OT subject but worth a main-stream read- OT News Feeds...

lousubcap

Likely TLDR for some here but...
Interesting perspective https://www.fastcompany.com/90698823/you-need-to-turn-off-news-notifications-heres-why?utm_source=nextdraft&utm_medium=email  
BTW full disclosure, I get seven different news feed emails a weekday.  No alerts.  
Happens when you are old and every day is Saturday.   The TV is only on for local and one or two national broadcasts a total of 60 minutes/day.  FWIW-

SamIAm2

I trace that phenomenon to the beginning of the first Gulf War and the Constant News Network. That was also the impetus for me to totally curtail my daily reading of three newspapers and ignoring all televised news. 

JohnInCarolina

I don’t have any notifications turned on, for anything.

nolaegghead

JohnInCarolina said:

I don’t have any notifications turned on, for anything.

You're such a turn-off, John.

lousubcap

Bump for a great read on the Ukraine trick-sack:  Copied here as it is behind the NY Times pay wall:

OPINION

GUEST ESSAY

Putin Has the U.S. Right Where He Wants It

Jan. 24, 2022

By Fiona Hill

Ms. Hill was an intelligence officer on Russia and Eurasian affairs for Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama and served on the National Security Council under President Donald Trump.

We knew this was coming.

“George, you have to understand that Ukraine is not even a country. Part of its territory is in Eastern Europe and the greater part was given to us.” These were the ominous words of President Vladimir Putin of Russia to President George W. Bush in Bucharest, Romania, at a NATO summit in April 2008.

Mr. Putin was furious: NATO had just announced that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually join the alliance. This was a compromise formula to allay concerns of our European allies — an explicit promise to join the bloc, but no specific timeline for membership.

At the time, I was the national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia, part of a team briefing Mr. Bush. We warned him that Mr. Putin would view steps to bring Ukraine and Georgia closer to NATO as a provocative move that would likely provoke pre-emptive Russian military action. But ultimately, our warnings weren’t heeded.

Within four months, in August 2008, Russia invaded Georgia. Ukraine got Russia’s message loud and clear. It backpedaled on NATO membership for the next several years. But in 2014, Ukraine wanted to sign an association agreement with the European Union, thinking this might be a safer route to the West. Moscow struck again, accusing Ukraine of seeking a back door to NATO, annexing Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula and starting an ongoing proxy war in Ukraine’s southeastern Donbas region. The West’s muted reactions to both the 2008 and 2014 invasions emboldened Mr. Putin.

This time, Mr. Putin’s aim is bigger than closing NATO’s “open door” to Ukraine and taking more territory — he wants to evict the United States from Europe. As he might put it: “Goodbye, America. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin.Credit...Pool photo by Evgeny Odinokov

As I have seen over two decades of observing Mr. Putin, and analyzing his moves, his actions are purposeful and his choice of this moment to throw down the gauntlet in Ukraine and Europe is very intentional. He has a personal obsession with history and anniversaries. December 2021 marked the 30th anniversary of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, when Russia lost its dominant position in Europe. Mr. Putin wants to give the United States a taste of the same bitter medicine Russia had to swallow in the 1990s. He believes that the United States is currently in the same predicament as Russia was after the Soviet collapse: grievously weakened at home and in retreat abroad. He also thinks NATO is nothing more than an extension of the United States. Russian officials and commentators routinely deny any agency or independent strategic thought to other NATO members. So, when it comes to the alliance, all of Moscow’s moves are directed against Washington.

In the 1990s, the United States and NATO forced Russia to withdraw the remnants of the Soviet military from their bases in Eastern Europe, Germany and the Baltic States. Mr. Putin wants the United States to suffer in a similar way. From Russia’s perspective, America’s domestic travails after four years of Donald Trump’s disastrous presidency, as well as the rifts he created with U.S. allies and then America’s precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan, signal weakness. If Russia presses hard enough, Mr. Putin hopes he can strike a new security deal with NATO and Europe to avoid an open-ended conflict, and then it will be America’s turn to leave, taking its troops and missiles with it.

Ukraine is both Russia’s target and a source of leverage against the United States. Over the last several months Mr. Putin has bogged the Biden administration down in endless tactical games that put the United States on the defensive. Russia moves forces to Ukraine’s borders, launches war games and ramps up the visceral commentary. In recent official documents, it demanded ironclad guarantees that Ukraine (and other former republics of the U.S.S.R.) will never become a member of NATO, that NATO pull back from positions taken after 1997, and also that America withdraw its own forces and weapons, including its nuclear missiles. Russian representatives assert that Moscow doesn’t “need peace at any cost” in Europe. Some Russian politicians even suggest the possibility of a pre-emptive strike against NATO targets to make sure that we know they are serious, and that we should meet Moscow’s demands.

