jas007

Again, you simply don't get it. You really don't. I'll give you this much, though: you're good at regurgitating propaganda. It's not about what "rights" Putin has to take what he wants because he has nuclear weapons. In your Neocon fantasy world, Putin has no such right. Ukraine is an independent nation, as you say. And yet, Putin has taken parts of Ukraine, which are now part of Russia. And Putin does have nukes. So, whether that's "how it works" or not (in your fantasyland), that's the reality of the situation. It's history and it's established fact. Parts of what used to be Ukraine have now been annexed by Russia and Putin does have nukes. And unless the Neocons have a Time Machine and have some way to go back and change history, the issues must be addressed prospectively. What are you going to do about it? Gamble with the future of humanity because you simply can't grasp the fact that USA led Western hegemony isn't what it used to be and is fading fast? Pretending that's not the case is what the Neocon Fantasy is all about, and they've done a good job of brainwashing people like you. Perhaps it's time to drop the Russian Boogeyman routine and deal with the real world.

So, it's your opinion that, in the real world, there's no such thing as a sphere of influence? And that anyone who thinks so is somehow spouting Russian propaganda? What do you think would happen if Russia or China were to place offensive weapons along the Mexican Border, or along the Canadian border? Do. you think the USA would say "Oh well, those are independent countries"? Of course not. That kind of military presence wouldn't be tolerated. Not for one day. What do you think would happen if Russia or China smuggled a bunch of specialized trucks and drones into the USA and then attacked US B-52 bombers and other strategic assets with the drones? Do you think the USA would sit back, be patient, and wait to see what was next on the agenda? Or would the retaliation already be underway? So yes, Ukraine is an independent country. And in the real world and within the Russian sphere of influence, the question is "so what"? Don't think for a second that Russia has no right to address matters of strategic importance which might be an existential threat. Take a look at the codified Russian nuclear doctrine. That's not "propaganda." That's reality, and last time I heard, Russia has thousands of nukes which they can and may well use if need be. So, independent country or not, parts of what were once Ukraine are now part of Russia. And it may be too late for much of a settlement favorable to Ukraine.

Of course, a number of factors were at play leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. And you seem to agree they were all economic, or at least most of them. And in today's world, a Russia trying to stitch together all of Europe in a new empire would face many of the same problems, no? As you say, it's the economy, stupid.. It's economic. And political. And for those same reasons, it won't happen today. But it makes for scary Western propaganda. Stop Putin in his tracks before he takes over all of Europe! As for why Ukraine should be a buffer zone? Because, in the real world, it's within the Russian sphere of influence, it always has been, and it always will be. That's the reality. Different, perhaps, from the Western Neocon fantasyland, but reality, nonetheless. In any event, count me in as one of the people who strongly believes that gambling with the future of the human race based on an assumption that Putin is just bluffing and that Russia has no right to address matters of strategic importance, is not a good idea. Anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy. I'm not sure what they're thinking. Gambling with the human race is a bad idea. For sure, people make money by wayof the war machine. And the corruption is beyond belief. Only a few profit. Everyone else pays. Perhaps with their lives. The war machine makes money. The corrupt politicians make money. The banking system makes money. And if they lose their bet, it's over for everyone.

Never forget, this entire invasion was allowed to happen. It was no accident, and the UK wasn't the only country affected. For the four years of the Biden administration, millions flowed across the southern UN border, unchecked. Rounding them up and deporting them may prove to be an impossible task.

I need to start proofing my posts better, I suppose.

How many more sanctions can they place on Russia, at this point, and what makes you think we aren't long past the point where it makes much difference? I realize that's the Western mindset. Sanctions, sanctions, sanctions. money, more money, more money. It's all a bunch of nonsense spread by spin doctors for the war machine and the central banks. Why people don't realize that is beyond me. As for Russia threatening all of Europe? Don't be silly. If, as you seem to think, they can't even win a ground war against Ukraine, how are they going to suddenly take over all of Europe? The Russians aren't stupid, and that's not what they want. They went bankrupt trying to hold the old Soviet Union together, and they won't make that mistake again. They want a buffer zone, they want a neutral Ukraine, and they want the nonsense to stop. And of course, you gloss over the fact that perhaps it's not Russian aggression that's the root cause of the war in the first place?

