Ukraine War

[TreatyOak 16413]

41 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

That may be true. But we've never really said it. And we continue to point nukes at them. I get why we do it. I'm just saying, were I Russian, I would need some convincing that this group doesn't hate me and want me dead. I'd like us to do more on the convincing them front. Any message that we can get out there that makes it more likely the Russians replace Putin on their own is a good one. 

You do understand no one has attacked Russia since 1945 but Putin has been invading and destroying sovereign nations like Chechnya, Georgia and now the Ukraine. And that his actions prove that all of NATO’s responses were obviously correct, as he is s huge threat to the world. 

[Nivek 16979]

Hey motherfucker-- I was hungry.

Remember that time I found you naked with a bowl of jelly?

[TexArcher 38029]

3 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

MacGregor gave us the talking points for the upcoming week there at the end.  

1) We should stay out of the way.  Ukraine will lose handily.  For the US to encourage Ukraine to resist with their lives will be seen as a monumental humanitarian disaster, since we don't have the balls to fight our own battles, or join in here.

2) He's basically giving Russia carte blanche to use whatever tactics they deem necessary, and when they win, then it's egg on Biden's face.  

TL;DR:  Ukraine won't win and Biden is sending sheep to the slaughter.  They should just roll over and let Putin in.

Yeah, the GOP are clearly setting this up to lay all those bodies at Biden's feet instead of Putin's.

And half the country will lap that bullshit up.

People are already all over Facebook talking about how this never would've happened under Trump.

Sigh.

[Nivek 16979]

Well, you've been arguing against the idea of Russia not being our forever enemy, so it didn't really seem like you agreed on the goal at all. 

Also I have posted already what I think the options are for Russia.

Seems to me that the sanctions will not end without regime change. Also seems like Putin has a few ways out.
Also seems like Russia might end up losing previous territories as pissed off people want Crimea and Georgia back.

[RDCanecutter 26466]

8 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Remember that time I found you naked with a bowl of jelly?

Uh... Jelly? No.

[Neonmoon 38130]

10 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

MacGregor gave us the talking points for the upcoming week there at the end.  

1) We should stay out of the way.  Ukraine will lose handily.  For the US to encourage Ukraine to resist with their lives will be seen as a monumental humanitarian disaster, since we don't have the balls to fight our own battles, or join in here.

2) He's basically giving Russia carte blanche to use whatever tactics they deem necessary, and when they win, then it's egg on Biden's face.  

TL;DR:  Ukraine won't win and Biden is sending sheep to the slaughter.  They should just roll over and let Putin in.

Guess what other traitor joined the chorus today 

 

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

You know, I am no expert on international politics, but it seems to me like Tom Brady retired and the whole world has gone to shit.  Tom Brady is more to blame than Joe Biden in this and we should just make Brady play in the NFL until he is 100 years old so the world goes back to normal.  Hell, we can even let the Cowboys have him for a year so they get a Super Bowl win.  

[cactusflinthead 27601]

1 minute ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

You know, I am no expert on international politics, but it seems to me like Tom Brady retired and the whole world has gone to shit.  Tom Brady is more to blame than Joe Biden in this and we should just make Brady play in the NFL until he is 100 years old so the world goes back to normal.  Hell, we can even let the Cowboys have him for a year so they get a Super Bowl win.  

[Dahobbs 17655]

5 minutes ago, Nivek said:

You are not having an honest discussion at this point. You mentioned that they never outright attacked us. They did in 2017, and I just informed you that this happened. Now you try to twist it to suit your new narrative.

You're not having an honest conversation if you think that skirmish a world away represented an attack on the United States itself. If it did, it didn't anymore so than our participation in Vietnam, the bay of pigs, or supplying weapons to Afghanistan represented an attack on Russia. The whole chain you were responding to started because someone thought it was unbelievable that Russians might feel NATO a threat to their country because NATO had never actually invaded Russia. I was pointing out the irony in that statement since it was equally true the other way around. 

I have no doubt that Russia has been extremely antagonistic to the US recently. I have no doubt they have attacked our elections and infrastructure. I have no doubt that Russia, under Putin, is a threat to the United States. I believe our actions in this crisis have been justified and correct so far. But I want a way out of this cycle. Right now, I fear that the Russian people feel trapped. It's either men like Putin or potential destruction by NATO. (Not saying NATO would attack, just saying how it feels to the Russians).  

[TwiceHorn 31529]

13 hours ago, HenryJames said:

Crazy bitch was a Lt. Colonel in the Air Force.