For weeks, American officials have huddled to make sense of the official documents with Russia’s demands and the contradictory commentary, pondered how to deter Mr. Putin in Ukraine and scrambled to talk on his timeline.

All the while, Mr. Putin and his proxies have ratcheted up their statements. Kremlin officials have not just challenged the legitimacy of America’s position in Europe, they have raised questions about America’s bases in Japan and its role in the Asia-Pacific region. They have also intimated that they may ship hypersonic missiles to America’s back door in Cuba and Venezuela to revive what the Russians call the Caribbean Crisis of the 1960s.

Mr. Putin is a master of coercive inducement. He manufactures a crisis in such a way that he can win no matter what anyone else does. Threats and promises are essentially one and the same. Mr. Putin can invade Ukraine yet again, or he can leave things where they are and just consolidate the territory Russia effectively controls in Crimea and Donbas. He can stir up trouble in Japan and send hypersonic missiles to Cuba and Venezuela, or not, if things go his way in Europe.

Mr. Putin plays a longer, strategic game and knows how to prevail in the tactical scrum. He has the United States right where he wants it. His posturing and threats have set the agenda in European security debates, and have drawn our full attention. Unlike President Biden, Mr. Putin doesn’t have to worry about midterm elections or pushback from his own party or the opposition. Mr. Putin has no concerns about bad press or poor poll ratings. He isn’t part of a political party and he has crushed the Russian opposition. The Kremlin has largely silenced the local, independent press. Mr. Putin is up for re-election in 2024, but his only viable opponent, Aleksei Navalny, is locked in a penal colony outside of Moscow.

So Mr. Putin can act as he chooses, when he chooses. Barring ill health, the United States will have to contend with him for years to come. Right now, all signs indicate that Mr. Putin will lock the United States into an endless tactical game, take more chunks out of Ukraine and exploit all the frictions and fractures in NATO and the European Union. Getting out of the current crisis requires acting, not reacting. The United States needs to shape the diplomatic response and engage Russia on the West’s terms, not just Moscow’s.

To be sure, Russia does have some legitimate security concerns, and European security arrangements could certainly do with fresh thinking and refurbishment after 30 years. There is plenty for Washington and Moscow to discuss on the conventional and nuclear forces as well as in the cyber domain and on other fronts. But a further Russian invasion of Ukraine and Ukraine’s dismemberment and neutralization cannot be an issue for U.S.-Russian negotiation nor a line item in European security. Ultimately, the United States needs to show Mr. Putin that he will face global resistance and Mr. Putin’s aggression will put Russia’s political and economic relationships at risk far beyond Europe.

Contrary to Mr. Putin’s premise in 2008 that Ukraine is “not a real country,” Ukraine has been a full-fledged member of the United Nations since 1991. Another Russian assault would challenge the entire U.N. system and imperil the arrangements that have guaranteed member states’ sovereignty since World War II — akin to the Iraq invasion of Kuwait in 1990, but on an even bigger scale. The United States and its allies, and Ukraine itself, should take this issue to the United Nations and put it before the General Assembly as well as the Security Council. Even if Russia blocks a resolution, the future of Ukraine merits a global response. The United States should also raise concerns in other regional institutions. Why is Russia trying to take its disputes in Europe to Asia and the Western Hemisphere? What does Ukraine have to do with Japan, or Cuba and Venezuela?

Mr. Biden has promised that Russia “will pay a heavy price” if any Russian troops cross Ukraine’s borders. If Mr. Putin invades Ukraine with no punitive action from the West and the rest of the international community, beyond financial sanctions, then he will have set a precedent for future action by other countries. Mr. Putin has already factored additional U.S. financial sanctions into his calculations. But he assumes that some NATO allies will be reluctant to follow suit on these sanctions and other countries will look the other way. U.N. censure, widespread and vocal international opposition, and action by countries outside Europe to pull back on their relations with Russia might give him pause. Forging a united front with its European allies and rallying broader support should be America’s longer game. Otherwise this saga could indeed mark the beginning of the end of America’s military presence in Europe.

Fiona Hill is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. She served as national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia and senior director for Europe and Russia at the National Security Council. She is co-author of “Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin” and author of “There Is Nothing for You Here: Finding Opportunity in the 21st Century.”

