Is Washington Fighting Russia down to the Last Ukrainian?

[Chillicothe]

We'll disarm and DeNazify Ukraine and that'll be the end of it.

Ummm? "We"...will disarm Ukraine?

Who is "we" Kemo Sabe?
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The crazed US/EU puppet Pres. Zelensky is hiding in his Fuhrer bunker vowing to fight until the last Ukrainian is killed and the capitol city of Kyiv is turned into rubble.

What's your point, poster?

• That he should not be protected by 'bunkering' against an enemy who is known to bomb for 'de-capitation'? Who allegedly sent 'assassination squads' to hunt him down?
• That Ukraine should not have agency in it's affairs?
• That Russia/Putin have no agency in the initiation and execution of this war of aggression?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some Ukrainians prefer Zelensky's government and some others prefer alignment with Russia.

Well, that seems a pretty obvious assertion.
Sure some Ukrainians prefer different things, different governance than other Ukrainians.
Mr. Obvious could say the same about Russia.....some want differen leadership, some don't.
Mr. Obvious could also say the same about Romania, Italy, England, Mexico, Canada, Australia, et al.
Duh! What's your point?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The big question is: Is Zelensky his own man or is he owned by those with interests that are questionable for the Ukrainian people.

Let's do this:
Take the same sentence.....and substitute Putin for Zelensky......an substitute Russian people for Ukrainian.
The dynamic is familair and predictable.
And just as legitimate.
IMHO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Western leaders should tell him to shut up about a no-fly zone (which could lead to WW III) and to accept any reasonable offer from the Kremlin.

Regarding a twist on that "no fly zone" conversation. In today's Washington Post there is a column that mentions, a non-militarized 'Civilian Saftey Zone'. A geography where all of these refugees watching Putin turn all of Ukraine into Aleppo ...where they could be temporarily safe.

It could do several appealing things:

1. First, it keeps Ukranians in Ukraine.
2. Second, it could forestall or mitigate the firing by Russians onto fleeing civilian convoys.

Now, enforcing such?
With who's military resources?
Supplying such a zone with foodstuffs and civilian needs?
I'll that to the policy wonks.

But, "Civilian Safety Zone"......."Refugees Refuge"......sounds less negatory, and perhaps more palatable, than "No Fly Zone".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's not happening. And, I don't see Ukraine agreeing to give up any territory.

An analogy:
Texas used to belong to Mexico. There are many Spanish-speaking Hispanic Texans. And not a few of them feel oppressed by English speaking Caucasion Americans.

Ergo....would Mexico have the same mantle of legitimacy by invading Texas or recognizing it as independent of the US....well, would it be the same as what Russia now claims over Ukraine?

Just askin'.

 

[bendog]

Ummm? "We"...will disarm Ukraine?

Who is "we" Kemo Sabe?
-------------------------------------------------------------------

What's your point, poster?

• That he should not be protected by 'bunkering' against an enemy who is known to bomb for 'de-capitation'? Who allegedly sent 'assassination squads' to hunt him down?
• That Ukraine should not have agency in it's affairs?
• That Russia/Putin have no agency in the initiation and execution of this war of aggression?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, that seems a pretty obvious assertion.
Sure some Ukrainians prefer different things, different governance tha, other Ukrainians.
Mr. Obvious could say the same about Russia.....some want differen leadership, some don't.
Mr. Obvious could also say the same about Romania, Italy, England, Mexico, Canada, Australia, et al.
Duh! What's your point?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's do this:
Take the same sentence.....and substitute Putin for Zelensky......an substitute Russian people for Ukrainian.
The dynamic is familair and predictable.
And just as legitimate.
IMHO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding a twist on that "no fly zone" conversation. In today's Washington Post there is a column that mentions, a non-militarized 'Civilian Saftey Zone'. A geography where all of these refugees watching Putin turn all of Ukraine into Aleppo ...where they could be temporarily safe.

It could do several appealing things:

1. First, it keeps Ukranians in Ukraine.
2. Second, it could forestall or mitigate the firing by Russians onto fleeing civilian convoys.

Now, enforcing such?
With who's military resources?
Supplying such a zone with foodstuffs and civilian needs?
I'll that to the policy wonks.