Key words:  LTC and USAF.  With all due respect to our zoomie friends, USAF harbors a disproportionate number of lunatics.

[Dahobbs 17655]

16 minutes ago, TreatyOak said:

You do understand no one has attacked Russia since 1945 but Putin has been invading and destroying sovereign nations like Chechnya, Georgia and now the Ukraine. And that his actions prove that all of NATO’s responses were obviously correct, as he is s huge threat to the world. 

And? What does that have to do with my point? I have no issues with the actions of NATO generally. I'm just saying, if we want the Russian people to stand up to Putin and the like, we have to give them a reason to think they aren't necessary and that we aren't the enemy. It doesn't seem to me that we do enough of that. 

[Hermanator 7139]

49 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

MacGregor gave us the talking points for the upcoming week there at the end.  

1) We should stay out of the way.  Ukraine will lose handily.  For the US to encourage Ukraine to resist with their lives will be seen as a monumental humanitarian disaster, since we don't have the balls to fight our own battles, or join in here.

2) He's basically giving Russia carte blanche to use whatever tactics they deem necessary, and when they win, then it's egg on Biden's face.  

TL;DR:  Ukraine won't win and Biden is sending sheep to the slaughter.  They should just roll over and let Putin in.

You see that little emblem in the bottom left corner of the screen? Yeah that means pure bullshit. If you're going to watch it you know pure bullshit is coming in. 

[Brian Fantana 6690]

41 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Guess what other traitor joined the chorus today 

 

They do have legitimate security concerns from their perspective, though most of the rest of the world would disagree.

[Left Coast 863]

41 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

And? What does that have to do with my point? I have no issues with the actions of NATO generally. I'm just saying, if we want the Russian people to stand up to Putin and the like, we have to give them a reason to think they aren't necessary and that we aren't the enemy. It doesn't seem to me that we do enough of that. 

I am honestly amazed you think the Russian people have any say in what is going on. Putin and his oligarch friends have complete control of everything (military, police, parliament, major corporations, etc). Dangling “NATO membership” in front of the Russian people is like eating a steak outside the window of the lion enclosure at the zoo. You’re sure the lion wants it, but the lion is completely aware of the electric fence, razor wire, and armed zookeepers, so…. Meh?

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

1 hour ago, TexArcher said:

Yeah, the GOP are clearly setting this up to lay all those bodies at Biden's feet instead of Putin's.

And half the country will lap that bullshit up.

People are already all over Facebook talking about how this never would've happened under Trump.

Sigh.

Yep.  Like Covid.  At the beginning everyone will be together and all is well as we battle a common enemy.  
Then the rubes get their talking points so the assholes (today’s R party) can divide and conquer, one moron at a time.  

[Mdhorn 5984]

3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

No, it's because a shit ton of nuclear missiles are pointed at them. NATO exists to fight Russia. That's just the truth. We need to admit that. And if we can't move beyond that, then there is no way out but one or both not existing anymore. 

We aren't going to get the Russian people to replace Putin with anything besides another Putin unless we change. I think opening that door Russian membership with NATO instead of in opposition to NATO is exactly what is needed.

Putin's doing what he's doing regardless of those missiles pointing at him and is daring anybody retaliate.  Since when is a mobster that assassinates opposition, dissenters and informants regularly, regardless of location looking out for the interests of anybody else?  He's denied his people fair elections and seized billions in currency. He's not going to stop himself and he's shown that he won't be appeased by seceding land--sorry Crimea. The world has a history of aggression left unchecked continuing aggressively.  Luckily, we have a defense for that and should have after multiple world wars.  It's not a threat unless threatened.   

[Biff Tannen 45712]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

Remember that time I found you naked with a bowl of jelly?

 

1 hour ago, RDCanecutter said:

Uh... Jelly? No.

Jello. It was hot and I was hungry. 

[Hermanator 7139]

8 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Yep.  Like Covid.  At the beginning everyone will be together and all is well as we battle a common enemy.  
Then the rubes get their talking points so the assholes (today’s R party) can divide and conquer, one moron at a time.  

This is why I don't trust anything Marco Rubio says about thus Ukraine stuff. Is the Biden administration feeding him stuff to say? Maybe. 

But using a traitor who just earlier this month claimed his party's attempt to overthrow the government and set up Trump as an authoritarian dictator on 1/6 was only a riot and the investigation of it a sham?? 

That's a terrible choice if so. America isn't united. It never will be again. We're in a cultural and political civil war and the Republicans have taken it to level where they can never be trusted again. 

