It’s Tommy Potatohead all over again. One person holding up government’s business. There has to be a way out of this mess. I’m horrified by the way our government can be stuck in this manner. Get religion out of it. Get trump out of our government. He has no right to have any control over government now. He is not in any power at all.
I think civilization, a just civil society, requires baseline solidarity. That is what the Constitution is finally about. What international conventions of "rules of war" are about. An agreement that some duties are allotted to and are to be upheld by every person. Violations are commonplace, but the difference between maintaining that commitment and abandonment of it is the difference between a an earthly heaven or hell, and illustration of this abound. Extreme self-absorption and selfishness can make us into monsters.
Democracy deadlocked in extremism over incendiary, non-negotiable issues is a danger to its very institutions. In a more extreme situation, that's what happened in post ww1 Germany. One side got in, legally, then took over the rest. Democracies work best with differences allow for compromise, back and forth. As we well know, democratic institutions also failed, utterly, with the US Civil War.
HCR writes that "lawmakers agree on a bipartisan basis that Ukraine’s successful defense against Russia’s invasion is crucial to U.S. national security."
What a BIG LIE. We provoked Russia.
We shoved and shoved Russia, and finally they shoved back.
Some of these war-mongering neo-con lawmakers whom HCR pushes are 99 years old, just like Trump and Biden. In the name of "national security," they are leading us toward financial destruction:
Report him; look at the amount of garbage he spews and spreads - the space he takes up - and the time wasted by subscribers. He is a lure that is working.
Good! Do/ submit a Report for/ on each and every one of his posts. One report may not amount to much but numerous reports for numerous posts likely will.
So I guess we’re also responsible for Russia (and Putin’s) rape and pillage (and their attempt of total destruction) of Ukraine too? Russia’s actions are reprehensible and need to be dealt strongly with.
Rape? Pillage? Total destruction? Remember the fake story about Saddam Hussein and the baby incubators that enraged Americans so we supported Bush's war against Iraq: We are being routinely lied to.
My regrets for letting my too much hot blood and too little sleep get the better of me. 😳 Mr Schmeekle -- ¿sp.?; can not see his name -- has a right to voice his opinions and I have a right not to listen to him. ⚖️ Perhaps I should exercise my right more often. 🙂
You sound unhappy, John. Believe me tho, there is no "We". Your problems are personal! Have you tried any of the many soothing ointments available over the counter? If you wash carefully first and then REALLY GET IT UP THERE quick relief usually follows. Go on - don't be ashamed, give it a try!
The American leadership, Democratic and Republican, provoked Russia, over and over. And McCarthyist shills intimidate people who try to point out the aggressive American charade.
Oh John, please repeat your reasoning on how "we" provoked Russia. I want to understand your reasoning that leads you to conclude that Ukraine pivoting towards Europe and away from Russia justifies a military attack. Is Ukraine less legitimate than other previous Soviet satellite countries? Is NATO's charter offensive or defensive, or is its simple existence offensive? Should we let Putin push Russia to roll over any country they want? Do you not believe that Europe's stability and prosperity are beneficial to the US?
We unleashed the "shock therapy" genocide that killed off all the old people in Russia.
(LOOK OUT Baby Boomers -- your turn is coming.)
We pushed NATO east to Russia's doorstep, after promising not to.
Then we supported a "color revolution" against the Russia-friendly President of Ukraine, but he got voted back into office because Russian speakers were a small majority in hodge-podge, cobbled-together Ukraine.
Then we supported a "color revolution" that overthrew he Russia-friendly government of Georgia; Russia created a "frozen conflict" that blocked Georgia from joining NATO.
Then in 2014 we supported another "color revolution" in Ukraine, this time with neo-Nazi thugs to make it stick.
Russia took back Crimea and created another "frozen conflict," blocking Ukraine from joining NATO.
Actually, there was a pathway to peace through this frozen conflict -- the Minsk Agreements -- but Merkel and Macron both admitted that they didn't take the Minsk Agreements seriously; it was just to give Ukraine time to rearm.
