News Related To The Ukraine / Russian War

[sear]

"I do not think it is a separate issue." R5 #440

You've cited a baseline.
Chronologically the baseline may make some sense.
But some others, perhaps some others native to the region have a different baseline in mind.

Problem is, we / they are years into a blood-spilling War. The challenge is how to end it equitably.
Ethnic Russians aside, I'm not sure simply forfeiting Ukraine sovereignty is the optimal option.

You have an opinion.
I have an opinion. BUT !
We're Americans.
The news I'm getting of it indicates our Western European allies / trade partners are near or at unanimity
in believing it's better / best if Russia exits to Ukraine borders recognized before Russia assimilated Crimea.

We can don't like it all we like, but I gather that's pretty much what EU / NATO wants, & thinks best.

The evidence Ukrainians as a unanimity of individuals share that view is the years of heroic combat they've undergone,
and continue to undergo, against an aggressive enemy that's not merely superior, but by reputation, a global super-power.

Their position on it is not simple philosophy.
They understand, if some or all of Ukraine falls, a NATO member nation may be next. Think domino.
AND ! Article 5. That means NATO at War with Russia.
Western Europe doesn't want that.

"Putin has to win.
Otherwise that would mean NATO nukes on Russia's border." R5 #440

It could mean that.
It would not necessarily mean that.

As you know, resolution of the Kennedy administration's Cuber Missile Crisis was:
- the Soviets remove their missiles from Cuba, &
- the U.S. remove its missiles from Turkey.

So your scenario is one possibility.
It's not the only possibility.

"The idea the US can make the Ukraine win against Russia, is essentially insane." R5 #440

Einstein made good use of "the thought experiment".

Pretend the U.S. doesn't exist.
The idea Ukraine has won against Russia for this many years is essentially insane. BUT !
None the less ... Ukraine has held ground quite impressively, FOR YEARS !

"Russia is quite aware these are all US drones." R5 #440

So you've asserted multiple times.
UNQUESTIONABLY some of Ukraine's air defenses have been U.S. munitions.

But I've seen enough video reports over the years revealing Ukraine's domestic munitions manufacturing / supply chain.
One of the more recent, plastic nose cones being produced by 3D printers, in a small residential apartment.

Sometimes Ockham's Razor applies.
Some matériel Ukraine's been using has come from the U.S.
Some is domestic / internal Ukraine.
Still others, from Western Europe, for they know: their option is, help Ukraine battle Russia now with Ukraine blood and E.U. treasure, - OR -
battle Russia directly later, with E.U. blood & treasure.

"And there is no way Russia is or can possibly back down from this existential and deliberate threat." R5 #440

Because Russia cannot possibly risk the peace, prosperity, and national security it enjoyed for decades, before it massed troops on Ukraine's borders,
before it assimilated Crimea?

Conspicuously, flagrantly ridiculous.

 

[Shiftless2]

 

[Rigby5]

You've cited a baseline.
Chronologically the baseline may make some sense.
But some others, perhaps some others native to the region have a different baseline in mind.

Problem is, we / they are years into a blood-spilling War. The challenge is how to end it equitably.
Ethnic Russians aside, I'm not sure simply forfeiting Ukraine sovereignty is the optimal option.

You have an opinion.
I have an opinion. BUT !
We're Americans.
The news I'm getting of it indicates our Western European allies / trade partners are near or at unanimity
in believing it's better / best if Russia exits to Ukraine borders recognized before Russia assimilated Crimea.

We can don't like it all we like, but I gather that's pretty much what EU / NATO wants, & thinks best.

The evidence Ukrainians as a unanimity of individuals share that view is the years of heroic combat they've undergone,
and continue to undergo, against an aggressive enemy that's not merely superior, but by reputation, a global super-power.

Their position on it is not simple philosophy.
They understand, if some or all of Ukraine falls, a NATO member nation may be next. Think domino.
AND ! Article 5. That means NATO at War with Russia.
Western Europe doesn't want that.


It could mean that.
It would not necessarily mean that.

As you know, resolution of the Kennedy administration's Cuber Missile Crisis was:
- the Soviets remove their missiles from Cuba, &
- the U.S. remove its missiles from Turkey.

So your scenario is one possibility.
It's not the only possibility.


Einstein made good use of "the thought experiment".

Pretend the U.S. doesn't exist.
The idea Ukraine has won against Russia for this many years is essentially insane. BUT !
None the less ... Ukraine has held ground quite impressively, FOR YEARS !


So you've asserted multiple times.
UNQUESTIONABLY some of Ukraine's air defenses have been U.S. munitions.