[Mdhorn 5984]

1 hour ago, UpperWestside said:

Living a city with a rather large Russian population (As well as the home of 150,000 or so Ukrainians) I can safely say that if I went down to Brighton Beach I would find almost no one there who has in the past or currently supports Putin now.
 

I remember back before Covid when I was working in the middle of touristville in Times Square that a Russian couple came in. They were having a great time and I remember the husband remarking that “We are people just like you and we like Americans. It’s the politicians that always mess things up.” Could not have been nice folks. I never have forgotten that. NATO is not set up to scare the average Russian. Those folks are just like us with most just concerned about their families and making it day-to-day. On the list of things they care about I feel certain that NATO existing and them not being in it is pretty far down the list. I saw the footage from the protests taking place in Times Square the past several days and one Russian that was interviewed said he showed up because “My country is the aggressor and the least I can do is be here to support Ukraine.” 
 

Besides all of that Russia would get an invite to NATO over the dead bodies of Poland and every other NATO member with a memory of being occupied by the Soviets for almost five decades. The memories of atrocities committed against their families is a long one. 
 

 

Saw a sign at one of the protests that stated if Russia stops fighting, the war ends.  If Ukraine stops fighting, we lose our country.  That's a bitter pill and the GOP stating that they're not a country or that many people can go fuck themselves.  

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19142]

 

 

[Hermanator 7139]

1 hour ago, cactusflinthead said:

If we did get nuked I'd like to use my last minutes rejoicing in the fact that piece of shit Jerry Jones, his entire family, and the entire Trump family are getting destroyed too. Hopefully I have a drink in my hand when I get vaporized.  

[Mdhorn 5984]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

You are not having an honest discussion at this point. You mentioned that they never outright attacked us. They did in 2017, and I just informed you that this happened. Now you try to twist it to suit your new narrative.

No one wants them to die. I have a former colleague who is Russian Military reserves. I don’t want him to die, I don’t what his young daughters (under 10) to not have a dad. I know several Russians from different eras, soviet and post Soviet. I like them all.

Maybe you are confusing yourself.

This threat has risen after Crimea and it won't be quenched with Ukraine.  People aren't going to rise up and give up their safety to take down a dictator unless they got nothing to live for because that's what they're potentially relinquishing--their lives and the lives of their loved ones. That's only going to come after a lot of blood has spilled and inevitably will be spilled.   A spot at NATO is admitting a rotten apple to the barrel.  Putin's got his own allies, and many've told him to fuck right off because their countries are threatened.  Except Trump and he wants a hotel and another go at the presidency.  

I need sleep badly. 

[Nivek 16979]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

You're not having an honest conversation if you think that skirmish a world away represented an attack on the United States itself. If it did, it didn't anymore so than our participation in Vietnam, the bay of pigs, or supplying weapons to Afghanistan represented an attack on Russia. The whole chain you were responding to started because someone thought it was unbelievable that Russians might feel NATO a threat to their country because NATO had never actually invaded Russia. I was pointing out the irony in that statement since it was equally true the other way around. 

I have no doubt that Russia has been extremely antagonistic to the US recently. I have no doubt they have attacked our elections and infrastructure. I have no doubt that Russia, under Putin, is a threat to the United States. I believe our actions in this crisis have been justified and correct so far. But I want a way out of this cycle. Right now, I fear that the Russian people feel trapped. It's either men like Putin or potential destruction by NATO. (Not saying NATO would attack, just saying how it feels to the Russians).  

Yet another goal post move.  You asked if they attacked us.  I provided an answer.  Then you tried to paint it as some berserker (no making fuck) rage.  Called out on that, now you want to shift the goal posts again to saying, well, they didn't actually invade us.  Yeah OK.  Soviets and the Russians have never invaded us and used nukes on American soil while riding a mule named Ox and holding up ID badge that had purple hair on it.   

I have an idea.  Why don't you define the specifics first then await the answer.  Right now you are awaiting the answer and then trying to disqualify it after it doesn't fit.    This makes you seem like a disingenuine kind of person.  

You have this binary view of the situation.  YOU want a way out, so do the Russian people, so does everyone.  But the rubicon has been crossed too many times.  The Russians under Putin have been antagonistic and their puppet (trump) did everything he could to damage and weaken our presence.  Biden has reversed this in short order and made NATO stronger with more actors wanting to join.   The threats of Russia are over.  They have been shown to be more of a disaster than expected.  