Then Zelensky got elected on a promise to make peace, and moved toward implementing the Minsk Agreements. But neo-Nazi war-mongers threatened to kill him, so he capitulated and started building up to invade the Donbass.
Finally Zelensky was ready for his Donbass invasion, with a 3-to-1 superiority of troops on the line of contact. Russia built up their troops on Ukraine's border and signed mutual defense treaties with the breakaway Donbass republics.
When Ukraine began its pre-invasion bombardment, Russia intervened.
I will answer your other questions later, as time permits.
I don't suppose that you are interested in a sincere exchange of views. Many people around here are just interested in parroting Bidenista talking points.
John, While in general I find Biden's domestic policies effective, I pause and leave my certainty behind for most international issues, because I realize I may know less than nothing. While my knee jerk impulse is to disagree, I also know that the US is quite cavalier and heavy handed in its approach to international affairs. Even CNN and MSNBC say so, but I also know I've swallowed the story line that supports our military industrial complex's robust health and later realized that too many parts of it was bullshit.
You've taken quite a bit of time to present a coherent picture of the background regarding NATO, Ukraine, and Russia. Do I agree? I don't know. But I will save this exchange and find sources I trust. Your series of posts give me a few topics to research. I am in no position to claim to be knowledgeable enough to exchange view. For the opportunity to educate myself, I thank you.
In answer to your question, "Is Ukraine less legitimate than other previous Soviet satellite countries?"
"Little" Ukraine and neighboring Novorossiya were not satellite countries. They were integral parts of Russia before Germany knocked Russia out of World War I in 1917.
Then came Communist chaos and civil war until 1921, when the Soviet regime stapled little Ukraine and Novorossiya together, forming bilingual (Russian and Ukrainian languages) big Ukraine.
This bilingual nature of Ukraine is important, because when the neo-Nazis took over after the Maidan Revolution and terrorized the ethnic Russian members of Ukraine’s parliament into staying home, the first thing they did was pass a law banning the Russian language.
"Russia supported Yugoslavia's insistence that no foreign troops, especially those from NATO countries, should be allowed on Yugoslav territory.
"'When you say Serbia and Kosovo, Chernomyrdin thinks of Russia and Chechnya,' said NATO Secretary General Javier Solana, referring to the breakaway province that tried to secede from Moscow's rule. 'The Russians are always worried that NATO wants to exploit their insecurities.'
As a wounded former superpower, Russia was seething with resentment over NATO's decision to launch its first attack on a sovereign state, despite its claim to be a purely defensive alliance. In the wake of NATO's recent expansion toward Russia's doorstep, the bombing of Yugoslavia was seen as a hostile expression of NATO ambition at a time of Russian weakness."
Post-Soviet Ukraine was like post-Communist Yugoslavia. Both countries were artificial amalgamations imposed by outside forces without any voting by the people. Both countries, after the end of Communism, devolved into civil war, but that process took longer in Ukraine.
NATO intervened in the Yugoslav civil war as progressed Saturn was exactly conjunct the Ascendant in the correct U.S. horoscope (set for May 15, 1776 at 5:00 p.m. in Philadelphia.)
Ukraine in 1991 was an artificial creation that had been cobbled together by arbitrary Soviet decisions, apparently driven by the desire to keep the Russian-speaking population above 50%.
"Do you not believe that Europe's stability and prosperity are beneficial to the US?"
Yes, I certainly do. And as with de-dollarization and our newly hateful imperialist image among the darker-skinned countries, Biden has recklessly sabotaged European prosperity and stability, first with anti-Russian sanctions that punched the Euro-zone economy in the gut, second with the ongoing military aid to Ukraine that has drained the European NATO countries of their defense arsenal, and third with Biden's sabotage of the Nordstream pipeline that is threatening to de-industrialize Germany because of the newly high price of energy.
Blinken and Biden seem to be hopelessly stuck on stupid.
In this protracted proxy war in Ukraine, the NATO countries are losing the propaganda war among the darker-skinned countries, especially after Biden wanted to keep sending more bombs to Israel for the genocide in Gaza.
