jas007

Yep. It's not convenient to hot wire anything directly into the router, so I just use the wi-fi.

This isn't really what I saw the other day. Just what I could find in one minute. I'll keep looking for what I saw.

Don't feel sorry for me. I'm doing good. Anyway, people can think whatever they want. It doesn't matter.

I have TMN fiber in my condo. I also use Nord VPN which I can turn on and off. There's also a 5gb router installed in the room, and that's how I access the internet. I pay for 500 down and 200 up, and that's what I get if I connect without the VPN. Even with the VPN I sometimes get that, but not always. I just ran a Speed Test on my desktop with the VPN on 269 down, 69 up. Usually, it's a lot faster. Anyway, for reasons I won't go into here, the router in my condo also puts out a regular wi-fi signal, not 5g. My Apple TV connects to that as it seems to be more reliable that way. I have Norton on my Apple TV and my download speed without using the 6G are only in the 50 mbs range. Still, that's usually enough for any streaming service without buffering. So if your unit is buffering a lot and hanging up while it does, I'd probably blame your equipment. Something is not right.

OK. Apparently, the agreement actually existed at one point, according to multiple sources. Russian Media, and the US propaganda publications Foreign Affairs and the New York Tines. I'll post some links, if that's allowed. Otherwise, people can surely look it up themselves. The Sputnik article has la link to what was published in The NY Times. https://sputnikglobe.com/20240615/nyt-claims-to-reveal-2022-russia-ukraine-peace-drafts-key-details-and-missed-opportunities-1118975487.html?ysclid=m4102jrc4q895864198 Also, From the US publication Foreign Affairs in 2022. I wasn't able to obtain a link. Maybe people can find it. It's a lengthy article, but towards the end the article references observations by "senior Administration officials" about the agreement and why it was scuttled. So, pick which propaganda you want to believe. But both sides seem to agree that there was a tentative agreement. The World Putin Wants How Distortions About the Past Feed Delusions About the Future By Fiona Hill and Angela Stent September/October 2022

Of course it wouldn't be "all over" the mainstream press and TV. Those media platforms are all part of the same propaganda machine. They don't necessarily report the news anymore. They report what they want people to hear. There's quite a difference. Anyway, if I see it again, I'll post a link.

Most of them don't understand. They've been well and truly brainwashed by the mainstream propaganda machines, and that's the extent of their understanding. Furthermore, most of them live in an echo chamber. They hear the "narrative" repeated time and again, and that's all they know. So they regurgitate the "narrative."

Wow. I can't believe this is seriously a thing. I'd find another hospital.

Why don't your forget about this discussion for now and go study up on the history of diplomacy, why it's important, why it works well, and what it means when diplomats reach agreements.

I'm pretty sure I saw an initialed copy of the proposed agreement online sometime recently. I read all sorts of stuff, so no telling where I saw it.

You miss my point, I'm afraid. My point is that this conflict is now at an impasse of sorts. What is needed is diplomacy, not more escalation, not more threats.. What's needed is a negotiated settlement. That kind of outcome does not "cede" anything to Russia. That's the point of diplomacy. An agreement is reached that settles the matter in a way that's agreeable to all parties concerned. If you think a diplomatic solution is somehow cedes anything to Russia, you don't understand how diplomacy works. As for the Neocons planning a "ground invasion"? Again, a red herring. The Neocons and the likes of Victoria Nuland have had Russia in their sights for long time. Hostility to Russia became part and parcel of US foreign policy along with the apparent desire for a war that never ends. Do I need to make a list of all the failures? And yet nobody ever stops to question the madness lately.

Do you understand the timing of Johnson's visit? Significant, I think.

Assume, arguendo. I conceded your point for the purpose of argument. And I'm not evading anything. Nor was I "triggered." I'm not the one playing the blame game here. That's you, that's the trick of the Western leaders these days, and they're playing that game as a means of deflecting responsibility. It's always someone else's fault, right? And that's the problem. That's why this war is escalating. And that's why this issue is now moot, in my mind. The real question is how to get out of this mess. The Western leaders have expended too much political capital at this point. And because of their mentality, they aren't about to start any kind of diplomacy. "You don't give in to tyrants." That seems to be the argument. It's not our fault, it's the tyrant's fault. So we've passed that point in the conflict, I think. What's the way forward? We had better hope some responsible adults appear very soon. Adults who recognize the need for diplomacy. As for "piling the blame on the West"? Historically, that's exactly where it lies. One failed fiasco after another, going back at least as far as the Vietnam war. Of course, back then those in charge used the "Domino Theory" to justify the war. We all know how that turned out. Today, we have the Neocons and they've done nothing but bankrupt America with one failed venture after another. Even against small, less powerful adversaries, everything they touched eventually turned bad. And now they've upped the ante and have Russia as their target. They play the plane game and ignore history. They ignore world history, they ignore the history of Eastern Europe, and they pretend the Putin simply woke up one fine morning and decided to invade Ukraine, without provocation simply because he's a tyrant. A convenient way to deflect blame from themselves, but not at all helpful if a solution is to be found.

Boris Johnson was just an errand boy at that point, right?

At one point, I think they actually had an agreement initialed and ready to go. Then, Boris Johnson flew to Kiev and were all know how that turned out. The agreement didn't go forward and hundreds of thousand of Ukrainian casualties resulted from the continuation of hostilities.