If what it's worth, it sounds to me like you've been ingesting too much propaganda. Russia seems to be doing just fine, if the currency markets are any indication. The Russian Ruble has appreciated around 40% against the US dollar since the beginning of 2025. Doesn't sound like a crumbling economy to me. In any event, it's all relative. I don't know about potatoes. In any event, the Western nations are all but bankrupt at this point, and living on borrowed money. That's another discussion entirely, I guess, but don't think for a second that this nonsense can go on indefinitely. At this point, economics may not matter. Russian nukes are locked and loaded. And if they go off, no one will need to worry about potatoes, the war of the ground, or who is "winning." There will be no winners.

Apparently, Trump is now being controlled by the insane Neocon wing of the Republican Party and, not only is he not trying to end the war in Ukraine, the Administration seems to be on a path to WWIII. Winning? Hardly. Unfortunately, the nutcases are also on a path to war on two other fronts. It will all end badly unless there's a radical change of course. I'd give his foreign policy performance an F-. He's doing OK the illegal immigrant problem, but he's got a huge job ahead of him on that front. In terms of the economy? The jury is still out, but again, he's seemingly being controlled by the Wall Street crowd and its Deep State masters, and is no where near fixing the debt problem. Inflation may be down, if the official numbers are to be believed, but the reality may be something else again. Still, there was an election, he's now the President, and was the only sane choice vs. Harris.

Unfortunately, that can happen only in your fantasy world. Reality. Ever heard of it? In reality, Russia has won the war on the ground. And they won't be giving back any of the annexed territories that are now part of Russia. At this point, the goal of any sane actor would be to stop the war before it escalates to WWIII. And there's only one way that will happen. Diplomacy. Unfortunately, the drone attack on the Russia airfields and the more recent attack on the Bridge to Crimea make a diplomatic solution all the more difficult. What the world needs right now is some sane adults. Where are they? Certainly not in DC. What could they possibly be thinking? The war in Ukraine is not a video game. And in the end, no one will be able to press the reset button and play another day. There will be no reboot.

Not at all. Who "started" the war? How far back in history do you want to go? Sure, Ukraine has a right to defend itself. That goes without saying. And the rest of us have some interest in not being turned into dust via thermonuclear war. So what's the solution? A diplomatic solution. One that establishes transparency and a framework for agreement and verification. And yet all that is complicated by the fact that, after yesterday's drone attacks, the US can no longer be trusted. Or rather, the Russians may not trust the USA at this point, given the recent history of CIA meddling and the Maiden Revolution. And of course, the failed Minsk accords. So, justified or not, Russia may not trust the USA at this point and they may well think Trump is a wishy washy madman. And that complicates the situation and makes war more likely, not less likely. Read up on Game Theory, the Prisoner's Dilemma, and why a lack of transparency and an irrational actor can make it more likely that a nation act in it's perceived best interest and less likely to agree to any kind of diplomatic framework for a solution. The bottom line: the sooner this war is stopped, the better. Otherwise, we're headed for trouble.

Sorry if you don't understand what I wrote. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. And I think I've already answered this question somewhere in the last three days. A number of topics, all connected and all important to establishing a diplomatic framework for settlement. It all works together. Diplomacy can be messy, and we're not talking about theory. We're talking real world. That's where things matter. That's the part you want so desperately to avoid. You ask for "evidence." And yet sometimes, the thing speaks for itself, so to speak. Res ipsa loquitur. It's not hard to connect the dots, sometimes. If you don't understand that, I can come up with many examples. Appeal to futility? An agreement may be difficult to achieve, but not impossible. Anyone will tell you that. Again, consider history. Consider other diplomatic solutions, and connect the dots. It can be done. False equivalence? It's not false if there's areal connection in the mind of one of the parties. In this example, what you think doesn't matter. What Putin thinks absolutely does matter. Unless, of course, he's taken out of the equation and one of your theoretical straw men is substituted in his place. And yes, much of your argument does beg the question. Maybe you should go back and read it again. Tu Qouque? Give me a break. If you understand any of the above you'd know why that's not the case.

I tried. You just don't understand, and so you want some sort of "proof."