This protracted proxy war has also accelerated de-dollarization, overcoming obstacles within Russia and spreading strongly to other BRICS countries.
Sergei Glazyev, Russia's Minister for Foreign Trade under President Yeltsin, has a lot to say about that:
Of course de-dollarization will eventually ruin American finances and crush Biden's "Vampire Liberal" habit of sucking money from other countries through Unpayable Debt to finance Worthwhile Programs. In other words, with his Ukrainian misadventure, Biden is putting our economic security at grave risk.
Your question about letting Putin and Russia roll over any country they want doesn't seem to fit the particular circumstances with Ukraine, where they face the threat of a reverse Cuban Missile Crisis after western meddling overthrew the Russia-friendly Ukrainian government in 2014.
People around here don't accept that perspective, and neither does the Biden administration, which will make negotiations difficult as Ukraine's military machine stumbles and sputters.
Americans and others from NATO have been refusing to take seriously Russia's concerns about security guarantees. Until we do, there won't be any peace, except the peace of the grave.
NATO "aggressively" (from Russia's perspective) bombed its ally Serbia back to the Stone Age.
NATO's justification for this became part of Russia's justification for invading Ukraine. The article linked below fails to mention Ukraine's armed far-right "Neo-Nazi" gangs operating with impunity as their political boss Arsen Avakov controlled Ukraine's police.
Still "What Putin Learned from NATO's 1999 Intervention in Kosovo" is worth careful study:
''The lesson Putin learned was that if he could make Russia a player using 200 men, he could make it a winner with the whole might of the Russian military and that the powers to his west did not have the stomach to stand in his way.
In February 2008, Kosovo unilaterally declared its independence from Serbia and was backed by most of the EU countries and the USA. Putin argued that this set a precedent — NATO had gone in to ‘protect lives’ and then supported independence. Six months later he invaded Georgia ostensibly to protect Russian speaking minorities. He went on to recognise the breakaway Georgian provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent.
Putin uses this ‘Kosovo Precedent’ to argue Russia’s case in Ukraine. After invading Crimea in 2014 Moscow organised an independence referendum. The document formally declaring the subsequent independence from Ukraine mentions the Kosovo story as part of a legal justification to secede. Similar arguments are made about the self-proclaimed Luhansk People’s Republic and Donetsk People’s Republic in the parts of Ukraine’s Donbas region which were de facto occupied by Russia before February’s invasion.
Citing Kosovo as justification for a ‘Special Military Operation’ in Ukraine is attractive to the hardmen in the Kremlin because it allows them to pursue the moral argument state-controlled media sells the Russian public every day. However, it does not stand up to scrutiny, and when repeated by Putin’s apologists outside of Russia contributes to the attempted whitewashing of war crimes.
NATO’s intervention in Serbia followed a decade of state sponsored slaughter and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans the majority of which was conducted by the regime in Serbia led by Slobodan Milosevic. Thousands of Kosovan Albanians had been murdered in the run up to the conflict and hundreds of thousands displaced. It is worth noting for balance that Kosovan forces also committed war crimes and terror acts against Serb civilians, albeit far fewer.
Most NATO countries had spent the 1990s trying not to get drawn into the Balkan conflicts. Regime change was not an aim of the NATO powers during the Kosovo War. France, Germany and the UK had no intention of making Kosovo part of France, Germany, or the UK. NATO’s ground forces did not engage in mass killings of civilians in Kosovo nor mass deportations to another country.
Russian troops have invaded a sovereign country which posed no military threat to it whatsoever. There had been no systematic and widespread war crimes against Russian speakers in Ukraine in the run up to February’s invasion. The Russian justification that they needed to ‘denazify’ Ukraine is based on isolated examples of pro-Nazi sentiment and one abhorrent militia. There is no evidence that Ukraine’s government is ‘genocidal’ as argued by Moscow. Putin’s long-term plan seems to have been that Ukraine would become part of Russia.