The protests in Russia by the Russian people are not about NATO.  It is about Putin and his murderous regime.  They could tolerate so much but this level of incompetence is showing how weak he really is.   This is entirely their problem to solve.    EVERYONE WANTS IT TO END.  But ending the wrong way sets the stage for round 2.   Ending the right way pivots into a situation where one of the last great autocracies falls.   This is the Russian people's choice to resolve.  

Edited February 28, 2022 by Nivek

[Mdhorn 5984]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

Also I have posted already what I think the options are for Russia.

Seems to me that the sanctions will not end without regime change. Also seems like Putin has a few ways out.
Also seems like Russia might end up losing previous territories as pissed off people want Crimea and Georgia back.

Russia's going to be stretched too thin to hold these countries if they don't wish to be Russian.  

[Nivek 16979]

1 hour ago, RDCanecutter said:

Uh... Jelly? No.

sigh.... 

[Nivek 16979]

2 hours ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Damn, I just posted about this in the DT thread. Remember when no one could believe that happened, and how the best of the best of the Russian military could blunder like that? After watching them in Ukraine, I'm starting to understand it. 

It seems like soldiers in that video that Ted Cruz and other right-wingers used to fawn over were just a bunch of actors playing army.  Easy enough to look like a badass with proper editing and a soundtrack.  

[UpperWestside 6186]

2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

Trey Gowdy doesn't go to the barber shop.  He sticks his head in a pencil sharpener. 

That guy has a strangely formed head and the haircut isn’t helping.

[Fudge Nuggets 19211]

7 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

Chalk one up for the incels.

That'll show 'em.  Go dorks, go!!!

[henrygandorf 29194]

john oliver tonight, referencing the video with the old lady, the soldier, and the sunflower seeds:

”that woman brought seeds to a gunfight and somehow still comfortably won.”

[Nivek 16979]

46 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

 

Jello. It was hot and I was hungry. 

thanks, for the correction.   i feel ashamed for fucking up a Val Kilmer line.

[henrygandorf 29194]

good thread, lots of good pics. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19211]

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I am also not sure that the post WWII NATO mission is relevant in a post cold war world. NATO served its purpose. I think that its purpose post collapse of USSR has been muddled. 

Have you been in a coma for the last week?

[WhatTheBuck 28797]

4 hours ago, SizzleChest said:

He also has baked bean teeth.

 Can’t stand ya!

[TexasEd 8071]

 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28797]

2 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

john oliver tonight, referencing the video with the old lady, the soldier, and the sunflower seeds:

”that woman brought seeds to a gunfight and somehow still comfortably won.”

 

[Gil Bang 25999]

[956 Worldwide 34747]

7 hours ago, Anastasis said:

We failed in the transition from post WWII stability to post cold war stability.  The NATO architects knew where this was going and how NATO expansion was going to play out in the long run after the fall of the USSR.  Status quo bozos want to act like was not a clear and to be expected outcome.  But they should be given some measure of leash because they live under western european centric delusions about what geopolitical stability looks like. 

I very carefully follow known Kremlin influencers and agents in the Slavic space and what they are saying about Ukraine and the current crisis.  I am not saying you are one of them. I am saying that this take is the mirror image of their takes and it would be good to check your fundamental reasoning at this point. 

Now ducking back to the DT thread on this. 

Edited February 28, 2022 by 956 Worldwide

[Bullneck 19201]

We need a “NATO friend or foe?” Thread

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19142]

33 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

Also, the Moscow Stock Exchange didn’t open today.

[DigglerontheHoof 21212]

9 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Where’s that Putin apologist Sack?  We should fatwa his ass.  It doesn’t fix much but I’d feel better.  Fuck him and his ilk.  

He always has been and always will be a pussy coward.

[Neonmoon 38130]

2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

 

And 

 

[Bullneck 19201]

People also ask: Why is Russian ruble falling?

Russian Ruble Is Now Worth Less Than 1 U.S. Cent After SWIFT Bank Sanctions. (TOKYO) — The ruble plunged to a record low of less than 1 U.S. cent in value Monday after Russia was cut off from the global bank payments system in retaliation for Moscow's invasion of Ukraine.

 

nelsonhaha.jpg

Edited February 28, 2022 by Bullneck

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

The two posts below were part of a side conversation in DT and I prefer to keep the pol out of the threads there so I grabbed these two to take on some political speculation. The discussion centered around a feeling that something was "off" about all this; that it seemed as if there was a reason (for the difficulties the Russian military was having) that hadn't yet been revealed.