Kayak

Well, it's not worth typing much, as this thread isn't likely to survive long...

Buuttt, there are actually other perspectives on international relations than the Neo-Con view that we should rule the world by starting wars every time someone says no. At least the hardline republicans don't play coy about our desires to maintain our faltering empire.

"But in 2014, Ukraine wanted to sign an association agreement with the European Union, thinking this might be a safer route to the West. Moscow struck again, accusing Ukraine of seeking a back door to NATO, annexing Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula and starting an ongoing proxy war in Ukraine’s southeastern Donbas region." Hmmm. I'm sure there's a few details being glossed over there. If only a think-tank writer and former intelligence analyst could find them.

You know, you don't have to read RT to get a different perspective, or tune in to Tucker Carlson. Get outside the US average though,

Gulfcoastguy

Or the US could freely hunt for oil and natural gas again, completing the pipelines to move it. This driving down the price of natural gas and oil. Those two items are half of the Russian economy. 

Kayak

Bump to help out Caps discussion.

Russia’s Red Line

By Patrick Lawrence

Special to Consortium News

“They must understand,” Sergei Lavrov said in one of his many public statements last week, “that the key to everything is the guarantee that NATO will not expand eastward.”

The Russian foreign minister has repeated this thought almost ad infinitum lately. He speaks, of course, of the Biden administration and the diplomats who bear its messages to others.

Here is another of Lavrov’s recent utterances:

“We are very patient… we have been harnessing [burdens] for a very long time, and now it’s time for us to go.”

I do not know quite what Lavrov means by “harnessing burdens.” I suspect it is a translation problem, and he said something closer to “bearing burdens.” But it is perfectly clear what he means when he says it is time for Russia to go: He means it is time to advance beyond the status quo, move on from post–Cold War security arrangements that have allowed NATO, in the name of the Atlantic alliance, to aggress toward the Russian Federation’s western borders more or less at will since the Soviet Union met its end.

All that Lavrov, President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials have said and done since the Ukraine crisis re-erupted late last year indicate one simple, hard-as-granite reality. In consequence of the many pointedly provocative moves the West, notably the U.S. and Britain, have made in Ukraine over the past year, our planet now has a brand-new red line etched upon it.

I hope Russia draws it in the deepest scarlet. As a diplomatic tactic, red lines are not very often advisable: They tend to paint the painter of the line into a corner. This one is absolutely necessary if we are to see a new security order in Europe. A new security order in Europe is essential if we are to achieve a sustainably, stable world order in our time.

We read here and there of comparisons between the Ukraine crisis and the crisis across the Taiwan Strait that the U.S. has similarly conjured of late. Russia is to Ukraine as China is to Taiwan, this sort of thing. Geopolitics is not so simple. But while this obscures some things, it illuminates others. Russia does not want to “invade” Ukraine any more than China wants to reassert its legitimate sovereignty over Taiwan by force.

Beijing’s red line on any suggestion of independence for Taiwan is in my view the severest red line any nation has drawn in our time. Only the dumbest of the dumb in Washington — on Capitol Hill, in the Pentagon — refuse to understand this.

China’s red line is as old as the Kuomintang’s retreat to Taiwan after Mao took Beijing in October 1949. While it does not want a messy, internationally costly conflict across the Taiwan Strait now, which is wise, this is not to say the line on the sovereignty question is any the less red.

It is the same, but also different in the Ukraine case. The last thing the Kremlin wants is to assert sovereignty over the corrupt, crawling-with-Nazis scene in Ukraine. But Moscow has made it plain just in the last month or so that its red line is no more negotiable than China’s in the Taiwan case. 

Let Russia’s be very red, then. Let it glow in the dark.

Why do I say this? It is simple: This latest round of the Ukraine crisis, which began when the U.S. cultivated and ultimately directed the 2014 coup in Kiev, makes it clear that Washington and London, with the Continent’s capitals ambivalently in tow, are not going to stop aggressing eastward to Russia’s frontier until they are made to stop — at a red line.

By appearances, it seems that U.S. President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the covert ops people in Washington do not understand this. Biden, in his blurry speeches and public pronouncements, and Blinken, in his numerous diplomatic encounters, make it very plain they will never consider a declaration limiting NATO’s expansion, or any other circumscription of Ukraine’s future relationships with NATO and more broadly the Western alliance.