The ‘Kosovo Precedent’ for the invasion is more the ‘Kosovo Pretext.’ However, governments in many countries should have better understood what Putin took from Kosovo and prepared for what was coming.''
Thank you, R Dooley, for extracting the essence of that article. I think that the problematic part is the following quote:
"Russian troops have invaded a sovereign country which posed no military threat to it whatsoever. There had been no systematic and widespread war crimes against Russian speakers in Ukraine in the run up to February’s invasion. The Russian justification that they needed to ‘denazify’ Ukraine is based on isolated examples of pro-Nazi sentiment and one abhorrent militia."
It's called cthe Tooberville syndrome". Putting one person in charge of something affecting the entire world that they know absolutely nothing about. Johnson is perfect. That's why the FAR far far right picked him. He will do anything because he doesn't know any better
Or even one party. The framers appear to have expected controversy in governance, but justice always involves so kind of balance. Presumably that's why iconic lady justice holds a scale. Justice can be way more complicated than that icon illustrates, but dynamic balance is essential to life. the life sciences are replete with it.
And that's not often just taking a middle way. Dynamic balance in a 4-dimensional universe reveals a real-world need to keep priorities straight.
Exactly! I understand the checks and balances, but there is nothing "balanced" about this. He needs to be overridden. Surely there is some provision somewhere to allow for that in circumstances like this.
"The NSA (National Security Agency) monitors international communication for threats to American security. If they detected collusion between Putin and Trump, would this be brought to the attention of the Justice Department for prosecution for treason? Could this be extended to a RICO prosecution for Johnson and other MAGA leaders in Congress?"
Part of Bing's response:
"Collusion Between Putin and Trump:
If the NSA detected collusion between Russian President Vladimir Putin and former U.S. President Donald Trump, it would likely be a matter of significant national security concern.
The NSA’s primary role is intelligence gathering, not prosecution. It would likely share relevant information with other agencies, such as the Department of Justice (DOJ), which handles legal matters.
Prosecution for Treason:
Treason is a serious offense, but its legal definition is specific. It involves aiding an enemy during wartime or attempting to overthrow the government.
Collusion alone may not meet the legal threshold for treason. However, it could lead to other charges related to espionage, conspiracy, or other offenses.
RICO Prosecution:
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is typically used to combat organized crime.
Applying RICO to political leaders would be highly unusual. It requires evidence of a criminal enterprise engaging in a pattern of illegal activity.
While some may argue that certain political actions resemble organized crime, proving a RICO case against elected officials would be challenging.
In summary, the NSA’s role is intelligence gathering, and legal actions fall under the jurisdiction of other agencies like the DOJ. Any potential prosecutions would depend on the specific evidence and legal standards applicable to each situation."
I can only speak for myself Carla. In order to have a government for the people, of the people and by the people we must have “ the people “ actively involved in all three. I read a lot and donate money but I have not been actively engaged. I hope it is not too late.
Thank you Professor for today's letter and for every day's. How can "government by the people" be stuck by one person?!
It’s Tommy Potatohead all over again. One person holding up government’s business. There has to be a way out of this mess. I’m horrified by the way our government can be stuck in this manner. Get religion out of it. Get trump out of our government. He has no right to have any control over government now. He is not in any power at all.
I think civilization, a just civil society, requires baseline solidarity. That is what the Constitution is finally about. What international conventions of "rules of war" are about. An agreement that some duties are allotted to and are to be upheld by every person. Violations are commonplace, but the difference between maintaining that commitment and abandonment of it is the difference between a an earthly heaven or hell, and illustration of this abound. Extreme self-absorption and selfishness can make us into monsters.
Democracy deadlocked in extremism over incendiary, non-negotiable issues is a danger to its very institutions. In a more extreme situation, that's what happened in post ww1 Germany. One side got in, legally, then took over the rest. Democracies work best with differences allow for compromise, back and forth. As we well know, democratic institutions also failed, utterly, with the US Civil War.
JL, you seem to be keeping your head, while all those around you are losing theirs. We cannot save the Constitution by violating it.
JL, from my read you are proposing a society of people who live and breathe consciousness. Bring it on. It would be a relief.