2 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

I’m starting to have doubts myself.  Usually Occam’s Razor is the correct answer, but they can’t be this incompetent if they are fighting to win.  I assumed early on that they were way too overconfident and thought Ukraine would surrender and greet them as liberators.  That makes sense for the beginning, but that doesn’t really explain the response after it became apparent Ukraine was going to resist.  Nor does it explain why they are using so many conscripts who apparently don’t even know they’re in real combat instead of training exercises until it’s too late.

Some other possible theories:

1. Are they soft-pedaling the bombing and sending in useless conscripts to be cannon fodder because Putin is really nuts and wanted to use this as a reason to escalate into something bigger with NATO countries (and needed to save his good troops and his city-leveling weaponry for that fighting)?   I don’t really think so - why would he need the ruse of this invasion first, and why waste so much goodwill and materials on a sideshow?  But Soviets seemed to have a pathological need to justify to themselves all the unjustifiable things they do, even if in bizarre and unnecessary ways (like the example of making the conscripts sign bogus contracts when they’re already forcing them to go regardless).  So, I don’t know, maybe he felt he needed this instead of just directly attacking NATO first. 

2. Alternatively, and what I would probably bet on at this point (although frankly every theory has a lot of logical holes because what Putin is doing isn’t rational overall), maybe Putin is continuing to half-ass the war because he’s scared shitless of provoking NATO into crushing him?  He’s a punkass bully thug, essentially a mob boss in charge of a country, and like most bullies and criminals, he’s probably a coward when he’s not picking on someone he knows he can overpower.  He misjudged how easy it would be to take Ukraine, he feels stuck and like he can’t turn back, but he also feels like he has to conduct the war in a way that won’t cause the USA or NATO to escalate into something catastrophic.  

It’s like our Vietnam strategy.  None of that made sense if we were fighting to win, but we ultimately weren’t really fighting to win.  We were stuck there, fighting a dumb war we quickly found out our troops didn’t really want any part of, and we went through the motions with one hand tied behind our back because we were trying to avoid bringing a bigger enemy into it.  

Who knows - maybe he completely lost his marbles and doesn’t care if Armageddon happens - but if there is any plausible way to explain his actions, it’s that he thinks he has to win this war in a way that doesn’t piss off the international community more than it has already.  If that means his soldiers and a bunch of Chechens and Belarusians get chewed up in the streets of Kiev because he’s making them fight without the full strength of a combined arms attack - well he probably doesn’t give a shit as long as he eventually gets to install a puppet government in Ukraine and count it as a “win”.

 

1 hour ago, Bateshorn said:

This is basically my take.  Plus, the myth of the awesome Russian military is just that, a bit of a myth. The 2008 and 2014 Georgia and Crimea invasions involved pathetically weak opponents and/or Russian majority ethnic bases who supported the action. Syria was just a chaotic clusterfuck where success and failure don’t look that different when you are mostly there to fuck with the Americans. I think that there has been a massive overestimate of Russian military capabilities outside the elite special forces.  

It was pointed out that this is not a Clancy novel, and while that is true, my wild imagination and lack of military understanding leads me to posit:

Why not both?

It could easily be that the top layer of graft and corruption in Russia siphoned off more infrastructure than they might care to admit. Infrastructure, whether people or machinery or structures, needs maintenance, replacement, and proper implementation through training and such like. Infrastructure week in Russia may not be all that different from America.

The Clancy novel angle for me is the KGB meddling type of worry that has at its heart our own players stateside who were rather supportive of Putin's actions. Prior to January 20th inauguration day, there were a number of people--Richard Grenell (Acting DNI), John Ratcliffe (DNI), that seemed rather intent on ignoring intelligence regarding Germany, the pipelines, 2020 election interference, and so on. Those two are small cogs in a much larger engine that has many parts.

It seems rather convenient that rising protests stateside, certain takes on RW media sites, and $$ spent were increasing leading up to a SOTU address and international conflict. I mean, if one were to conveniently discover 'evidence' regarding the Biden family (or the Clinton family if they wish to deliver a sharp wrenching cut) after taking over a country which had been used as a political pawn for the last several years then the information war is won with dead civilians and disposable conscripts as the collateral damage. (you all know very well that human capital stock is replaceable in the world of the powerful and the privileged). "Hey, fancy that, look what we found! It's another laptop!"

The pump was primed, and the willingness of a percentage of American citizens to believe years of propaganda and a cult leader's empty promises would ensure that chaos or alternatively capitulation to an authoritarian leader (2022 elections) would not be hard to imagine. At all.