At the Blinken–Lavrov exchange in Geneva last Friday, our guitar-strumming secretary failed to give his counterpart written responses to Moscow’s request for formal commitments on Ukraine and the larger question of security arrangements in Eastern Europe. Instead, he promised Washington would deliver these sometime this week. We must await this.

Not hopefully, I must quickly add. I see little to no chance the U.S. and NATO, which also received Russia’s proposals in a separate draft agreement last month, will advance matters on any of these questions regardless of what Washington puts on paper this week.

Does this mean the U.S., the U.K. and NATO don’t see the red line? Don’t they understand, in the way Lavrov uses this word, that accepting the new red line “is the key to everything?”

Biden, true enough, is a step away from assisted living, if he does not already require it behind the White House’s windows. Blinken, equally so, is somewhere between a Schlemiel (the klutz who knocks over a bottle of wine at table) and a Schlimazel (he into whose lap the wine spills).

Biden, Blinken, and golf caddies such as NATO Secretary–General Jens Stoltenberg: It is impossible to accept that they do not know well what Moscow has just done, the depth and hue of line it has drawn. The only exception here is Boris Johnson. Britain’s latest Old Etonian prime minister, who seems to have stepped out of a Monty Python skit, may indeed be too stupid to know what time it is.

Now we can judge the current impasse between the Anglosphere portion of the West and Russia for what it is. Washington, London, and Brussels see the red line as clearly as anyone else and, resisting the reality of our moment, fight a rearguard action against what it means for Europe’s “security architecture.”

A Provocation Too Far

They know they cannot win a war against Russia on Ukrainian soil. And they will not fight one, accordingly, unless a grave mistake is made. As Scott Ritter just wrote in Consortium News, and Marshall Auerback earlier argued in The Scrum, Ukraine shapes up as a provocation too far for Washington, London and Brussels. It’s Kiev as Waterloo. It’s the end of Western expansionism.

Last week the U.S. delivered the first shipment of $200 million worth of weapons it has promised Ukraine. Britain is as we speak airlifting troops and materiel from depots in England and Scotland. And the White House is talking about deploying troops to Eastern Europe.

This is on top of all the other assistance these two nations have provided Kiev in recent years — since the 2014 coup, indeed. What about this, one may ask.

My answer: This is about maintaining tension and danger at the highest possible pitch for as long as possible. This circumstance, if one steps back to consider it, meets all the West’s core objectives. The last time this happened, readers take note, it went on for four decades. It is a depressing thought but in all likelihood what we are in for. They don’t call it Cold War II for nothing.

There is — who could miss it? — the information war the West, the U.S. and Britain well in the lead, are running on the Ukraine crisis. For its breadth and relentlessness, it may well be unmatched. The thought that Russian troops on Russian soil are aggressing but American and British personnel in Ukraine are just doing the right thing has been with us for many months.

In the last week we have read that Russia has sent out-of-uniform soldiers or mercenaries into Ukraine, has intelligence operatives preparing a false-flag op against the people in Donbas it supports, and, as of Sunday, is getting ready to install a former legislator from the same party as the ousted Viktor Yanukovych as a puppet president in an elaborate coup operation of its own.

I will never quite get over how clumsy and rubbishy the propaganda issuing from Western intelligence agencies usually is.

The Info Op

This info op appears to serve three purposes. In no particular order, these are to blur causality so as to cast Russia as responsible for this crisis, to maintain public fear and ignorance in the West and to keep all options open in the very unlikely event war breaks out.

Think about this last: Ghost stories about Russian spooks readying to blow up power grids, communications towers and water supplies effectively licenses the madmen in Kiev or covert operatives from the West to spark a conflict and point all fingers at Moscow.

In the matter of causality, here is a paragraph from a Reuters piece published Monday afternoon:

“Russia denies planning an invasion. But, having engineered the crisis by surrounding Ukraine with forces from the north, east and south, Moscow is now citing the Western response as evidence to support its narrative that Russia is the target, not the instigator, of aggression.”

The first sentence of this paragraph is correct. Everything else in it is utterly false, perpendicular to the truth. It is essential to pay attention to these things: It is this kind of lying that allowed Cold War I to go into the history books as somehow the result of Russia’s malign intent – Russia, which had just lost 20 million to 27 million people and whose economy was a shambles.

Is there anything good to say about the Ukraine crisis as we enter another week of it? Not much, even if the West proves wise enough to stay clear of a war it cannot possibly win. But there are a few things to watch.

One, I hope Russia holds to its red line and in time succeeds in forcing a redrawing of the security map along its western border and into Europe. Two, so long as Biden–Blinken insist on a sanctions regime to end all sanctions regimes if Russia “invades” Ukraine, we will see increasing disunity in the Atlantic alliance. The more of this the better. 