HCR writes that "lawmakers agree on a bipartisan basis that Ukraine’s successful defense against Russia’s invasion is crucial to U.S. national security."
What a BIG LIE. We provoked Russia.
We shoved and shoved Russia, and finally they shoved back.
Some of these war-mongering neo-con lawmakers whom HCR pushes are 99 years old, just like Trump and Biden. In the name of "national security," they are leading us toward financial destruction:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/february-27-2024/comment/50520492
I told you John, to go back to your basement or Mother Russia is preferable with your lies. smh
Report him; look at the amount of garbage he spews and spreads - the space he takes up - and the time wasted by subscribers. He is a lure that is working.
I reported him this morning as a habitual troll.
Good! Do/ submit a Report for/ on each and every one of his posts. One report may not amount to much but numerous reports for numerous posts likely will.
Thanks, Fern, for the reminder to report disinformation. This troll is beyond annoying!
Just ignore.
They get off on a response.
Please ignore the troll,
said the lonely troll
Another deluded bloodthirsty neo-con war-monger blathers "Putin Putin" like a Pavlovian dog.
So I guess we’re also responsible for Russia (and Putin’s) rape and pillage (and their attempt of total destruction) of Ukraine too? Russia’s actions are reprehensible and need to be dealt strongly with.
Please ignore the troll.
Rape? Pillage? Total destruction? Remember the fake story about Saddam Hussein and the baby incubators that enraged Americans so we supported Bush's war against Iraq: We are being routinely lied to.
Deleted for reasons cited below.
Ignore. Has a head like Ned Kelly's armor.
Wish there were a giggle button. Good one!
Please ignore the troll.
...said the lonely troll
My regrets for letting my too much hot blood and too little sleep get the better of me. 😳 Mr Schmeekle -- ¿sp.?; can not see his name -- has a right to voice his opinions and I have a right not to listen to him. ⚖️ Perhaps I should exercise my right more often. 🙂
You sound unhappy, John. Believe me tho, there is no "We". Your problems are personal! Have you tried any of the many soothing ointments available over the counter? If you wash carefully first and then REALLY GET IT UP THERE quick relief usually follows. Go on - don't be ashamed, give it a try!
Please ignore the troll.
...said the lonely troll
The American leadership, Democratic and Republican, provoked Russia, over and over. And McCarthyist shills intimidate people who try to point out the aggressive American charade.
Oh John, please repeat your reasoning on how "we" provoked Russia. I want to understand your reasoning that leads you to conclude that Ukraine pivoting towards Europe and away from Russia justifies a military attack. Is Ukraine less legitimate than other previous Soviet satellite countries? Is NATO's charter offensive or defensive, or is its simple existence offensive? Should we let Putin push Russia to roll over any country they want? Do you not believe that Europe's stability and prosperity are beneficial to the US?
Please ignore the troll.
...said the lonely troll
We unleashed the "shock therapy" genocide that killed off all the old people in Russia.
(LOOK OUT Baby Boomers -- your turn is coming.)
We pushed NATO east to Russia's doorstep, after promising not to.
Then we supported a "color revolution" against the Russia-friendly President of Ukraine, but he got voted back into office because Russian speakers were a small majority in hodge-podge, cobbled-together Ukraine.
Then we supported a "color revolution" that overthrew he Russia-friendly government of Georgia; Russia created a "frozen conflict" that blocked Georgia from joining NATO.
Then in 2014 we supported another "color revolution" in Ukraine, this time with neo-Nazi thugs to make it stick.
Russia took back Crimea and created another "frozen conflict," blocking Ukraine from joining NATO.
Actually, there was a pathway to peace through this frozen conflict -- the Minsk Agreements -- but Merkel and Macron both admitted that they didn't take the Minsk Agreements seriously; it was just to give Ukraine time to rearm.
Then Zelensky got elected on a promise to make peace, and moved toward implementing the Minsk Agreements. But neo-Nazi war-mongers threatened to kill him, so he capitulated and started building up to invade the Donbass.
