Moscow summons US ambassador

Seems the big brains in the DC swamp want to be rewarded and repaid for funding Europe's defense via NATO for decades by severing their cheap energy inputs from Russia. All I can say to the stupid Euros...."there is no free lunch". They made their bed when they got in Nato and/or remain occupied by the U.S., so they shouldn't be surprised when their master comes to collect.

And on that point, there will never be world peace on a global scale as long as NATO exists.

 

No response was tried both in Georgia and with crimea. It didn't work. It's why Putin thought he could just roll into Kyiv

I'm absolutely ok with this response. We signed a memorandum promising we would do exactly what we are doing. We are not fighting this war directly, we are merely assisting.

All the bullshit false pleasantries are done away with and we see now what is what. And it's not a coincidence that all the **** hole authoritarian government nations are banding together.

NATOs existence demands that. But then if NATO didn't exist, Russia would just be swallowing all the nations smaller than it is by force.

If you want to blame Biden for something then his handling of Saudi Arabia was a blunder. He absolutely pushed them towards the bricks union.

You could also suggest that our dependency on China allowed it to grow to the power house it is today. But that was a decades long blunder.

But this was always going to come to a point of confrontation.

 

"Smaller countries should stay small and powerless so that they are forced in getting swallowed by Russia..."

- Bill Carson.

No thanks Billy. History tried the whole Soviet Union thing. Time to move on.

 

To me, it's not about response or no response but it's how to respond. I think we both concur that the situation has become Hot and that heck, it may even be desirable for the US that it's hot. But where it should be hot, I think that's actually the secret debate happening here. Whether it should go east(Ukraine/Europe), or whether it should be westward(Pacific.). And obviously, I am in favor of opening the Pacific Theater.

I see the east theater as a quagmire. And for as much as Russia has struggled in her ill-fated attempts to conquer Ukraine, I truly believe that the moment is now and precisely in this moment to deal a crippling blow to the Communist Chinese government. If we fail to take advantage of this, while ignoring that elephant in the room, the Chinese military buildup will continue and perhaps at a level where we can't ignore it.

The war in Russia is yesterday's war. Europe is no longer where the Grand Chessboard is, but it's our pacific. If we can rearrange the security situation in the Pacific to our favor, we will have reassured our security. It's telling that in spite of Russia's nuclear warheads, we are not concerned with Rusisa(pre-Ukraine), that's because she was and still is not a threat.

She's only a threat to the European countries, in the centuries long struggle between the two continents of Eurasia(Russia) and Europe. We have no dog in that fight. And I'm tired of our soldiers dying for causes that will ultimately lead to no effect for them or their families.

And if Russia is not a threat in spite of nuclear warheads, then there's no reason to risk that for Ukraine, for that ill-thought memorandum and for the sheer financial bleeding of it. I'd rather focus on the ones who can threaten us even with conventional means: China.

China is the one with a massive espionage program surpassing the Russians. China is the one conscripting muslim slaves and abusive acts. It's the old 'forest for the trees'. I'm sorry Ukraine, but I feel we can't do both and only ONE of these theaters directly, directly impacts the US and victory is essential.

 

Am I a Russian bot?

 

Wait, Russia invaded a non-threatening Ukraine causing the slaughter of about 300k people on both sides. Putin is the real Hitler as that is obvious to about everyone on the planet.

 

You haven't done much but spew false claims and Russian propaganda. So what do you think?

 

I don't disagree with your assessment of China. I think where we differ is the assumption that China and Russia were going to be separate issues. I've always felt that regardless of the conflict one would always come with the other. Especially if that conflict is a direct confrontation with the United States. Look at NK now...they are offering weapons and men to fight alongside Russia...itching to be a part of this ****. It is going to take a STRONG and unified NATO moving forward to insure the stability and trade of the west. In the past, that responsibility fell on the United States, and as of right now, we cannot keep pace with China alone. So leaving our European NATO allies high and dry is not an option. We need them and we need them to do more.