The Germans and French want no part of this Anglo–American circus, if you have not noticed. Germany, it is worth noting, refused Britain air rights for its weapons transports. Berlin and Paris may not be run by philosopher-kings, but a more independent Continent within the Western alliance is without question net positive, as argued previously in this space on numerous occasions.

A final thought in this connection. Among those be-all, end-all sanctions is one that would suspend Russia from the financial settlement system known as SWIFT. I read now that the U.S. is stepping back from this one because it would prompt Moscow and Beijing to accelerate plans already in motion to develop a system independent of SWIFT and not subject to Washington’s geopolitical whims.

For once they are getting smart down there inside the Beltway. That is exactly what it would do.

The coalescing of non–Western powers, far from least Russia and China, is a reality well beyond the course of the Ukraine crisis and this or that sanction. The relentless campaigns against the Chinese and Russians in the two-front Cold War these past few years have done a great deal to encourage unity between the two. This will not reverse under any circumstance.

Disunity in the West, unity in the non–West. It is wane and wax. Maybe it is red lines — Moscow’s, China’s — that make the difference between the one and the other.

Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune, is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century. Follow him on Twitter @thefloutist. His web site is Patrick Lawrence. Support his work via his Patreon site. 

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

lousubcap

@Kayak Good to read differing opinions and positions.  Thanks for the post.

lousubcap

Here's another more historical background article about US-Russia and Ukraine:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-historical-dispute-behind-russias-threat-to-invade-ukraine?utm_source=nextdraft&utm_medium=email 

lousubcap

A Henry Kissinger 2014 article regarding Ukraine-worth a look.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/46dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html  

Eoin

If I were independent Ukraine, I would certainly be very worried about having Russia as a next door neighbour and a mutual defence pact with other free countries would be appealing. I would also be interested in EU membership, since it has an actual free, single market and little corruption, while economic ties to Russia offer little benefit.

If I were Russia under Putin, I would be worried about having NATO forces being able to exercise 350 miles from Moscow. Especially given the quality and numbers gap between Russian and NATO forces. But, I do think that this worry is entirely down to Putin seeing 'the West' as his enemy, mainly because it's politically useful for him to do so, which means he acts provocatively whenever possible.

The issue for Russia is a bit like the issue for the UK. We also used to run a huge empire and have failed to come to terms with our diminished status in the world post-empire (going it alone with brexit being the manifestation of our failure to realise that we're really not that important any more). Russia sees its collapsing empire as a threat to its power and status. If it would just accept that the glory days are gone and aren't coming back, everyone could get on with their lives and they could become a free and prosperous democratic country too.

dmchicago

Eoin said:

If I were independent Ukraine, I would certainly be very worried about having Russia as a next door neighbour and a mutual defence pact with other free countries would be appealing. I would also be interested in EU membership, since it has an actual free, single market and little corruption, while economic ties to Russia offer little benefit.

If I were Russia under Putin, I would be worried about having NATO forces being able to exercise 350 miles from Moscow. Especially given the quality and numbers gap between Russian and NATO forces. But, I do think that this worry is entirely down to Putin seeing 'the West' as his enemy, mainly because it's politically useful for him to do so, which means he acts provocatively whenever possible.

The issue for Russia is a bit like the issue for the UK. We also used to run a huge empire and have failed to come to terms with our diminished status in the world post-empire (going it alone with brexit being the manifestation of our failure to realise that we're really not that important any more). Russia sees its collapsing empire as a threat to its power and status. If it would just accept that the glory days are gone and aren't coming back, everyone could get on with their lives and they could become a free and prosperous democratic country too.

Naw, man. All this is because Biden went out for ice cream yesterday.

Gulfcoastguy

dmchicago said:

Eoin said:

If I were independent Ukraine, I would certainly be very worried about having Russia as a next door neighbour and a mutual defence pact with other free countries would be appealing. I would also be interested in EU membership, since it has an actual free, single market and little corruption, while economic ties to Russia offer little benefit.

If I were Russia under Putin, I would be worried about having NATO forces being able to exercise 350 miles from Moscow. Especially given the quality and numbers gap between Russian and NATO forces. But, I do think that this worry is entirely down to Putin seeing 'the West' as his enemy, mainly because it's politically useful for him to do so, which means he acts provocatively whenever possible.