But the novel is not yet finished.

 

That is the political speculation that has no proof, but inherently political and thus it belongs in this thread, and it is  a little more true to Putin's origins, IMO. But several pages back, it was pointed out (Fox news thread) that he turns 70 this year, and it has also been speculated that he may have had some health issues over the last year, while COVID was raging. So there could be the delusional mental state of a man who knows, like Voldemort, death waits for no mortal and with the aid of his oligarchical posse, wishes to cement his legacy as the man that successfully brought America to turn on itself.

Edited February 28, 2022 by Mrs Whiggins

[Anastasis 23481]

2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I very carefully follow known Kremlin influencers and agents in the Slavic space and what they are saying about Ukraine and the current crisis.  I am not saying you are one of them. I am saying that this take is the mirror image of their takes and it would be good to check your fundamental reasoning at this point. 

Now ducking back to the DT thread on this. 

Perhaps our State Department should commit greater resources to critical self-reflection on misplayed moments of influence instead of just leaning so heavily on traitorous critic fallacy.

Kremlin talking points from George Kennan in 1998...

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html

 

His voice is a bit frail now, but the mind, even at age 94, is as sharp as ever. So when I reached George Kennan by phone to get his reaction to the Senate's ratification of NATO expansion it was no surprise to find that the man who was the architect of America's successful containment of the Soviet Union and one of the great American statesmen of the 20th century was ready with an answer.

''I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,'' said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. ''I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs.''

''What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was,'' added Mr. Kennan, who was present at the creation of NATO and whose anonymous 1947 article in the journal Foreign Affairs, signed ''X,'' defined America's cold-war containment policy for 40 years. ''I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don't people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.

''And Russia's democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries we've just signed up to defend from Russia,'' said Mr. Kennan, who joined the State Department in 1926 and was U.S. Ambassador to Moscow in 1952. ''It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are -- but this is just wrong.''

One only wonders what future historians will say. If we are lucky they will say that NATO expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic simply didn't matter, because the vacuum it was supposed to fill had already been filled, only the Clinton team couldn't see it. They will say that the forces of globalization integrating Europe, coupled with the new arms control agreements, proved to be so powerful that Russia, despite NATO expansion, moved ahead with democratization and Westernization, and was gradually drawn into a loosely unified Europe. If we are unlucky they will say, as Mr. Kennan predicts, that NATO expansion set up a situation in which NATO now has to either expand all the way to Russia's border, triggering a new cold war, or stop expanding after these three new countries and create a new dividing line through Europe.

But there is one thing future historians will surely remark upon, and that is the utter poverty of imagination that characterized U.S. foreign policy in the late 1990's. They will note that one of the seminal events of this century took place between 1989 and 1992 -- the collapse of the Soviet Empire, which had the capability, imperial intentions and ideology to truly threaten the entire free world. Thanks to Western resolve and the courage of Russian democrats, that Soviet Empire collapsed without a shot, spawning a democratic Russia, setting free the former Soviet republics and leading to unprecedented arms control agreements with the U.S.

And what was America's response? It was to expand the NATO cold-war alliance against Russia and bring it closer to Russia's borders.

Yes, tell your children, and your children's children, that you lived in the age of Bill Clinton and William Cohen, the age of Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger, the age of Trent Lott and Joe Lieberman, and you too were present at the creation of the post-cold-war order, when these foreign policy Titans put their heads together and produced . . . a mouse.

We are in the age of midgets. The only good news is that we got here in one piece because there was another age -- one of great statesmen who had both imagination and courage.

As he said goodbye to me on the phone, Mr. Kennan added just one more thing: ''This has been my life, and it pains me to see it so screwed up in the end.''

 

[Bateshorn 9929]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Perhaps our State Department should commit greater resources to critical self-reflection on misplayed moments of influence instead of just leaning so heavily on traitorous critic fallacy.

Kremlin talking points from George Kennan in 1998...

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html

 

His voice is a bit frail now, but the mind, even at age 94, is as sharp as ever. So when I reached George Kennan by phone to get his reaction to the Senate's ratification of NATO expansion it was no surprise to find that the man who was the architect of America's successful containment of the Soviet Union and one of the great American statesmen of the 20th century was ready with an answer.

''I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,'' said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. ''I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs.''

''What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was,'' added Mr. Kennan, who was present at the creation of NATO and whose anonymous 1947 article in the journal Foreign Affairs, signed ''X,'' defined America's cold-war containment policy for 40 years. ''I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don't people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.