Putin gave us a gift by starting this war when he was clearly not prepared. It's highlighted serious issues with their logistics, communication and has been a severe drain on their resources. This could also deter China from making a play of force on Taiwan as they are being indirectly shown just how gd difficult it is to try and roll into another territory by force. They may opt for another way.

I'm absolutely fine with what we are doing and I'd even go so far as we should offer more to get this **** over with, rather then turn it into a drawn out war of attrition where Russia just throws bodies on the problem.

 

I would argue that via NATO it is still our responsibility(as I became aware of Article 5, I see that article as the noose hanging around our neck.). In my view, the US should be the one to determine whether we mobilize or not, whether we get involved in any confrontation or not. But article 5 strips us of our freedom to do so, if a NATO country is attacked then we must come in the defense of that.

So when Sweden and Finland give up the neutrality in fear of Russian Aggression, what they don't realize is they put themselves directly in the quagmire and gave up all hopes of neutrality. So, what if that theater opens up? I see Europe as a massive liability, in spite of economic and moral values aligning. NATO, to me, is an expansion upon the Marshall Plan.(it originated as a way to bring the European countries together under a joint chain command.). But it is not a North Atlantic force. It's a hapless group of European countries who expect the US to carry the 'alliance'.

I would rather turn these hapless groups of countries into independent countries and armies again, then have to risk a new theater every time something happens in Europe. I also think that would be Putin's greatest nightmare, the rise once more of several European armies.

It would be our greatest joy, we will for the first time in a century be free from 'having' to defend Europe. For many Americans, it was a point of pride. To me, as I examined the history it was a lucky fluke. A coincidence. And later failure(Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam) has shown that it was a fluke. To me, it's not a foreign policy to follow.

Even if it were a foreign policy to follow. Our country has an incredibly rich history behind it: A revolution to gain freedom from Great Britain in which independence both as a nation and in our person is equally valued. The current foreign policy is incompatible with our national and individual values.

Were I a CIC, our foreign policy would be two-pronged: Friendship with all, entangling alliances with none. Even if an alliance is formed, it would have an expiration date. And then secondly, the upholding of the Monroe Doctrine. Meaning the shift to the areas of the sea and our frontiers where there's a threat.

The US= Supreme freedom. And that's not just freedom for others, most importantly it's freedom for ourselves.

 

Article 5 declares NATO as a defensive organization and not an offensive one that Russia or China or any other authoritarian regime that absolutely HATES population from having a say or control over who governs them.

Leaving everything up to America isn't the way to go. The more realistic path forward is to have a more equalized and stronger NATO which has each member paying more into their defense spending. Which is EXACTLY what Trump was demanding.

The United States being the sole leader/police

 

Need to finish this;

The days of the United States being the sole world police in protecting globalized trade are coming to an end as Russia and China's partnership will exceed American power. The task must be placed on the collective strength of NATO.

 

I know what you think.

 

I don't see anyone suffering over in Europe. Business as usual. Plus, most of Europe are happily transitioning away from Russian oil. Win Win!

 

Not such a bad idea - some semblence of coherent board assessment .. a few minor corrections to make.

1) US economic Empire / hegemony coming to an end . or rather the sole economic hegemon .. which we were .. and was vunderful time .. but, as all previous empires .. as soon as you go off gold .. Gov'ts run deficits to such point as things break - economic empire goes into major decline. This coincides with the cost of projecting power increasing over time to the point where ROI becomes negative - something we hit decades ago .. but like Rome .. keep beating the horse .. support those freaken legions in Britain .. at a time when the barbarians have learned our military technology .. and tactics

2) China is the Enemy ... Russia is a key player that really would have been nice to have on our side in the Economic geopolitical battle to come - long term this whole sht show is not in our best interest .. after the war it will be eash to their own there is no US/Italy-germany - france economic block --- everyone is out trying to do business after that .. and its a free for all. India not joining in the sanctions was huge .. they are the next China in ways .. and remember that everyone is your competitor .. moving factories from China to Vietnam rally doesn't impact our economic tally .. still a product outsourced to cheap labor nation .. the practice of which is the root case issue underlying why Carbon emmisions continue to rise.. Industrialization of non industrialized populations.

