WaPo article says Biden admin isn't trying to influence the terms of a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia. Some in NATO want the fighting to continue (see excerpt below).
"For some in NATO" is a "some people" statement - for which the only response is "which ones?" Otherwise, it's just a straw man.
And the pictured quote is not from Professor Sachs' essay at the www.commondreams.org link (which one might assume since it comes right after the link). I risked getting insulted again by Paul, and read the article. Professor Sachs has a sensible approach, but the missing piece is the "buy in" by Russia, which so far isn't acting as if it wants to go down the road he outlines.
If the quote is from the WaPo article, I can't read that due to the paywall, so I'll have to trust Paul that it's from that article, and that there are no other clarifying details in the article that he left out.
The "Moon of Alabama" timeline posted by @nan raises questions about what happened in Bucha. Here's the link to the Ukraine media report on Bucha Mayor Fedoruk's statement (see below) after arriving in Bucha on either March 31 or April 1st. Fedoruk makes no mention of dead bodies. Former Australian ambassador to Poland, Kevin Tony cites the Russian denial, and suggests if this turns out to be a false flag-revenge killing of Ukrainian collaborators, it is going to change the nature of the war. Australian human rights lawyer Moira Rayner comments on Tony's post "I share your doubts".
Your suggestion of a false flag operation struck me as the kind of quick rush to judgement you said we should avoid. You could have just said that you thought there wasn't enough evidence yet on Bucha -- in raising the "false flag" idea, you crossed the line from "patient waiting" to "active accusation" in my mind.
When the Pentagon declines to confirm an allegation against Russia, don't rush to judgment.
" The U.S. military is not in a position to independently confirm Ukrainian accounts of atrocities by Russian forces against civilians in the town of Bucha, but has no reason to dispute the accounts either, a senior U.S. defense official said on Monday.
"We're seeing the same imagery that you are. We have no reason whatsoever to refute the Ukrainian claims about these atrocities -- clearly, deeply, deeply troubling," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity."
eta - Pretty deceptive of Paul just to post the headline.
I think you have to be pretty clueless to not assume that
(a) the Pentagon didn't consider the claims to be deeply troubling (b) the Pentagon would not say it has no reason to dispute them.
But regardless, when one posts a headline that doesn't coincide with a narrative it's understood that defenders of the narrative are going to pursue the full text.
When one posts just a headline and not the narrative that explains that the headline doesn't tell the whole story one is deceptive.
eta - You didn't even include a link. You say that "it's understood that defenders of the narrative are going to pursue the full text" and you really meant people were going to have to google the headline. You were hoping that most people would read the headline and not pursue it. That's deceptive.
"For some in NATO" is a "some people" statement - for which the only response is "which ones?" Otherwise, it's just a straw man.
And the pictured quote is not from Professor Sachs' essay at the www.commondreams.org link (which one might assume since it comes right after the link). I risked getting insulted again by Paul, and read the article. Professor Sachs has a sensible approach, but the missing piece is the "buy in" by Russia, which so far isn't acting as if it wants to go down the road he outlines.
If the quote is from the WaPo article, I can't read that due to the paywall, so I'll have to trust Paul that it's from that article, and that there are no other clarifying details in the article that he left out.
It is from the WaPo article, but pretty out of context. It's a bit of a messily written article to be honest, so it's both easy to cherry pick individual passages out of it and hard to pick a good excerpt that doesn't leave important bits out, but the thrust of the article is that while the US and its NATO allies acknowledge that it's Ukraine who's fighting and Ukraine who will decide what, if any, peace terms are acceptable, different NATO members have different strategic concerns that will obviously be impacted depending on how the war goes. The eastern European countries that pushed to join NATO are worried Russia will target them next, so understandably hope that however the war ends, it discourages Russia from further territorial ambitions. Countries like the US are thinking of other potential areas of conflict such as Taiwan and hoping countries like China see Russia's experience as an argument against major invasions.