''And Russia's democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries we've just signed up to defend from Russia,'' said Mr. Kennan, who joined the State Department in 1926 and was U.S. Ambassador to Moscow in 1952. ''It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are -- but this is just wrong.''

One only wonders what future historians will say. If we are lucky they will say that NATO expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic simply didn't matter, because the vacuum it was supposed to fill had already been filled, only the Clinton team couldn't see it. They will say that the forces of globalization integrating Europe, coupled with the new arms control agreements, proved to be so powerful that Russia, despite NATO expansion, moved ahead with democratization and Westernization, and was gradually drawn into a loosely unified Europe. If we are unlucky they will say, as Mr. Kennan predicts, that NATO expansion set up a situation in which NATO now has to either expand all the way to Russia's border, triggering a new cold war, or stop expanding after these three new countries and create a new dividing line through Europe.

But there is one thing future historians will surely remark upon, and that is the utter poverty of imagination that characterized U.S. foreign policy in the late 1990's. They will note that one of the seminal events of this century took place between 1989 and 1992 -- the collapse of the Soviet Empire, which had the capability, imperial intentions and ideology to truly threaten the entire free world. Thanks to Western resolve and the courage of Russian democrats, that Soviet Empire collapsed without a shot, spawning a democratic Russia, setting free the former Soviet republics and leading to unprecedented arms control agreements with the U.S.

And what was America's response? It was to expand the NATO cold-war alliance against Russia and bring it closer to Russia's borders.

Yes, tell your children, and your children's children, that you lived in the age of Bill Clinton and William Cohen, the age of Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger, the age of Trent Lott and Joe Lieberman, and you too were present at the creation of the post-cold-war order, when these foreign policy Titans put their heads together and produced . . . a mouse.

We are in the age of midgets. The only good news is that we got here in one piece because there was another age -- one of great statesmen who had both imagination and courage.

As he said goodbye to me on the phone, Mr. Kennan added just one more thing: ''This has been my life, and it pains me to see it so screwed up in the end.''

 

As the father to 1/4 Latvian children, George Keenan can suck a dick.

 

[GabrielsHorn 2186]

 

Had to post this here. How some of the Trump-era advisers are still Putin puppets in this current atmosphere is unbelievable. Fuck ‘em. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

4 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

As the father to 1/4 Latvian children, George Keenan can suck a dick.

 

That’s ghengis khan esque.  You’re the father of a quarter of Latvian children?  Niiiiice.  

[956 Worldwide 34747]

18 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Perhaps our State Department should commit greater resources to critical self-reflection on misplayed moments of influence instead of just leaning so heavily on traitorous critic fallacy.

Kremlin talking points from George Kennan in 1998...

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html

 

His voice is a bit frail now, but the mind, even at age 94, is as sharp as ever. So when I reached George Kennan by phone to get his reaction to the Senate's ratification of NATO expansion it was no surprise to find that the man who was the architect of America's successful containment of the Soviet Union and one of the great American statesmen of the 20th century was ready with an answer.

''I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,'' said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. ''I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs.''

''What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was,'' added Mr. Kennan, who was present at the creation of NATO and whose anonymous 1947 article in the journal Foreign Affairs, signed ''X,'' defined America's cold-war containment policy for 40 years. ''I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don't people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.

''And Russia's democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries we've just signed up to defend from Russia,'' said Mr. Kennan, who joined the State Department in 1926 and was U.S. Ambassador to Moscow in 1952. ''It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are -- but this is just wrong.''

One only wonders what future historians will say. If we are lucky they will say that NATO expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic simply didn't matter, because the vacuum it was supposed to fill had already been filled, only the Clinton team couldn't see it. They will say that the forces of globalization integrating Europe, coupled with the new arms control agreements, proved to be so powerful that Russia, despite NATO expansion, moved ahead with democratization and Westernization, and was gradually drawn into a loosely unified Europe. If we are unlucky they will say, as Mr. Kennan predicts, that NATO expansion set up a situation in which NATO now has to either expand all the way to Russia's border, triggering a new cold war, or stop expanding after these three new countries and create a new dividing line through Europe.

But there is one thing future historians will surely remark upon, and that is the utter poverty of imagination that characterized U.S. foreign policy in the late 1990's. They will note that one of the seminal events of this century took place between 1989 and 1992 -- the collapse of the Soviet Empire, which had the capability, imperial intentions and ideology to truly threaten the entire free world. Thanks to Western resolve and the courage of Russian democrats, that Soviet Empire collapsed without a shot, spawning a democratic Russia, setting free the former Soviet republics and leading to unprecedented arms control agreements with the U.S.