But I've seen enough video reports over the years revealing Ukraine's domestic munitions manufacturing / supply chain.
One of the more recent, plastic nose cones being produced by 3D printers, in a small residential apartment.

Sometimes Ockham's Razor applies.
Some matériel Ukraine's been using has come from the U.S.
Some is domestic / internal Ukraine.
Still others, from Western Europe, for they know: their option is, help Ukraine battle Russia now with Ukraine blood and E.U. treasure, - OR -
battle Russia directly later, with E.U. blood & treasure.


Because Russia cannot possibly risk the peace, prosperity, and national security it enjoyed for decades, before it massed troops on Ukraine's borders,
before it assimilated Crimea?

Conspicuously, flagrantly ridiculous.

I still question your whole perspective.
For example, you mentioned, "before Russia assimilated Crimea."
And if you check the background reality, the Crimea historically was almost always part of Russia.
The only time it was not part of Russia originally was during the Mongol invasion.
After the Mongols left, it was populated by the Asian Tatars who came with the Mongols, as the Khanate.
And was reclaimed by Russia in 1783.
And the ethnic Polish in the Ukraine are incredibly racist against Asians, so can't be allowed to rule the Crimea.
So when and how did the Ukraine gain ownership of the Crimea?
It was in 1953, when Khruschev, ( secretly a Ukrainian ), arbitrarily gave the Crimea to the Ukraine.
But that was a Russian Ukraine, and not a Polish Ukraine like who is in control in Kyiv now.

As far as NATO goes, they actually are the racist/fascist who used to be the worst colonial imperialists all over the globe.
If you look at who invaded and enslaved most of the world, it was the Spanish conquistadors, the French, and British.
The only difference from NATO is that the US replaced Spain after we stole the Spanish empire in the illegal Spanish American war.

But the whole point is that the Cold War detente works because of MAD.
However, since the Ukraine used to have Russian nuke launch sites, it is inside the Russian defense grid.
That means anything launched from inside the Ukraine, can not be detected by Russia.
So the whole goal of Hunter Biden delivering bribes to the ethnic Polish general in Kyiv in 2013, was in order to be able to wipe out Russia with an undetectable first strike, launched from inside the Ukraine, on Russia's border.

It should be obvious why Russia can never allow the Ukraine then to become a member of a western "alliance hostile to Russia".
Since Russia could no longer defend itself from a first strike from the Ukraine, the only remaining possible strategy by Russia would be to launch first.
There is no other possible alternative.
Continuing to support the ethnic Polish takeover of the Ukraine can only mean total destruction of the entire US.

 

[Rigby5]

View attachment 7230

But the current government in Kyiv is not at all native.
It is the remnants of the failed invasion by the Old Polish Empire defeated around 1700.
Apparently these ethnic Polish should not have been allowed to stay, since they clearly never intended to assimilate.
The remnants of the ethnic Polish invasion can never be allowed to rule since they are the evil racist/fascists who want Hitler's death camps for him.

 

[sear]

"I still question your whole perspective." R5 #443

What it lacks in creativity it more than makes up for in popularity.
I believe the view I've expressed substantially reflects the consensus view of the Western world.

I do not dismiss considering history.
But I don't absolutize history either.

We can sharpen our focus by narrowing the ownership at issue.
When the Nazis steal an irreplaceable master artwork, does passing time diminish the former rightful owner's claim?

Is acreage different from canvas?
How many generations must be born to an area, complete their lives and die there,
before that tenure is recognized as superior to those previous?

If in 1960 you were given a choice which of two cities you could choose to live in:
Paris, or
Moscow
which would you choose?

Humans tend to want what's best for themselves.
That's not to deny or dismiss ethnic nationality.

But we tend to prefer an adequate food supply, safe neighborhoods, and freedom of speech.
Some humans died trying to breach the Berlin Wall. BUT !
There were reportedly more persons attempting the transit East to West than the opposite.

It makes little difference to me which flag flutters atop the pole in Kyyiv.

Seems to me in utilitarian contest, by standard of living, Russia has been an also-ran.

It's not quite as simple as putting down the guns and determining the location of the border by popular vote.
Putin, as with most authoritarian dictators, tends to impart reason for doubt about legitimacy of elections they're connected to.

I don't have the luxury of claiming ideological purity about self-determination.
I support Jefferson's DOI.

BUT !

I have never been a persuasive advocate for the secessionist South. I support the union, despite staunch Southern support
for a dame Yankee president like Trump, a native New Yorker don't you know.

Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on this one R5.

I believe Russia was the aggressor, because that's the way it was reported at the time. Early posts in this form demonstrate that.
I believe Ukrainians oppose Russian aggression, because though some have fled Ukraine entirely, many have stood their ground to defend it.

