They are the ones propping up the conflict. They've kept it going much longer than it would have otherwise. It was always a lost cause for Ukraine, but the support of NATO nations is the only thing that even made it a reasonable fight. They aren't talking about being cheerleaders for Ukraine, they are talking about military support. I think you understand this.
Closing remarks from former UN Weapon Inspector Scott Ritter's speech at press conference in DC: October 1962, people have said that’s the closest the United States and the Soviet Union came to nuclear war. In a way, they’re right, but let me talk about some differences at that time. While the Soviets were sending ships with missiles to Cuba, the danger was they were going to run into a blockade, lead to a direct military conflict, and could expand into a nuclear conflict. While all that was happening, a man named John McCloy was speaking to a man named Valerian Zorin. Diplomacy was taking place. We, the United States, were actively engaging with the Soviet counterparts to prevent the war everybody feared. The reason why there was no war is because there was diplomacy, because leaders were talking to leaders, if not directly, then indirectly, if not through official channels, then through the back channel. Diplomacy was alive and well. Today, ladies and gentlemen, right down the road in Wisconsin Avenue is an embassy, the Russian embassy. Seated in that embassy is a diplomat named Anatoly Antonov, one of the most distinguished American experts in the Russian foreign service, the lead arms control negotiator for the last remaining arms control treaty between Russia and the United States. He’s been sitting there for several years and his phone is not ringing. We are not calling him. We are not talking to him. There is no diplomacy today. And yet, our two countries are on a course, a collision course, that could very well lead to a nuclear conflict. And when I say nuclear conflict, let’s be clear here. Now we’re going to talk about doctrine. There was a time when nuclear weapons existed to deter nuclear attack. That’s a sick thing, this concept of deterrence, mutually assured destruction, this sort of insanity encapsulated into a couple of words. But that’s the reality of it. The United States had nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons, and we had to make sure that nobody felt confident enough to use these weapons preemptively to gain some sort of strategic advantage. The end result was mutually assured destruction and nuclear deterrence. This worked up until the end of the Soviet Union. It worked so well, I have to say, one of my first adult jobs was as a Marine Corps officer implementing arms control treaties in the former Soviet Union, part of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, where we got rid of entire categories of nuclear weapons. The first time that we didn’t just limit the growth, we actually reduced the arsenals. And this could have led to even greater cuts in the nuclear arsenals. But no, not for the United States. When the Soviet Union went away, we decided that we needed to maintain a nuclear advantage over the Soviets, and we corrupted the concept of arms control. We withdrew from arms control treaties like the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which gave mutually assured destruction its teeth. See, without ballistic missile defense, the missiles will hit their target, which means that if you go to war, your missiles will hit the target they’re aimed at, the missiles aimed at you will hit the target. Under George W. Bush, we decided we didn’t want any missiles to hit America. Ostensibly a rational thought, except at the same time, we were seeking to gain nuclear supremacy over the Russians so that our missiles would hit Russia. This creates an imbalance. And after 9-11, we went further. We saw a transition of nuclear deterrence doctrine into nuclear war-fighting doctrine, where we embraced a doctrine that said that we could use nuclear weapons preemptively against a non-nuclear threat. Our current President of the United States, the Commander-in-Chief Joe Biden, campaigned on a promise to return America to the sanity of sole use doctrine, meaning the sole purpose of America’s nuclear arsenal would be to deter others from attacking us. He didn’t do it. Why? I attended a reunion of intermediate nuclear forces, inspectors, and negotiators a couple of years ago, and we asked that question to a senior Biden administration arms control official. The answer, the inter-agency isn’t ready for this yet. Now I live in a nation that is ostensibly the greatest democracy in the world. I know that I go to vote.I know I look at the names on the ballot. I never saw inter-agency on the ballot. I don’t know what the hell they’re talking about when it comes to democracy. The President is the Commander-in-Chief. He is the executive. If he wants a policy direction, he directs it to happen and the inter-agency needs to salute smartly and seek to implement it. But we’re being told that the inter-agency isn’t ready. That means the establishment isn’t ready.That means the establishment seeks something else. And that, of course, is American nuclear supremacy. We live in a world where other nations will no longer tolerate this. Russia is one of them. And Russia today is a nation that is at the pointy end of the American nuclear spear. They’re seeing the United States promulgate policies that have American military capabilities thrust up to the very borders of Russia, indeed, crossing over into the borders of Russia, threatening Russia’s strategic nuclear enterprise, early warning radars, command and control facilities, even nuclear weapons depots and launch systems. We have facilitated, we being the United States, an attack against Ingalls Air Base, where Russian strategic nuclear bombers are stationed. Under Russian doctrine, this alone justifies a nuclear response. We’ve been tickling the Russian nuclear bear for a long time. And only through the patience and wisdom of the Russian leadership have we avoided a nuclear war. As an American, I take umbrage at that. I don’t want to be at the mercy of any foreign leader. I would rather that the American leadership take a rational step towards de-conflict, that I be at the mercy of a government that I get to hold accountable at the polls, the government of the people, by the people, for the people, a constitution that begins with, we the people of the United States of America. And that’s the final thought I want to put out there. As citizens, we have a duty and responsibility to wake up and recognize the threats that face us collectively as a nation, as a people. And the greatest threat to the continued survival of the United States of America today is American nuclear policy and American nuclear weapons. These weapons do not protect us, ladies and gentlemen. These weapons are a loaded gun at our head with an insane man’s finger on the trigger. We need to come together. We need to stop this. We have an election in November. Let us all do our job as citizens and vote for somebody who places the survival of America above all else, which means they place nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear disarmament, and arms control above all else. Thank you very much.