Paul seems to be suggesting that NATO may be trying to artificially extend the conflict, which isn't supported by the article.
When one posts just a headline and not the narrative that explains that the headline doesn't tell the whole story one is deceptive.
Did anyone here read the headline —“Pentagon can’t independently confirm atrocities in Ukraine’s Bucha, official says” — and not think something along the lines of “That stands to reason, given the circumstances”?
When one posts just a headline and not the narrative that explains that the headline doesn't tell the whole story one is deceptive.
Did anyone here read the headline —“Pentagon can’t independently confirm atrocities in Ukraine’s Bucha, official says” — and not think something along the lines of “That stands to reason, given the circumstances”?
Did you google the headline to see what the Pentagon actually said? Do you think most people reading this thread googled the headline? Do you think Paul should have included the link?
A poll- How many people googled the headline to see that the Pentagon actually said:
"We're seeing the same imagery that you are. We have no reason whatsoever to refute the Ukrainian claims about these atrocities -- clearly, deeply, deeply troubling," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity."
Did you google the headline to see what the Pentagon actually said? Do you think most people reading this thread googled the headline? Do you think Paul should have included the link?
No, I didn’t google the headline. I read it here and thought to myself, ”That stands to reason, given the circumstances.”
And, no, I don’t think Paul needed to include the link. It’s a wire service headline, easy enough to google by anyone it interests.
Did you google the headline to see what the Pentagon actually said? Do you think most people reading this thread googled the headline? Do you think Paul should have included the link?
No, I didn’t google the headline. I read it here and thought to myself, ”That stands to reason, given the circumstances.”
And, no, I don’t think Paul needed to include the link. It’s a wire service headline, easy enough to google by anyone it interests.
It interested me. Posting just the headline was deceptive. YMMD.
eta - I amend the above to say "Posting just the headline without a link"
"We're seeing the same imagery that you are. We have no reason whatsoever to refute the Ukrainian claims about these atrocities -- clearly, deeply, deeply troubling," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity."
In 1994, Ukraine agreed to be a non-nuclear state in exchange for security guarantees by the UK, US, and Russia. Russia and the US renewed that commitment in 2009.
Not everyone thought it was a good idea -- here I'm about to turn John Mearsheimer from hero to villain in Nan's heart and note that he argued that "a nuclear arsenal was 'imperative' if Ukraine was 'to maintain peace.' The deterrent, he added, would ensure that the Russians, “who have a history of bad relations with Ukraine, do not move to reconquer it." (Ukraine Gave Up a Giant Nuclear Arsenal 30 Years Ago. Today There Are Regrets, WaPo)
So, for those of use who fear WWIII and nuclear war (which I'd think is everyone, but Nan disagrees, believing some unnamed neocons who apparently control the media and world affairs via some kind of secretive protocol are actively seeking WWW III), Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a disturbing attack on the progress we've made in non-proliferation -- especially combined with Putin's veiled threats of using nuclear weapons.
For me, this is one more reason why it's important that Russia's unjust and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine turn out to be very costly for Russia (and, dare we hope, even a failure). If Russia wins, it's not only a blow for democratic aspirations, it's a blow to the idea of non-proliferation. A nuclear-armed Russia that can invade a county that gave up its nuclear arms, and which can use nuclear blackmail to keep the rest of the world from aiding that country, is a dangerous threat to the goal of avoiding nuclear war.
SEOUL — When Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in the 1990s, experts debated whether the decision would make the country safer or more vulnerable to an invasion from Moscow, its nuclear-armed neighbor.
Now, as Russia pounds Ukrainian cities while being accused of committing atrocities against civilians, many in South Korea say there is no more room for debate.
"On Sunday, a leading human rights group said it had documented “apparent war crimes” against Ukrainian civilians by Russian forces that had occupied Chernihiv, Kharkiv and Kyiv. Citing interviews with eyewitnesses, victims and local residents, the group, Human Rights Watch, documented a case of a woman who was repeatedly raped, as well as two summary killings and other episodes of violence against civilians.
