jas007

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.

If you like volatility with a stock that can significantly conrer the commercial AI market over the next few years, the a look at PLTR. Proceed at your own risk. By all conventional metrics, it's overpriced right now, but that's a good thing. Wall Street crunches numbers, but this company is well positioned to capture a significant portion of the commercial AI market. The numbers don't tell the whole story. It's sort of complicated, but they have a huge moat and no real competition. Fortunately for me, I've been buying it since the $6-$10 range and so far, it has worked out really well. The listing is switching over to NASDQ as of tomorrow, I believe, and will likely be added to the QQQ. So institutions will be buying whether they like it or not.

The house passed the bill and it's now in the Senate, where it has 62 sponsors, so it will likely pass there, assuming it's brought for a vote before December 21. I think they're trying to get Schumer to attach it to some other "must pass" legislation to speed things along. The payments will be retroactive to January 2024, so some people will be getting a nice little check whenever they make the payment. It's all computerized, so they should be able to process those quickly.

Russia could. have flattened Ukraine a long time ago. That wasn't the objective, though, as I'm sure you must know.

Like it or not, countries are where they are and can't be moved around. Eastern Europe has been in conflict for centuries. It's an important area.

Putin did what he did for a lot of reasons, not the least of which was to protect the Russians living in certain areas of Ukraine. I think the involvement of the US CIA in the various color revolutions was another factor,, as was the presene of corrupt Nazi elements in Ukraine. And don't forget the history of the region within the backdrop of NATO slowly surrounding Russia. As they say, history doesn't always repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes. Invasions of Russia typically come through Ukraine. Napoleon tried it. Hitler tried it. Russia lost 21 million people in WW II. They don't want a repeat. Like it or not, Russia has a legitimate sphere of influence in the region and a legitimate security interest in protecting its borders. To pretend that NATO is simply a "defensive alliance" and no threat to Russia is obvious nonsense..

It's all be design, I think. A civilized society wouldn't tolerate the violence. And yet in Canada, the US, and all over Europe, it's out of hand and the authorities basically just stand around and watch. The views are all over social media, every day.

Sure. That's the way it works in 2024. I suppose the daily weather report might be close to news and not merely opinion, but that's about it. Or, reporting on things that actually happened. Congress passes a bill, or Trump meets with Putin. Otherwise, it's all carefully crafted web of lies, held together by censorship of contrary opinion.

For a retiree, renting is probably the way to go, financially. Can. it work out? Sure. But you could also lose some money or end up in a place you don't actually want to be. I'm 73 and I can't imagine purchasing a place and actually having it work out, financially. The best case realistic scenario: I eventually get my money back minus the upkeep costs and the lost opportunity cost of sinking all that cash into a property. Still, I'm still thinking about buying something, just for the hell of it. It would be fun to have a place that I could furnish just the way I wanted. Of course, size is a consideration. My current rental is a 39 square meter studio. Renting is one thing, but I would never buy anything this small.

The "Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset" nonsense originated from Hillary. That's he go to answer to everything. Whatever the problem, it was the Russians. Hillary just can't get over the fact that she lost 2016 and, given her history, she seems to be very much afraid of what happens when the left loses control over the mainstream narrative.

I get the feeling he might actually do it. They say it isn't worth much in its present form. Anyway, if he doesn't the entire network may be history before too long.