Letting Russia win without supporting Ukraine would be evil of the US and NATO. Not to mention insanely stupid. Supporting Ukraine as long as they want to defend themselves is a good thing. Russia attacking their peaceful neighbors was a horrible thing. Them not stopping is a terrible thing. The longer they keep this up the more I want to support Ukraine and ensure the current Russian regime is tortured by their own citizens.
Ukraine can't win without a severe escalation of support from NATO. Boots on the ground. Something Biden himself said would be WW3.
But Russia can still lose without any of that happening. And they are losing; troops, equipment, moral, and geopolitical legitimacy.
Ukraine is losing troops at a much higher rate and couldn't even put up any resistance without NATO aid. This conflict has brought Russia and China closer together. The sanctions have not helped. You hear of Brics? Those nations are coming together to rival the American empire, which is in decline. But rather an attempt to forge positive relations, our elite seem to want to continue to play this game of dominance. It'll be the death of us all.
Pathway to peace held in Neutral Switzerland ....of all the countries attending the one who doesn't want peace was a no show....Russia Note: This is an Associated Press News Feed not a media editorial partisan piece" Glad to see our alliances remain strong in Europe after the Orange idiot wanted to gut NATO.
Russia wasn't invited. What a joke that they even call this a "peace summit" when all they do is talk about escalating the war. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/15/world/europe/ukraine-peace-talks-switzerland-russia.html
There are more than enough Ukrainians to provide all the boots on the ground needed to outlast Russia. At current death rates every Russian will be dead before every Ukrainian. And Ukrainians have far more to fight for and far better intelligence, equipment, weapons, supply lines, and manufacturing base.
Plenty of signs Ukraine is preparing for a possible counter attack in the north. Small Ukrainian probing attacks have gained ground. In the city of Vovchank. Ukraine has pushed the Russians back in several sectors. The result is, about 400 Russian soldiers are cut off from their main line. With no way to get out, or get help and supplies in.
Hogwash. There is no evidence to support this claim. Doesn't matter. The only good thing Russia did was bringing NATO closer together. Ukraine will have NATO support in virtual perpetually. Lol. I've been hearing about this for decades. Right. All of the least stable countries are going to offer a more reliable standard than the US dollar. Excuse me, but LMAO.
There are different claims coming out about the death ratios. Who is telling the truth? We're not there to evaluate it. But we do know 1. Ukraine's counter offensive failed 2. Russia is not being budged from their positions 3. Ukraine is pulling people off the street, and sending older men and women to the front lines 4. NATO forces are ramping up support (why do this if the stories about Ukraine winning are true) 5. Ukrainian leaders keep making desparate pleas for more aid and for more direct assistance. (boots on the ground). The power of the dollar is another issue: but it's power has laid in it's status as the world's reserve currency, and that oil is traded in dollars. The US has enforced that status with it's military, and many nations are tired of it. This is happening. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...to-renew-u-s-oil-deal/videoshow/110975789.cms
Ukraine isn't going to give up. And they'll have NATO support until Russia backs out. Yeah, I keep hearing about the lame-ass brics losers. I'll believe it when I see it. Nobody trusts any of those countries to handle anything.
We're able to be a service based economy because we can exploit Asian labor through the power of the dollar. You might call them "losers" but who do you think the other Asian countries will eventually ally with? Thailand is moving to join Brics. This coming change might be at the root at a lot of the shit.
They'll all invest in the most profitable place. In uncertain times the safest investment is US bonds. Nobody else has as stable of a situation as the US. We have all needed natural resources, friendly neighbors and oceans on our borders, and triple the navigable waterways of the rest of the world combined. We may be a service based economy, but we're also a manufacturing powerhouse, with Mexico right next door for lower cost manufacturing. Nobody else can compete with that kind of built in stability and cheap shipping. Especially with the US Navy responsible for protecting pretty much all shipping lanes.
Population A is used to comfort, affluency, and is a bit lazy overall (and is also armed to the teeth) Population B is used to working it's ass off for long hours with little pay, and doing whatever it's told. Population A is able to subsist on the work done by population B. Now imagine if the the nations of population A and B come into conflict, who has the advantage? Which population is more likely to carry out a "French Revolution"? I think part of what we're seeing is an attempt to make population A more like population B.
There is lots of propagandy, from both sides. While I 1,000% support Ukraine, some of the Russian propaganda is true. Russian military claims are garbage, but, their economy is doing much better than many Ukraine supporters want us to believe. The sanctions have hurt Russia in "some" areas. But overall, their economy has recovered, and adjusted. Here is a recent report on the BRICS situation. https://watcher.guru/news/brics-surpasses-the-us-in-gas-trade-to-europe Bottom line. The USA has far more enemys now than 20 years ago. Support for BRICS is growing, while the US $ dominance is slipping.
Here is another russian woman, speaking the truth. (with sarcasm; almost all russians and Ukrainians love sarcasm)