Finally Zelensky was ready for his Donbass invasion, with a 3-to-1 superiority of troops on the line of contact. Russia built up their troops on Ukraine's border and signed mutual defense treaties with the breakaway Donbass republics.
When Ukraine began its pre-invasion bombardment, Russia intervened.
I will answer your other questions later, as time permits.
I don't suppose that you are interested in a sincere exchange of views. Many people around here are just interested in parroting Bidenista talking points.
John, While in general I find Biden's domestic policies effective, I pause and leave my certainty behind for most international issues, because I realize I may know less than nothing. While my knee jerk impulse is to disagree, I also know that the US is quite cavalier and heavy handed in its approach to international affairs. Even CNN and MSNBC say so, but I also know I've swallowed the story line that supports our military industrial complex's robust health and later realized that too many parts of it was bullshit.
You've taken quite a bit of time to present a coherent picture of the background regarding NATO, Ukraine, and Russia. Do I agree? I don't know. But I will save this exchange and find sources I trust. Your series of posts give me a few topics to research. I am in no position to claim to be knowledgeable enough to exchange view. For the opportunity to educate myself, I thank you.
(Part 2)
Jerry Helfhand,
In answer to your question, "Is Ukraine less legitimate than other previous Soviet satellite countries?"
"Little" Ukraine and neighboring Novorossiya were not satellite countries. They were integral parts of Russia before Germany knocked Russia out of World War I in 1917.
Then came Communist chaos and civil war until 1921, when the Soviet regime stapled little Ukraine and Novorossiya together, forming bilingual (Russian and Ukrainian languages) big Ukraine.
This bilingual nature of Ukraine is important, because when the neo-Nazis took over after the Maidan Revolution and terrorized the ethnic Russian members of Ukraine’s parliament into staying home, the first thing they did was pass a law banning the Russian language.
(to be continued)
(Part 3)
Jerry Helfhand, you posed the question:
"Is NATO's charter offensive or defensive, or is its simple existence offensive?"
I think that the way to deal with this question, from Russia's perspective, is to think through NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans/stories/diplomacy060699.htm
"Russia supported Yugoslavia's insistence that no foreign troops, especially those from NATO countries, should be allowed on Yugoslav territory.
"'When you say Serbia and Kosovo, Chernomyrdin thinks of Russia and Chechnya,' said NATO Secretary General Javier Solana, referring to the breakaway province that tried to secede from Moscow's rule. 'The Russians are always worried that NATO wants to exploit their insecurities.'
As a wounded former superpower, Russia was seething with resentment over NATO's decision to launch its first attack on a sovereign state, despite its claim to be a purely defensive alliance. In the wake of NATO's recent expansion toward Russia's doorstep, the bombing of Yugoslavia was seen as a hostile expression of NATO ambition at a time of Russian weakness."
(Part 2.2)
Post-Soviet Ukraine was like post-Communist Yugoslavia. Both countries were artificial amalgamations imposed by outside forces without any voting by the people. Both countries, after the end of Communism, devolved into civil war, but that process took longer in Ukraine.
NATO intervened in the Yugoslav civil war as progressed Saturn was exactly conjunct the Ascendant in the correct U.S. horoscope (set for May 15, 1776 at 5:00 p.m. in Philadelphia.)
(Part 2.1)
Here's a map of Ukraine in 1917 in the middle of a civil war (outlined in red) showing all the other parts that were added over the years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya#/media/File%3AUkraine_Historical_Borders.svg
Ukraine in 1991 was an artificial creation that had been cobbled together by arbitrary Soviet decisions, apparently driven by the desire to keep the Russian-speaking population above 50%.
(Part 6)
Jerry Helfhand,
You pose the final question:
"Do you not believe that Europe's stability and prosperity are beneficial to the US?"
Yes, I certainly do. And as with de-dollarization and our newly hateful imperialist image among the darker-skinned countries, Biden has recklessly sabotaged European prosperity and stability, first with anti-Russian sanctions that punched the Euro-zone economy in the gut, second with the ongoing military aid to Ukraine that has drained the European NATO countries of their defense arsenal, and third with Biden's sabotage of the Nordstream pipeline that is threatening to de-industrialize Germany because of the newly high price of energy.
