely strained after Moscow annexed Ukraine’s Crimea region in 2014 and backed a pro-Russian separatist uprising in eastern Ukraine that triggered a conflict that has killed over 14,000 people.

[glenn239]

3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Feel free to contribute other than whining Simon. If you still can of course.

I checked Wiki this morning.  MacDonald and Baldwin were the British Prime Ministers that were in charge when Hitler overthrew of the Weimar Republic, and then signed a naval treaty with the Nazis when Germany had no navy and the provisions of Versailles blocked their way from building one.  Chamberlain was Chancellor of the Exchequer.  

 

 

[sunday]

4 hours ago, Simon Tan said:

Bashkorkia produces some really fabilous honey FWIW. I don't know how any of you can hope to match the Slav Whisperer(tm). Even on ignore he takes up an inordinate amount of space.

There should be not any valid reason for striving to match foolishness.

[Simon Tan]

Who would like a super special filter that totally vanishes Slav Whisperer? It is a quality of life thing. Like a spam filter. 

[sunday]

I think muting is enough. All people need a hobby, after all.

[Stuart Galbraith]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/volodymyr-zelensky-says-russia-has-withdrawn-only-about-10k-troops-from-ukraine-border

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Russia has withdrawn only a fraction of its 100,000 troops from the Ukraine border.

"They only have pulled back about 10,000 soldiers," Zelensky told the three U.S. senators in Kyiv on Wednesday, the Associated Press reported. "The Russian forces' pullback is just a declaration."

Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said the trip was a bipartisan effort among the U.S. lawmakers to show support for Ukraine.

"We talked about the importance of increasing our ties, providing even more effective military assistance, so Ukraine can defend itself," Portman told reporters.

The Russian military said it would pull back its troops deployed to the border following the completion of drills in late April. However, troops were told to leave their weapons behind in southwest Russia near Ukraine for another military exercise in September.

 

[Adam Peter]

Why would they draw back everyone while there is a military exercise is running in Ukraine?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Is the wrong question.

The right question is, why do they have something like 80-100000 men sat on the Ukrainian border, when Ukraine is fairly clearly not going to invade them?