So one interconnected cluster fk . Instead of negotiating how many nukes we gonna build ... we need to be negotiating how many non industrialized citizens we gonna turn into first worlders ?

3) The economic blocks going forward are not much dependent on nor connected to Nato .. You have to separate economic from Military .. the two are connected but can not be conflated as one in the same .. In the military sphere China and Russia have been connected in ways for quite some time ... Russia - India- China .. building those fancy anti ship missiles together .. the hypersonic missile technology. ..
Once the war ends - if it ends relatively soon say 2-3 years -- Nato is not going to matter much from an econimic perspective .. except in relation to military .. buying planes ans so forth .. but even there everyone is competing against each other for the global arms market .. a market that has now doubled or tripled or more due to this war .. and the new technology on display.

For the rest of the economic game its mostly everybody for themselves ... very hard to predict - things are getting crazy .. we have a race for scarce resources .. no longer a unipolar world .. will be multi polar .. numerous spheres of influence -

This race for whats left of scarce resources is a huge race against time .. the biggest resource at stake being the Ocean . fish other than farmed bassa aka "garbage fish of the sea" is a delicacy already. the offshoot to this scramble for resources is industrialization which is killing the Ocean -

Ocean Pollution is the biggest environmental issue . The Ocean is being destroying at a rate far faster and more predictable than Global warming. Don't get me wrong, this is a two horse race to the apocalypse .. just the Ocean Pollution race is running much faster. We can see the effects not in 100 years - sea level rising - but, right now .. in a hose of ways Mercury levels in whales in the north at levels so high experts say neurological impairment is nigh. Dead zones over last 25 years gone from 100 to 500. One is now the size of the State of New Jersey.

So imagine I said to you --- hey mate .. don't go that direction .. pointing out an area the size of New Jersy .. You can't breath .. oxygen levels too low. that is exactly what it is like for fish coral marine life in these zones.

If anything it will be this struggle which precipitates WW3 -- and we are doing nothing about it .. in fact doing the opposite .. exacerbating the issue .. something that is becoming more and more public .. current Western Driven Enviro Policy is "Not in my back Yard - Dump it in the Ocean"

Remember that next time you look at the label on your T-Shirt .. and everything else "Made in China" .. or some other cheap labor nation .. don't matter if it is China or Viet-Nam .. the effect on the Ocean is the same... probably worse with Nam .. definitely worse from the "really bad" offenders such as Nigeria ..

So -- to give you an example - Mercury levels in Tuna off coast of North America have decreased over last 25 years .. Canada-USA don't dump that stuff in the Oceans. So .. you want to buy your oil from "Canada-USA" not "Nigeria" Simply on the basis of environmental pollution .. transferring our pollution problems to "Nigeria" . a violation of the New Green Deal "Thou shalt not transport pollution problems to other nations" .. especially not industrializing nations.

Mercury levels in Tuna of the coast of Hawaii continue to rise - "smokestacks in Asia". Thats just from the smoke-stacks travelling 3000 miles .. never mind what they dump in directly.

but wait -- it gets better .. in buying that oil from "Nigeria" rather than building the Keystone - you incentivise and finance industrialization of non industrialized people.. the root cause of increased CO2... which over the last 25 years has gone from 22 Billion tons/Year to 36 Billion tons/year .. and continues to rise.

That was from industrializaing roughly 600 million people .. bringing the total to roughly 2 Billion industrialized. 6 Billion left to go .. but, by 2050 .. we will have grown another 2 Billion people to 10 Billion.