Blinken and Biden seem to be hopelessly stuck on stupid.
(finished)
(Part 5.1)
In this protracted proxy war in Ukraine, the NATO countries are losing the propaganda war among the darker-skinned countries, especially after Biden wanted to keep sending more bombs to Israel for the genocide in Gaza.
This protracted proxy war has also accelerated de-dollarization, overcoming obstacles within Russia and spreading strongly to other BRICS countries.
Sergei Glazyev, Russia's Minister for Foreign Trade under President Yeltsin, has a lot to say about that:
https://sputnikglobe.com/20240228/rocky-road-to-dedollarization-sergei-glazyev-interview--1117034183.html
Of course de-dollarization will eventually ruin American finances and crush Biden's "Vampire Liberal" habit of sucking money from other countries through Unpayable Debt to finance Worthwhile Programs. In other words, with his Ukrainian misadventure, Biden is putting our economic security at grave risk.
(Part 5)
Your question about letting Putin and Russia roll over any country they want doesn't seem to fit the particular circumstances with Ukraine, where they face the threat of a reverse Cuban Missile Crisis after western meddling overthrew the Russia-friendly Ukrainian government in 2014.
People around here don't accept that perspective, and neither does the Biden administration, which will make negotiations difficult as Ukraine's military machine stumbles and sputters.
Americans and others from NATO have been refusing to take seriously Russia's concerns about security guarantees. Until we do, there won't be any peace, except the peace of the grave.
(Part 3.1)
NATO "aggressively" (from Russia's perspective) bombed its ally Serbia back to the Stone Age.
NATO's justification for this became part of Russia's justification for invading Ukraine. The article linked below fails to mention Ukraine's armed far-right "Neo-Nazi" gangs operating with impunity as their political boss Arsen Avakov controlled Ukraine's police.
Still "What Putin Learned from NATO's 1999 Intervention in Kosovo" is worth careful study:
https://engelsbergideas.com/notebook/what-putin-learnt-from-natos-1999-intervention-in-kosovo/
It is indeed an interesting article.
''The lesson Putin learned was that if he could make Russia a player using 200 men, he could make it a winner with the whole might of the Russian military and that the powers to his west did not have the stomach to stand in his way.
In February 2008, Kosovo unilaterally declared its independence from Serbia and was backed by most of the EU countries and the USA. Putin argued that this set a precedent — NATO had gone in to ‘protect lives’ and then supported independence. Six months later he invaded Georgia ostensibly to protect Russian speaking minorities. He went on to recognise the breakaway Georgian provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent.
Putin uses this ‘Kosovo Precedent’ to argue Russia’s case in Ukraine. After invading Crimea in 2014 Moscow organised an independence referendum. The document formally declaring the subsequent independence from Ukraine mentions the Kosovo story as part of a legal justification to secede. Similar arguments are made about the self-proclaimed Luhansk People’s Republic and Donetsk People’s Republic in the parts of Ukraine’s Donbas region which were de facto occupied by Russia before February’s invasion.
Citing Kosovo as justification for a ‘Special Military Operation’ in Ukraine is attractive to the hardmen in the Kremlin because it allows them to pursue the moral argument state-controlled media sells the Russian public every day. However, it does not stand up to scrutiny, and when repeated by Putin’s apologists outside of Russia contributes to the attempted whitewashing of war crimes.
NATO’s intervention in Serbia followed a decade of state sponsored slaughter and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans the majority of which was conducted by the regime in Serbia led by Slobodan Milosevic. Thousands of Kosovan Albanians had been murdered in the run up to the conflict and hundreds of thousands displaced. It is worth noting for balance that Kosovan forces also committed war crimes and terror acts against Serb civilians, albeit far fewer.