But, "Civilian Safety Zone"......."Refugees Refuge"......sounds less negatory, and perhaps more palatable, than "No Fly Zone".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


An analogy:
Texas used to belong to Mexico. There are many Spanish-speaking Hispanic Texans. And not a few of them feel oppressed by English speaking Caucasion Americans.

Ergo....would Mexico have the same mantle of legitimacy by invading Texas or recognizing it as independent of the US....well, would it be the same as what Russia now claims over Ukraine?

Just askin'.

Well, I think Mexico sorta tried it just before WWI. The US military was pretty ineffectual in tracking down ole Pancho Villa, but "Black Jack" Pershing got valuable experience invading mexico. (-:

 

[Donald H]

Just askin'.

You really haven't asked me any questions. But of note at least, we could substitute Zelensky's name for Putin's.

Are either their own man?

Try again with something specific if you like. There's probably no legitimate question I'll refuse to answer, unless you're trying to trap me into taking some position that's not really my own.

 

[bendog]

You really haven't asked me any questions. But of note at least, we could substitute Zelensky's name for Putin's.

Are either their own man?

Try again with something specific if you like. There's probably no legitimate question I'll refuse to answer, unless you're trying to trap me into taking some position that's not really my own.

Putin invaded, zelensky did not. Is this really difficult for you?

 

[evenflow1969]

Is Washington Fighting Russia Down to the Last Ukrainian? - Antiwar.com

As the Russian invasion of Ukraine moves past its third week, there are slight hopes that negotiations between the two sides may soon produce a ceasefire. - Ron Paul for Antiwar.com

original.antiwar.com

This becomes important because it's a direct challenge to the US propaganda. Will that receive support in the West?

Antiwar.com has spoken out directly against their country's war propaganda in the past and got in trouble with the CIA for doing it. It's questionable on whether this will be seen as tolerable when it so directly opposes the talking points of America not fighting the war.

Lol Putin invaded Ukraine. Putin's decision not Washington's all the rest is bull shit.

 

[FA_Q2]

A peaceful settlement is the objective but will Washington see it that way. At the moment it depends mostly on which side appears to be winning and what the outcome means for America.

If we accept the propaganda effort of the West, Russia is losing badly and so that's where China comes in. See my new thread on US-China talks in Rome.

I do not even think the propaganda goes so far as to say they are 'losing badly.'

As far as I can tell, they are not losing at all. Russia looks to be able to sin this. The question is not one of 'sinning' or 'losing.' It is a question of price. Is Russia willing to pay the price as it is far higher than any perceived gain they might make. So far the answer to this question is yes.

Time will tell but I have my doubts that this ends any other way than Ukraine simply being a puppet state of Russia. The bigger question is then will the west be able to stick to their guns and choke Russia out for taking Ukraine over.

 

[Donald H]

I do not even think the propaganda goes so far as to say they are 'losing badly.'

As far as I can tell, they are not losing at all. Russia looks to be able to sin this. The question is not one of 'sinning' or 'losing.' It is a question of price. Is Russia willing to pay the price as it is far higher than any perceived gain they might make. So far the answer to this question is yes.

I disagree on the price being worth more than the gain. But I see it as Russia understanding that it must hold the line against Nato. However, I'm not really sure how much gain Russia will decide to keep, after such a large expenditure as it's making. In fact, I'm not even sure about how much expenditure Russia is making. I would only say that Russia decided to take the Donbass after everything failed to bring agreement on the Donbass region. The Ukraine was killing Russian speaking people in the thousands and Russia was adamant that it had to stop.

Time will tell but I have my doubts that this ends any other way than Ukraine simply being a puppet state of Russia. The bigger question is then will the west be able to stick to their guns and choke Russia out for taking Ukraine over.

I don't get involved in armchair wars because there's nothing to gain in that.

I tend to think that political pressure will convince Russia to only hold the Donbass regions and the Crimea.

I don't really know if the West sticking to its guns will have any unendurable effect on Russia. I think two great opposing alliances will be formed and there will be peace on account of M.A.D.

I can't even contemplate the alternative!