 

[Rigby5]

What it lacks in creativity it more than makes up for in popularity.
I believe the view I've expressed substantially reflects the consensus view of the Western world.

I do not dismiss considering history.
But I don't absolutize history either.

We can sharpen our focus by narrowing the ownership at issue.
When the Nazis steal an irreplaceable master artwork, does passing time diminish the former rightful owner's claim?

Is acreage different from canvas?
How many generations must be born to an area, complete their lives and die there,
before that tenure is recognized as superior to those previous?

If in 1960 you were given a choice which of two cities you could choose to live in:
Paris, or
Moscow
which would you choose?

Humans tend to want what's best for themselves.
That's not to deny or dismiss ethnic nationality.

But we tend to prefer an adequate food supply, safe neighborhoods, and freedom of speech.
Some humans died trying to breach the Berlin Wall. BUT !
There were reportedly more persons attempting the transit East to West than the opposite.

It makes little difference to me which flag flutters atop the pole in Kyyiv.

Seems to me in utilitarian contest, by standard of living, Russia has been an also-ran.

It's not quite as simple as putting down the guns and determining the location of the border by popular vote.
Putin, as with most authoritarian dictators, tends to impart reason for doubt about legitimacy of elections they're connected to.

I don't have the luxury of claiming ideological purity about self-determination.
I support Jefferson's DOI.

BUT !

I have never been a persuasive advocate for the secessionist South. I support the union, despite staunch Southern support
for a dame Yankee president like Trump, a native New Yorker don't you know.

Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on this one R5.

I believe Russia was the aggressor, because that's the way it was reported at the time. Early posts in this form demonstrate that.
I believe Ukrainians oppose Russian aggression, because though some have fled Ukraine entirely, many have stood their ground to defend it.

If the Ukraine wanted to simply be independent, as was agreed to in 1992, then why did Hunter Biden transport billions to the Ukraine in 2013?
And then why did the military take over, murder most of the elected government, and kill 30k ethnic Russian natives in 2014?
Why did Kyiv try to block Russian use of Sevastopol?
Why did Kyiv try to violate its treaties and try to join NATO and the EU?

The Ukraine has the best drones in the world, reaching far out to Moscow and the Black Sea.
How could the Ukraine have achieved that from scratch, beating every other country in the world in drone and guided missile development?

You say you trust the press that tells us Russia is the aggressor, but yet this is identical to when the CIA put the Mujahideen together in Afghanistan, and the press totally lied about things like Iraq having WMD.

 

[sear]

"If the Ukraine wanted to simply be independent, as was agreed to in 1992, then why did Hunter Biden transport billions to the Ukraine in 2013?" R5 #446

This inquiry presents it as fact.
Multiple plausible sources corroborate reason for doubt.

Joe Biden is falsely alleged to have, as vice president of the United States (2009–2017), withheld a loan guarantee and taken a bribe to pressure Ukraine into firing prosecutor general Viktor Shokin to prevent a corruption investigation of Ukrainian gas company Burisma and to protect his son Hunter Biden, who was on the Burisma board.[1] As part of efforts by Donald Trump[2] and his campaign in the Trump–Ukraine scandal, which led to Trump's first impeachment, these falsehoods were spread in an attempt to damage Joe Biden's reputation and chances during the 2020 presidential campaign, and later in an effort to impeach him.[3]

Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Reflexively dismissing wiki is fine. Can you reflexively dismiss BBC also? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66272217

The search syntax used: "Hunter Biden billions Ukraine 2013"
There are at least 5 pages of hits. That's enough to cast doubt on the reliability of the "conspiracy theory". BUT !

Even if it were true, that's about Biden. In your highly questionable scenario Biden would be the bad guy.

Wouldn't that then make Ukraine the victim?
So you not only blame the victim, but demonize and punish the victim with years of blood-spilling war?
And exacerbate hunger in Africa, as Ukraine farm produce was shipped to Africa, before Russia invaded.

If your position had some other semblance of plausibility it might be worth further consideration.
But as I've acknowledged multiple times, the conspiracy theory POV is nearly universally disregarded.

If Russia had been substantially done wrong (as U.S. missiles in Turkey, Cuba Missile Crisis) why for self-interest / self-preservation
hasn't any Western sovereignty suggested Ukraine make good with Russia about it? Please don't misinterpret this question or its implications.

Because the factual scenario is quite different, because it is Russia that is at fault and not Ukraine,
these Western sovereignties are indeed acting in their own self-interest / self-preservation. BUT !
they're not blaming the victim, Ukraine.
Instead they hold Russia to account, and continue to supplement Ukraine's military, against Russia.