And what was America's response? It was to expand the NATO cold-war alliance against Russia and bring it closer to Russia's borders.

Yes, tell your children, and your children's children, that you lived in the age of Bill Clinton and William Cohen, the age of Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger, the age of Trent Lott and Joe Lieberman, and you too were present at the creation of the post-cold-war order, when these foreign policy Titans put their heads together and produced . . . a mouse.

We are in the age of midgets. The only good news is that we got here in one piece because there was another age -- one of great statesmen who had both imagination and courage.

As he said goodbye to me on the phone, Mr. Kennan added just one more thing: ''This has been my life, and it pains me to see it so screwed up in the end.''

 

Mr. Kennan performed a great service to the United States and as a 94 year old speaking in 1998, it is imminently excusable to be wrong about both the wisdom of expanding NATO and the reality of democratic consolidation in Russia versus Central Europe.  It's not excusable a quarter century later. 

I was careful not to call you a traitor, I did flag that you are repeating their arguments and talking points and you appear to believe them.  There is another term in Russian for that. 

Edited February 28, 2022 by 956 Worldwide

[Nice Guy Eddie 13521]

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Perhaps our State Department should commit greater resources to critical self-reflection on misplayed moments of influence instead of just leaning so heavily on traitorous critic fallacy.

Kremlin talking points from George Kennan in 1998...

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html

 

His voice is a bit frail now, but the mind, even at age 94, is as sharp as ever. So when I reached George Kennan by phone to get his reaction to the Senate's ratification of NATO expansion it was no surprise to find that the man who was the architect of America's successful containment of the Soviet Union and one of the great American statesmen of the 20th century was ready with an answer.

''I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,'' said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. ''I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs.''

''What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was,'' added Mr. Kennan, who was present at the creation of NATO and whose anonymous 1947 article in the journal Foreign Affairs, signed ''X,'' defined America's cold-war containment policy for 40 years. ''I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don't people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.

''And Russia's democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries we've just signed up to defend from Russia,'' said Mr. Kennan, who joined the State Department in 1926 and was U.S. Ambassador to Moscow in 1952. ''It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are -- but this is just wrong.''

One only wonders what future historians will say. If we are lucky they will say that NATO expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic simply didn't matter, because the vacuum it was supposed to fill had already been filled, only the Clinton team couldn't see it. They will say that the forces of globalization integrating Europe, coupled with the new arms control agreements, proved to be so powerful that Russia, despite NATO expansion, moved ahead with democratization and Westernization, and was gradually drawn into a loosely unified Europe. If we are unlucky they will say, as Mr. Kennan predicts, that NATO expansion set up a situation in which NATO now has to either expand all the way to Russia's border, triggering a new cold war, or stop expanding after these three new countries and create a new dividing line through Europe.

But there is one thing future historians will surely remark upon, and that is the utter poverty of imagination that characterized U.S. foreign policy in the late 1990's. They will note that one of the seminal events of this century took place between 1989 and 1992 -- the collapse of the Soviet Empire, which had the capability, imperial intentions and ideology to truly threaten the entire free world. Thanks to Western resolve and the courage of Russian democrats, that Soviet Empire collapsed without a shot, spawning a democratic Russia, setting free the former Soviet republics and leading to unprecedented arms control agreements with the U.S.

And what was America's response? It was to expand the NATO cold-war alliance against Russia and bring it closer to Russia's borders.

Yes, tell your children, and your children's children, that you lived in the age of Bill Clinton and William Cohen, the age of Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger, the age of Trent Lott and Joe Lieberman, and you too were present at the creation of the post-cold-war order, when these foreign policy Titans put their heads together and produced . . . a mouse.

We are in the age of midgets. The only good news is that we got here in one piece because there was another age -- one of great statesmen who had both imagination and courage.

As he said goodbye to me on the phone, Mr. Kennan added just one more thing: ''This has been my life, and it pains me to see it so screwed up in the end.''

 

Everyone is a hero in their own eyes, but was the Cold War really that successful for the US? At the fall of the USSR, it seemed like we kicked the Soviets ass. Out spent them. Whatever.  Or perhaps this was only 40+ year conflict with a result that was destined to happen on its own. 

 

[SKJ 1311]

4 minutes ago, GabrielsHorn said:

 

Had to post this here. How some of the Trump-era advisers are still Putin puppets in this current atmosphere is unbelievable. Fuck ‘em.