The race towards scarce resources in the face of Catastrophic Ocean failure will precipitate WW3 .. lest we change course yesterday .. but we are still driving the same direction. Like driving towards California and someone asking the question "how long till we get to New York" - thats when the "climate" - Environmental crisis will be solved.

 

If the Russians "seek retribution for Nordstrom (sic)" then they are seeking retribution against themselves.
Sometimes freedom must be fought for.

 

Russia was never going to have close ties to NATO while Putin is in charge. It has 1000 years of authoritarian governance and a deep seeding ideology that all of the break away States should rightfully belong to Russia. So there was never going to be a path where Putin willingly enters a partnership or agreement with neighboring States it's had history of conflict with and a sense of entitlement/ownership.

To make that more complicated, NATO and the west is where the idea of democratic governance is spreading which is exactly opposite of authoritarian and a existential threat to Putin and Russian/Chinese governance. If you were the person in sole power in those countries you would not want to simply give that up. So I'm not surprised that as the Authoritarian countries grow in power, we become a bilateral trading world. And to complicate matters, China's rise in power gives a sort of creedence to Authoritarian control as being a valid/comparable means of governance. "See? It can work"

While global population is still growing, it's only in Africa for the most part. China/Russia and all western nations are currently in contractions. We merely offset our population with immigration, but I do agree that with a bipolar world will come conflict over scarce resources. It's why Taiwan and Ukraine are currently in play. Ukraine has valuable trade commodities and we both know what Taiwan produces.

A bipolar world is going to be a much more dangerous one moving forward, because of that I really don't bother with stressing about global warming or other environmental issues.

 

“Sometimes freedom must be fought for”—- Yes but I respectfully add that freedom always must be fought for if not militarily then politically. I was. Criticized in the early 1990s by fellow Ukie- Americans for saying that in 1991 Ukraine found freedom lying on the streets of Kyiv. My dad who was in his last years of life at that time said to “ will we keep it, or give it away? “ and “ the Russians will try and come back”. It wasn’t until the MAIDAN that I perceived that yes Ukrainians may just keep it this time. Sad that it took this war and all these deaths to unite Ukrainians from East and West, Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholics, Christians, Jews , and Muslims ( Tatars) , Ukrainian speakers and Russian speakers, people with either Russian or Russianized last names to fight for freedom for Ukraine but for Ukraines very existence.

My comments likely belong in a separate post but you sparked my running off of the mouth with your comment on freedom.

 

Fair enough.

 

Billy, the man with the traitorous Rebel flag should refresh his history and see all the empires that have come and gone. A few are Persian, Egyptian , Roman, Austrian-Hungarian, Ottoman, British , French, Japanese, Czarist Russian , Soviet Empire, and hope very soon the Putinist Russian Empire…..

 

Problem was that Trump ( in my opinion) did not want NATO to exist anymore. He even stated that with the Cold War bone we did not need NATO anymore. Furthermore even if I actually believed that Trump wanted the NATO countries to raise their defense budgets he did it in such an arrogant and false way that most NATO countries ignored his blathering. Except for the small Baltic countries and Poland due to history and geography. Trump maybe did not want to totally destroy NATO but he sure as hell wanted the US out of NATOwith no regard for the consequences.

 

Trump rightfully was sick and tired of america footing the bill. We signed a defensive agreement which felt like smaller countries were taking advantage of us by not doing the minimum.

At the same time they were strengthening the very government we were designed to be protecting against.

Since those two statements are true, would you still want to be in such an agreement?

Trump flat out warned Germany to not get dependent on Russian energy because such a dependency creates strong leverage. And in response they laughed at him.

Like him or hate him, Trump was 100 percent right here.

 

Putin has Biden frozen in fear by his threats. Biden is not providing the weapons of war needed to win the war. There is no end in sight, reminds me of Viet Nam - first we sent weapons ... Ukraine has just become territory for Russians to test weapons.

 

All Russia has to do is withdraw from Ukraine.

 

There is no truth to Ukraine was non-threatening.

 

Please explain how Ukraine was a threat to Moscow.