Most NATO countries had spent the 1990s trying not to get drawn into the Balkan conflicts. Regime change was not an aim of the NATO powers during the Kosovo War. France, Germany and the UK had no intention of making Kosovo part of France, Germany, or the UK. NATO’s ground forces did not engage in mass killings of civilians in Kosovo nor mass deportations to another country.
Russian troops have invaded a sovereign country which posed no military threat to it whatsoever. There had been no systematic and widespread war crimes against Russian speakers in Ukraine in the run up to February’s invasion. The Russian justification that they needed to ‘denazify’ Ukraine is based on isolated examples of pro-Nazi sentiment and one abhorrent militia. There is no evidence that Ukraine’s government is ‘genocidal’ as argued by Moscow. Putin’s long-term plan seems to have been that Ukraine would become part of Russia.
The ‘Kosovo Precedent’ for the invasion is more the ‘Kosovo Pretext.’ However, governments in many countries should have better understood what Putin took from Kosovo and prepared for what was coming.''
https://engelsbergideas.com/notebook/what-putin-learnt-from-natos-1999-intervention-in-kosovo/
Thank you, R Dooley, for extracting the essence of that article. I think that the problematic part is the following quote:
"Russian troops have invaded a sovereign country which posed no military threat to it whatsoever. There had been no systematic and widespread war crimes against Russian speakers in Ukraine in the run up to February’s invasion. The Russian justification that they needed to ‘denazify’ Ukraine is based on isolated examples of pro-Nazi sentiment and one abhorrent militia."
he is not in government right now but he is the head of the republican party and the MAGA crowd.
It's called cthe Tooberville syndrome". Putting one person in charge of something affecting the entire world that they know absolutely nothing about. Johnson is perfect. That's why the FAR far far right picked him. He will do anything because he doesn't know any better
Or even one party. The framers appear to have expected controversy in governance, but justice always involves so kind of balance. Presumably that's why iconic lady justice holds a scale. Justice can be way more complicated than that icon illustrates, but dynamic balance is essential to life. the life sciences are replete with it.
And that's not often just taking a middle way. Dynamic balance in a 4-dimensional universe reveals a real-world need to keep priorities straight.
For sure, democracy works when opposing positions don't get too far apart.
Exactly! I understand the checks and balances, but there is nothing "balanced" about this. He needs to be overridden. Surely there is some provision somewhere to allow for that in circumstances like this.
I put the following query to Bing:
"The NSA (National Security Agency) monitors international communication for threats to American security. If they detected collusion between Putin and Trump, would this be brought to the attention of the Justice Department for prosecution for treason? Could this be extended to a RICO prosecution for Johnson and other MAGA leaders in Congress?"
Part of Bing's response:
"Collusion Between Putin and Trump:
If the NSA detected collusion between Russian President Vladimir Putin and former U.S. President Donald Trump, it would likely be a matter of significant national security concern.
The NSA’s primary role is intelligence gathering, not prosecution. It would likely share relevant information with other agencies, such as the Department of Justice (DOJ), which handles legal matters.
Prosecution for Treason:
Treason is a serious offense, but its legal definition is specific. It involves aiding an enemy during wartime or attempting to overthrow the government.
Collusion alone may not meet the legal threshold for treason. However, it could lead to other charges related to espionage, conspiracy, or other offenses.
RICO Prosecution:
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is typically used to combat organized crime.
Applying RICO to political leaders would be highly unusual. It requires evidence of a criminal enterprise engaging in a pattern of illegal activity.
While some may argue that certain political actions resemble organized crime, proving a RICO case against elected officials would be challenging.
In summary, the NSA’s role is intelligence gathering, and legal actions fall under the jurisdiction of other agencies like the DOJ. Any potential prosecutions would depend on the specific evidence and legal standards applicable to each situation."
I can only speak for myself Carla. In order to have a government for the people, of the people and by the people we must have “ the people “ actively involved in all three. I read a lot and donate money but I have not been actively engaged. I hope it is not too late.
The one big question
Actually, the discrepancies could be argued as evidence of vote fraud. Both parties do it; it's just part of the political landscape.
Why did the chicken cross the road?