R5, it's as elemental as the logic of the syllogism.
If the premise is wrong, the conclusion is suspect.

Your conclusion against Ukraine may seem superficially plausible to you.
But if the reports at "Hunter Biden billions Ukraine 2013" are true,
and it seems monumentally improbable that they are all wrong,
then your conclusion is as wrong as your premise.

note: this morning's news, Russia attacked Ukraine with missiles again, peace negotiations having fizzled.
Russia doesn't want peace. Russia wants Ukraine.

So do Ukrainians, and they're dying to defend it.

 

[Rigby5]

This inquiry presents it as fact.
Multiple plausible sources corroborate reason for doubt.

Joe Biden is falsely alleged to have, as vice president of the United States (2009–2017), withheld a loan guarantee and taken a bribe to pressure Ukraine into firing prosecutor general Viktor Shokin to prevent a corruption investigation of Ukrainian gas company Burisma and to protect his son Hunter Biden, who was on the Burisma board.[1] As part of efforts by Donald Trump[2] and his campaign in the Trump–Ukraine scandal, which led to Trump's first impeachment, these falsehoods were spread in an attempt to damage Joe Biden's reputation and chances during the 2020 presidential campaign, and later in an effort to impeach him.[3]

Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Reflexively dismissing wiki is fine. Can you reflexively dismiss BBC also? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66272217

The search syntax used: "Hunter Biden billions Ukraine 2013"
There are at least 5 pages of hits. That's enough to cast doubt on the reliability of the "conspiracy theory". BUT !

Even if it were true, that's about Biden. In your highly questionable scenario Biden would be the bad guy.

Wouldn't that then make Ukraine the victim?
So you not only blame the victim, but demonize and punish the victim with years of blood-spilling war?
And exacerbate hunger in Africa, as Ukraine farm produce was shipped to Africa, before Russia invaded.

If your position had some other semblance of plausibility it might be worth further consideration.
But as I've acknowledged multiple times, the conspiracy theory POV is nearly universally disregarded.

If Russia had been substantially done wrong (as U.S. missiles in Turkey, Cuba Missile Crisis) why for self-interest / self-preservation
hasn't any Western sovereignty suggested Ukraine make good with Russia about it? Please don't misinterpret this question or its implications.

Because the factual scenario is quite different, because it is Russia that is at fault and not Ukraine,
these Western sovereignties are indeed acting in their own self-interest / self-preservation. BUT !
they're not blaming the victim, Ukraine.
Instead they hold Russia to account, and continue to supplement Ukraine's military, against Russia.

R5, it's as elemental as the logic of the syllogism.
If the premise is wrong, the conclusion is suspect.

Your conclusion against Ukraine may seem superficially plausible to you.
But if the reports at "Hunter Biden billions Ukraine 2013" are true,
and it seems monumentally improbable that they are all wrong,
then your conclusion is as wrong as your premise.

note: this morning's news, Russia attacked Ukraine with missiles again, peace negotiations having fizzled.
Russia doesn't want peace. Russia wants Ukraine.

So do Ukrainians, and they're dying to defend it.

Yes the Ukraine is the "victim", but then the perpetrator is the US bribes, AND the ethnic Polish generals in Kyiv who illegally arrested, murdered, imprisoned, or expelled tens of thousands of pro-Russian Ukrainians.

There is no question of the US bribes to Kyiv, since Hunter Biden documented them by his being paid millions for doing nothing on the record.
So obviously what he was paid for was totally off the record.

And that is the historic US pattern we always use.
Like how the CIA created and armed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, with bribes.

Consider the treaty violations the Ukraine did in 2014, like blocking Russian use of Sevastopol?
Do you really think Kyiv would have done that without weapons assurances and massive bribes by the US?

And no, "western sovereignty" has always been in on the take.
The "western sovereignty" is the historic colonial imperialists who have only changed by using a fake PR persona, that is called "NATO".
In reality it is still the same evil colonial imperialists who over threw Mosaddegh in 1953, put Batista in Cuba, Samosa in Nicaragua, Pinochet in Chile, Syngman Rhee in Korea, Diem in Vietnam, General Sisi in Egypt, Zelensky in the Ukraine, al-Sharaa in Syria, etc.
To get an idea of the subterfuge, just remember how al-Sharaa in Syria is actually historically a member of ISIS, but yet we still support him.
Which implies ISIS actually was a fake US creation all along.

The elections in the Ukraine that have been monitored by impartial observers say that almost half the Ukraine prefers Russia to NATO.
So then where do the ethnic Polish generals in Kyiv get the authority to murder tens of thousands of ethnic Russian natives of the Ukraine and try to join NATO?