It's not "giving in" to negotiate, to use diplomacy. It's a recognition of reality. Escalation and trading threats will end badly in the context of an ongoing war with where both sides have thousands of nukes. I realize that's not a popular viewpoint with some people. One time, years ago, I took a course called "The Documentary Tradition" at the NYU film school. It was taught by some bald Jewish guy from the BBC. I guess he was in New York for some reason that year. Anyway, he knew his stuff and he knew propaganda, and if there's one thing the BBC is good at, it's propaganda. I forget the context at this point, but I remember his saying: "Everybody knows, you don't make deals with Fascists." Maybe that was the lesson of WW II, but I think today that attitude is problematic.

Neither Hitler nor Russia had nukes during WW II. Had they both had nukes, who knows what would have happened? History would be different. It may be "hard" to negotiate with a tyrant, as you say, but now that both sides have nukes, that's the way to go. Negotiation. Diplomacy. Arms treaties. We used to have those, but they went by the wayside and now we're about to see what happens when there is no negotiation and no diplomacy. That's the Neocon paint of view. Just press on with the nonsense and don't negotiate, ever. Threats and escalation. A recipe for disaster.

The prep is the worst part. The rest is a breeze.

It's obvious that you miss my point. You don't get it. You probably never will. You want to argue a point I was willing to concede. Possibly because you're raising a red herring? These matters used to be dealt with through diplomacy. And yet that seems to be a thing of the past. The West seems has thrown all that out the window. In its place, we have people making threats. Not only the politicians, but military leaders. At some point, reality will make an appearance. We all better hope that that happens and there's a change of direction towards diplomacy sometime before the war is escalated to the point of no return.

For the purposes of discussion, let's assume that it's all Russia's fault. Everything is Russia's "fault." Their invasion of Ukraine was in no way justified, and their nuclear use directives are not helpful. Putin is an evil dictator intent on expanding Russia's border to align with the old Soviet border of 1989 and that any concern they may have in protecting their backyard is not justified, NATO is just a nice peaceful alliance that wouldn't harm a fly. Let's further assume the Western nations are "right" in every respect. The CIA, unlike its usual modus operandi, is not on yet another nation building quest with the ultimate goal of plundering the target nation's resources after installing a puppet regime. Happy so far? So, it's all Russia's fault and the USA and its Western allies have clean hands. All they care about is Ukraine's "democracy," and Blackrock isn't already circling like a vulture, ready to steal Ukrainian resources. So what? You still have a situation where both Russia and the USA have significant nuclear arsenals that, in any way shape or form, cannot be used without setting off a chain of events that could kill billions of people or perhaps end humanity. It doesn't matter who is making the threats or why. No good can come of it. The way you win is to not play the game. Part of the problem here is that the people running the USA, whoever they may be for the next 60 days, don't seem to understand that a ground war with Russia cannot be won in 2024 or 2025. They seem to think the military is fully ready to fight not only in Europe, but, if need be, in Asia against China, and in the Middle East against Iran. Really? They need a wake up call. We have a scary situation right now. The people at the Pentagon know the actual state of affairs, but no one seems to be listening to them.

Let me be clear: all of the threats, by either side, are destabilizing. What do threats accomplish? I'm sure the world's people would like to live to see the holidays. Threats by NATO, threats by The European Parliament, threats by the Biden Administration, threats by Russia. It all needs to be toned down. Nuclear was is not the answer. I think people simply do not understand the consequences. Anyway, once it happens, once the war really begins, there will be no do-overs. It will all be over in short order. And the warmongers will have nowhere to hide.

I guess you're not keeping up with your reading. I'll post a link if I come across it again, but there's a recent article in the New York Times, citing an unnamed administration source, that the US is considering the transfer of nuclear weapons to Ukraine. IIn other words, the CIA planted the story in the hopes that it would get published. The apparent purpose is to somehow deter Russia.

If they do, it will be in response to what they perceive to be an existential threat. That's their doctrine. They won't sit around and wait to analyze what might be left of their nuclear capacity if they experience a "first strike." That would be suicidal. On the other hand, we're now seeing chatter online suggesting that the US is perhaps considering transferring nuclear weapons to Ukraine. I'm not sure who the genius is that suggested that, but I can't imagine anything more reckless, Certainly, the transfer of such weapons to Ukraine won't insulate the US from the consequences.. We're also seeing reports of certain Navy officers openly suggesting that the West is "ready" for a nuclear exchange. In short, the West is being reckless and irrational. Both sides need a time out.

You don't seem to understand. How is being dead in your best interest? States act in their best interest but also have to realize when that "best interest" no longer comports with reality. Ending humanity is not in anyone's best interest. It's abut recognizing how powerful your opponent is. Or recognizing if they are behaving rationally. Western leaders have lost the plot. They actually believe their own nonsense, and that's dangerous for the millions of people who simply want to continue living their lives. The only way you win is to not play the game.

Russia is simply acting ints own best interest. "Nuclear threats"? Like it or not, Russia has 5000+ nukes. And of course, other nations also have legitimate security interests. But that's not the real issue here. The real issue is that these things play out in reality, not in some fantasized version of reality that exists only in the heads of some delusional Neocons. Assuming Russia isn't bluffing, then people in the West need to ask themselves if they're ready to end the human race because their version of reality compels it. Not too bright.