That may be, but it doesn't look like that's a likely outcomes, at this point, especially if reports are true that Hegseth watched the drone attack in real time. Consider the implications of that. That coupled with Trump's assertion at a press conference that he hadn't heard anything about a drone attack. That can all mean only one of two or three things. Trump was lying, Trump spaced it out and forgot he had been told about it, or, more likely, the CIA kept Trump out of the loop to establish plausible deniability. And if that's the case, more than a few people ought to be fired. More than a few people are not doing their job or are asleep at the switch. There are so many problems with what happened it would be hard to list them all.

Yes, both the US and Russia may be legally bound by the terms of the New Salt Treaty, but Russia has a different point of view. Agin, from Perplexity: "Russia’s suspension of the New START Treaty is widely regarded as legally invalid for several reasons rooted in the treaty’s text, international law, and historical precedent: 1. Absence of Suspension Provisions in the Treaty The New START Treaty contains no clause permitting suspension . Article XIV outlines a formal withdrawal process requiring written notice and a six-month waiting period, which Russia has not invoked . By unilaterally suspending participation without following these procedures, Russia violated the treaty’s explicit terms. 2. Misapplication of the Vienna Convention Russia justified its suspension under Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), which allows suspension due to a “fundamental change of circumstances” . However: • U.S. support for Ukraine does not constitute a “fundamental change” affecting the treaty’s obligations, as arms control is distinct from geopolitical conflicts . • Article 62 cannot be invoked if the suspending party has breached other international obligations (e.g., Russia’s aggression against Ukraine) . 3. Continued Treaty Obligations Suspension does not terminate obligations. Under the VCLT’s Article 72, parties must refrain from acts obstructing the treaty’s resumption . Russia’s refusal to facilitate inspections, share data, or attend consultative meetings directly violates New START’s requirements (Articles VII, IX, and Part Four of the protocol) . The U.S. State Department has documented these violations, confirming Russia’s noncompliance . 4. International and Expert Consensus • The U.S. and arms control experts, including treaty negotiators like Rose Gottemoeller, unanimously reject Russia’s suspension as “irresponsible and unlawful” . • Russia’s similar suspension of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE) in 2007 faced comparable legal challenges, establishing a pattern of invalid treaty actions . 5. U.S. Countermeasures While the U.S. has halted data exchanges and inspections in response, these are proportionate countermeasures under international law, not a withdrawal . The U.S. maintains compliance with the treaty’s central limits and remains open to resuming full implementation if Russia returns to compliance . Conclusion Russia’s suspension lacks legal validity under both New START and the VCLT. Its actions are widely viewed as a politically motivated maneuver to gain leverage, rather than a justified legal step . Until Russia formally withdraws or the treaty expires in 2026, it remains bound by its obligations." Sounds to me like Russia has indicated plans "to exceed treaty limits..." In any event, ask yourself this: if you were in charge of the US Air Force and the strategic defense assets of the USA, would you continue to park your bombers and other attack aircraft in nice little rows in the middle of a field somewhere, simply because a treaty that Russia is illegally violating requires it? Or would you recommend that the United States act in its own best interest? Do you think adherence to recognized treaty legalities trump the act of self-preservation? And let's not forget who's in the White House these days. It's a real mess.

Surely you jest. A global thermonuclear war would pretty much end the world as we know it. Some people really don't need their pension money, but the world certainly needs a functioning grid, a functional internet and someway to transfer money around. And yet the banking system would be kaput.

I agree in part. As I've previously indicated, Putin suspended Russia's participation the New Start Treaty s few yers ago. So I suppose the US is no longer legally obligated. In any event, you're otherwise absolutely correct. People cheering on this war and its escalation apparently have no clue what's been done or why it matters. And they certainly don't understand the ramifications of a global thermonuclear war. They can''t stay in their bunkers forever.

I got all this information from my brain. I've been to school. In another thread on April 30, in a conversation with Dinsdale, I tried to explain how diplomacy is important and why, in the context of game theory. If you can find that thread, go back in read it. Maybe I made more sense that day. "It absolutely does matter. The point is that the last thing the world needs is a destabilized situation in that part of the world. MAD only makes sense if both "players" possess an equal ability to attack and destroy the other. Do some research on game theory and why and how MAD works. In game theory, MAD is a situation where the only way to win is to not play the game. Correct? But, once the situation is destabilized by the introduction of short and intermediate range missiles close to Russia's western border and to critical parts of their early warning systems, that would give the West an advantage and make war more likely. In other words, it would be stupid to create such a situation in the first place. MAD needs a level playing field to be effective. And so yes, it really does matter where missiles are placed."