The issue for Russia is a bit like the issue for the UK. We also used to run a huge empire and have failed to come to terms with our diminished status in the world post-empire (going it alone with brexit being the manifestation of our failure to realise that we're really not that important any more). Russia sees its collapsing empire as a threat to its power and status. If it would just accept that the glory days are gone and aren't coming back, everyone could get on with their lives and they could become a free and prosperous democratic country too.

Naw, man. All this is because Biden went out for ice cream yesterday.

He couldn’t. Doctor Jill had him in time out.

dmchicago

Gulfcoastguy said:

dmchicago said:

Eoin said:

If I were independent Ukraine, I would certainly be very worried about having Russia as a next door neighbour and a mutual defence pact with other free countries would be appealing. I would also be interested in EU membership, since it has an actual free, single market and little corruption, while economic ties to Russia offer little benefit.

If I were Russia under Putin, I would be worried about having NATO forces being able to exercise 350 miles from Moscow. Especially given the quality and numbers gap between Russian and NATO forces. But, I do think that this worry is entirely down to Putin seeing 'the West' as his enemy, mainly because it's politically useful for him to do so, which means he acts provocatively whenever possible.

The issue for Russia is a bit like the issue for the UK. We also used to run a huge empire and have failed to come to terms with our diminished status in the world post-empire (going it alone with brexit being the manifestation of our failure to realise that we're really not that important any more). Russia sees its collapsing empire as a threat to its power and status. If it would just accept that the glory days are gone and aren't coming back, everyone could get on with their lives and they could become a free and prosperous democratic country too.

Naw, man. All this is because Biden went out for ice cream yesterday.

He couldn’t. Doctor Jill had him in time out.

I think you mean she put him down for his nap.

anyway, it must be true 'cause Fox blew it up.

Gulfcoastguy

He slipped out? That will mean double secret probation.

Botch

Eoin said:

The issue for Russia is a bit like the issue for the UK. We also used to run a huge empire and have failed to come to terms with our diminished status in the world post-empire (going it alone with brexit being the manifestation of our failure to realise that we're really not that important any more). Russia sees its collapsing empire as a threat to its power and status. If it would just accept that the glory days are gone and aren't coming back, everyone could get on with their lives and they could become a free and prosperous democratic country too.

So much truth in this post; thank you @Eoin.
It really saddens me that 98% of all humans just want to have a job, a place to live, and the ability to raise a family safely; there's that damn 2% (or less), the Che's or the Putins or the trumps or the Uns, etc, who need power and ruin it for the rest of humanity.  
As a species, we are better than we were 60 years ago, or 200, or 1,000, or 2,000 years ago.  But we're still not there.  Yet.  

Kayak

The world might be better off without large governments, but we seem to be stuck with them forever. That said, the willingness of so many to imagine their govt shares their values is frustrating. How many Americans believe in democracy, fairness, human rights, and peace, yet can ignore or rationalize the exact opposite behavior by their government? The number of innocent people we are starving or withholding medicine from, in order to change their government, is enormous. Not to mention those our proxies are actively bombing with our support. Our recent history of ‘success’ in foreign interventions, as well as how easily we were duped on Iraq, should give us some pause in pushing for the next war. Keep in mind this one is with a nuclear armed adversary. There is good reason there is little pushback in our press, and it’s not because they’re so independent and see what they should. These are the same folks who supported the Iraq war and suffered no ill effects to their careers. If you are hoping that voting for the other party will save us, the differences can be summed up in a picture:

JohnInCarolina

Kayak said:

The world might be better off without large governments, but we seem to be stuck with them forever. That said, the willingness of so many to imagine their govt shares their values is frustrating. How many Americans believe in democracy, fairness, human rights, and peace, yet can ignore or rationalize the exact opposite behavior by their government? The number of innocent people we are starving or withholding medicine from, in order to change their government, is enormous. Not to mention those our proxies are actively bombing with our support. Our recent history of ‘success’ in foreign interventions, as well as how easily we were duped on Iraq, should give us some pause in pushing for the next war. Keep in mind this one is with a nuclear armed adversary. There is good reason there is little pushback in our press, and it’s not because they’re so independent and see what they should. These are the same folks who supported the Iraq war and suffered no ill effects to their careers. If you are hoping that voting for the other party will save us, the differences can be summed up in a picture:

You seem to be arguing something very different from what everyone else in this thread is discussing.  

I don’t see really anyone in the US government actively campaigning for war with Russia right now.  And I think I have as clear eyed and objective a view of US foreign policy and actions as anyone.  