I just looked it up. From Perplexity: Vladimir Putin suspended Russia’s participation in the New START treaty on February 21, 2023, during his Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly. He announced that Russia would no longer allow the United States and NATO to inspect its nuclear facilities, citing concerns over U.S. development of new nuclear weapons and NATO’s involvement in Ukraine. Putin also criticized the treaty for not covering French and British nuclear weapons. Following the suspension announcement, Russia initially stated it would continue to adhere to the treaty’s warhead limits but later ceased the notification process related to missile launches under the treaty by the end of March 2023. The suspension marked a significant setback for nuclear arms control between the U.S. and Russia, as New START was the last remaining treaty limiting their strategic nuclear arsenals.

Maybe it's just the fact that I'm no longer 25, but once upon a time, I loved big cities. And back then I'm sure I would have loved Bangkok. Today? I wouldn't live there. I thought about it, but came to my senses. I have no reason whatsoever to be there, long term. For me, an occasional week or month in Bangkok would be enough. Have fun for a while and then back to a tranquil beach neighborhood.

One big Tijuana. From what I've heard about the place, that's probably correct.

Didn't Putin suspend their agreement a few years ago?

You want to come across as someone who understands diplomacy, enforceability, and so on, but your response here demonstrates that you understand none of that or how things play out in the real world. First, you should understand how diplomacy typically operates when the issues include ending a war, and why the enforcement of any such agreement might well be problematic but not out of the question. It's not at all unusual for states to withhold security guarantees from an agreement for very real strategic concerns. When push comes to shove, as the US has so often demonstrated, countries will act in their own best interest. Guarantees don't mean much these days. Do you understand game theory? Have you ever heard of the prisoner's dilemma? Do you understand why the focus on Putin is a straw man argument and why that misses the point, in any event? Ideally, guarantees operate as a deterrent because an aggressor would be unable to absolutely veto the guarantors from making good on their guarantees. The rational actor would therefore avoid the conflict. But, as you've so aptly noted, enforcement would not come without roadblocks. In the case of a referral to the Security Council, by Putin himself or his representative at the UN. However, the UN is but one of several available enforcement mechanisms. Moreover, the "loaded gun" analogy misses the mark. You're setting up an either/or situation that doesn't exist in the real world. Reciprocity and trust? You must be kidding. Look at the history of the conflict. Neither side can trust the other, and for good reasons. Russia can't trust Ukraine, given its recent history of supposed violations of the Minsk Accords. And Ukraine certainly doesn't trust Russia. A Russia that continues to hold what Zelensky calls Ukrainian territory and an Ukraine that enters into a deal under duress? In other words, it's a recipe for future trouble and that's not the goal of any agreement to end the war, is it? So, was there a genuine offer? Of course. Jut not an offer you like. And I'm sure the offer may still be on the table, in spite of yesterday's drone strikes.

Maybe you should take a break or perhaps find a thread to follow where you actually understand the issues.

You seem to want everyone to ignore the fact that there was a genuine offer from Russia and that there still is. You do this by pretending the offer by Russia required that Ukraine "effectively surrender" and was therefore no offer at all. You assume too much, I think. You're just begging the question. Just because there would supposedly be no guarantees does not make Russia's offer not a real offer. Hard or almost impossible to enforce, perhaps, but isn't enforcement of a contract always a problem? Here, it's just a matter of degree. And of course, enforcement mechanisms do exist. Referral to the UN Security Council, for example. One of several available enforcement mechanisms that you would rather we all ignore. An effective solution would be problematic, to be sure, given the geopolitical backdrop, but we are, after all, talking about an agreement to end a war.

If you ask me it's a matter of greed and delusion. Big bucks are made from war and big bucks are at stake, no doubt about it. And yet the same people trying to start this war are seemingly oblivious to the fact that if they succeed, all their efforts will be for naught. They can't hide in their bunkers forever.