Kayak

JohnInCarolina said:

Kayak said:

The world might be better off without large governments, but we seem to be stuck with them forever. That said, the willingness of so many to imagine their govt shares their values is frustrating. How many Americans believe in democracy, fairness, human rights, and peace, yet can ignore or rationalize the exact opposite behavior by their government? The number of innocent people we are starving or withholding medicine from, in order to change their government, is enormous. Not to mention those our proxies are actively bombing with our support. Our recent history of ‘success’ in foreign interventions, as well as how easily we were duped on Iraq, should give us some pause in pushing for the next war. Keep in mind this one is with a nuclear armed adversary. There is good reason there is little pushback in our press, and it’s not because they’re so independent and see what they should. These are the same folks who supported the Iraq war and suffered no ill effects to their careers. If you are hoping that voting for the other party will save us, the differences can be summed up in a picture:

You seem to be arguing something very different from what everyone else in this thread is discussing.  

I don’t see really anyone in the US government actively campaigning for war with Russia right now.  And I think I have as clear eyed and objective a view of US foreign policy and actions as anyone.  

I disagree. When the Ukainian government is telling the US to cool it with the invasion talk, something more is up. I do agree that our government is not interested in war, and I suspect the Russians aren't either, but our entire state department and executive branch have been driving us to believe that the Russians are coming, and they want their empire back. Troops are on alert and allies are told to prepare. Why is that? When you are determined to park your military alliance right on the doorstep of 'the enemy', you can't expect something else.

Maybe it's just another exercise in scaring us to benefit someone's bottom line, but if we cause a war in Ukraine that doesn't involve our troops, it's still a war no one needed.

JohnInCarolina

Kayak said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Kayak said:

The world might be better off without large governments, but we seem to be stuck with them forever. That said, the willingness of so many to imagine their govt shares their values is frustrating. How many Americans believe in democracy, fairness, human rights, and peace, yet can ignore or rationalize the exact opposite behavior by their government? The number of innocent people we are starving or withholding medicine from, in order to change their government, is enormous. Not to mention those our proxies are actively bombing with our support. Our recent history of ‘success’ in foreign interventions, as well as how easily we were duped on Iraq, should give us some pause in pushing for the next war. Keep in mind this one is with a nuclear armed adversary. There is good reason there is little pushback in our press, and it’s not because they’re so independent and see what they should. These are the same folks who supported the Iraq war and suffered no ill effects to their careers. If you are hoping that voting for the other party will save us, the differences can be summed up in a picture:

You seem to be arguing something very different from what everyone else in this thread is discussing.  

I don’t see really anyone in the US government actively campaigning for war with Russia right now.  And I think I have as clear eyed and objective a view of US foreign policy and actions as anyone.  

I disagree. When the Ukainian government is telling the US to cool it with the invasion talk, something more is up. I do agree that our government is not interested in war, and I suspect the Russians aren't either, but our entire state department and executive branch have been driving us to believe that the Russians are coming, and they want their empire back. Troops are on alert and allies are told to prepare. Why is that? When you are determined to park your military alliance right on the doorstep of 'the enemy', you can't expect something else.

Maybe it's just another exercise in scaring us to benefit someone's bottom line, but if we cause a war in Ukraine that doesn't involve our troops, it's still a war no one needed.

I gather your assertion is that we are somehow trying to provoke Putin into invading Ukraine.  I don't think that's supported by much evidence, but whatever.

Putin has plenty of agency here.  There's really not anything forcing him to invade Ukraine.  You can cite an assembly of NATO forces in the area all you want, it still wouldn't justify an invasion.  If Putin decides to invade it will be on him, not the US.  I really can't imagine a scenario where the US, on its own, would do something that would necessitate a Russian invasion.  I mean, seriously - in your opinion, what could we do where Putin would effectively have no choice but to invade Ukraine?   

Gulfcoastguy

Park missiles with a 450 mile range within 365 miles of Moscow? Not that anybody but a blithering idiot would believe that the West would do a nuclear pre emptive strike on the only other nuclear power capable of completely wiping the US out. 
Or possibly Biden is trying to persuade Germany to not be reliant on Russia for over half of their energy needs? Kind of hypocritical since in one year the US has gone from being self dependent(counting Mexico and Canada) on oil and gas to actually purchasing oil from Russia.

Kayak

I guess I'm not speaking clearly enough. Thank you.

NATO is a military alliance we moved the aim of from the USSR to Russia without much of a break.

We are determined to spread NATO membership right up to Russia's border.
This is upsetting to Russia, and they have tried to get us to not do it for 30 years.

It isn't going to be us on the firing line, and they have had plenty of time to consider the downsides of going in, doing their thing, and then leaving.

My assertion is that we are playing with fire and are likely to get burned.

It never hurts to have neutral countries between two opposing powers, does it?

JohnInCarolina

Kayak said:

I guess I'm not speaking clearly enough. Thank you.

NATO is a military alliance we moved the aim of from the USSR to Russia without much of a break.

We are determined to spread NATO membership right up to Russia's border.
This is upsetting to Russia, and they have tried to get us to not do it for 30 years.

It isn't going to be us on the firing line, and they have had plenty of time to consider the downsides of going in, doing their thing, and then leaving.

My assertion is that we are playing with fire and are likely to get burned.

It never hurts to have neutral countries between two opposing powers, does it?

If we are the ones playing with fire, then how do you characterize Putin’s military build up along Ukraine’s border?

Kayak

Also playing with fire?

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Only with evolution can we say for sure.

Mind you, these are Russian troops in Russia, yet they are called the aggressors. We have forces all around their country and the world, yet we are the peacemakers.

Putin probably thought he was adding emphasis to his argument, and had no intention of using them. No one said we couldn't both be painting ourselves into a corner.

Again, our recent history of foreign interventions has ended badly, not just for the locals but for us. I really think our policy is in the hands of neo cons and regular cons just out to get us all killed.

JohnInCarolina

Kayak said:

Also playing with fire?

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Only with evolution can we say for sure.

Mind you, these are Russian troops in Russia, yet they are called the aggressors. We have forces all around their country and the world, yet we are the peacemakers.

Putin probably thought he was adding emphasis to his argument, and had no intention of using them. No one said we couldn't both be painting ourselves into a corner.

Yes, you are right.

Kayak

JohnInCarolina said:

Kayak said:

Also playing with fire?

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Only with evolution can we say for sure.

Mind you, these are Russian troops in Russia, yet they are called the aggressors. We have forces all around their country and the world, yet we are the peacemakers.

Putin probably thought he was adding emphasis to his argument, and had no intention of using them. No one said we couldn't both be painting ourselves into a corner.

Yes, you are right.

Great argument. I guess that's a wrap then. Are you commenting on my position, or just making a superior "I'm not wasting my time anymore" retort? It's not like I'm defending something crazy, just completely at odds with what the herd is rushing towards. If you're just pooped, then say so.

HeavyG

JohnInCarolina said:

Kayak said:

I guess I'm not speaking clearly enough. Thank you.

NATO is a military alliance we moved the aim of from the USSR to Russia without much of a break.

We are determined to spread NATO membership right up to Russia's border.
This is upsetting to Russia, and they have tried to get us to not do it for 30 years.

It isn't going to be us on the firing line, and they have had plenty of time to consider the downsides of going in, doing their thing, and then leaving.

My assertion is that we are playing with fire and are likely to get burned.

It never hurts to have neutral countries between two opposing powers, does it?

If we are the ones playing with fire, then how do you characterize Putin’s military build up along Ukraine’s border?

It's theater for the most part. Not too different than when the North Koreans engage in all that threatening rhetoric they make periodically.

The leaders of both nations are playing to their home audience on one hand and on the other hand they just really enjoy making/watching the US squirm.

At this point the best we can hope for is that Biden doesn't follow in Dubya's footsteps and do something incredibly stupid.

JohnInCarolina

Nevermind.

Botch

Kayak said:

Mind you, these are Russian troops in Russia, yet they are called the aggressors. We have forces all around their country and the world, yet we are the peacemakers.

Recall that, after the USSR broke up, Ukraine ended up with part of mother Russia's nuclear arsenal, and gave up those weapons as part of a non-aggression treaty with Russia (signed by putin himself, iirc).  That was ignored, by Russian troops in Russia  (albeit un-uniformed) when they took over the Crimean peninsula (access to the Black Sea).  

Gulfcoastguy

Botch said:

Kayak said:

Mind you, these are Russian troops in Russia, yet they are called the aggressors. We have forces all around their country and the world, yet we are the peacemakers.

Recall that, after the USSR broke up, Ukraine ended up with part of mother Russia's nuclear arsenal, and gave up those weapons as part of a non-aggression treaty with Russia (signed by putin himself, iirc).  That was ignored, by Russian troops in Russia  (albeit un-uniformed) when they took over the Crimean peninsula (access to the Black Sea).  

Followed by a chunk of East Ukraine.