The report painted a grueling picture of brutality in Bucha even before the accounts that emerged from there after Russian forces withdrew.
One eyewitness cited in the report described an execution in early March, in which Russian soldiers forced five men to kneel on a roadside and pull their shirts over their heads before shooting one of them in the head.
"On Sunday, a leading human rights group said it had documented “apparent war crimes” against Ukrainian civilians by Russian forces that had occupied Chernihiv, Kharkiv and Kyiv. Citing interviews with eyewitnesses, victims and local residents, the group, Human Rights Watch, documented a case of a woman who was repeatedly raped, as well as two summary killings and other episodes of violence against civilians.
The report painted a grueling picture of brutality in Bucha even before the accounts that emerged from there after Russian forces withdrew.
One eyewitness cited in the report described an execution in early March, in which Russian soldiers forced five men to kneel on a roadside and pull their shirts over their heads before shooting one of them in the head.
Nan - is this the only platform where you’re debating people on the “special operation “?
If not where else are you having these conversations?
This is the only place I am discussing this in depth. I have a few "discussions" on FB/twitter. I don't have time for this never mind doing more elsewhere. But I am upset and writing helps me cope. I wish this war would end peacefully so I could go back full time to all the other things I need to do and the things I enjoy doing more. Of course none of that will matter if we have a nuclear war.
Nan - is this the only platform where you’re debating people on the “special operation “?
If not where else are you having these conversations?
This is the only place I am discussing this in depth. I have a few "discussions" on FB/twitter. I don't have time for this never mind doing more elsewhere. But I am upset and writing helps me cope. I wish this war would end peacefully so I could go back full time to all the other things I need to do and the things I enjoy doing more. Of course none of that will matter if we have a nuclear war.
I want to make sure I understand -- you're claiming that the largest land invasion since WWII requires less coordination than a coup?
I have never planned a coup or a military invasion but both take a lot of planning. The 2014 Ukraine coup took years to plan and they did not get it done in the first pass. They had to get the NGO to do the social media parts and get the color revolution going and then there was the recruitment and training of the Nazis and the coordination team. Lots of details like having a 100 innocent people murdered on the Maidan and make it look like the government did it. And just think the people who did that are still in high government positions. Crime obviously pays.
For an invasion, you already have an army. You probably just call up one of the generals and put together a task force.
I have never planned a coup or a military invasion but both take a lot of planning. The 2014 Ukraine coup took years to plan and they did not get it done in the first pass. They had to get the NGO to do the social media parts and get the color revolution going and then there was the recruitment and training of the Nazis and the coordination team. Lots of details like having a 100 innocent people murdered on the Maidan and make it look like the government did it. And just think the people who did that are still in high government positions. Isn't that a war crime? Hummm.
For an invasion, you already have an army. You probably just call up one of the generals and put together a task force.
I have never planned a coup or a military invasion but both take a lot of planning. The 2014 Ukraine coup took years to plan and they did not get it done in the first pass. They had to get the NGO to do the social media parts and get the color revolution going and then there was the recruitment and training of the Nazis and the coordination team. Lots of details like having a 100 innocent people murdered on the Maidan and make it look like the government did it. And just think the people who did that are still in high government positions. Crime obviously pays.
For an invasion, you already have an army. You probably just call up one of the generals and put together a task force.
Let's think this through a bit more. Your contention is that Ukraine's current government is just a puppet of the US, installed via a coup that was very successful. And with regards to the Russian invasion, while you would like to see the war end, you do seem to think Russia's goals are legitimate.
The reason I have a hard time seeing your point of view as reasonable is that, on the one hand, a country a continent and an ocean away has supposedly managed to overthrow a government, install another, and effectively control that country over nearly a decade while a large state bordering that same country has to resort to a very large, and so far unsuccessful, military invasion.
I don't plan too many coups or invasions either, but there is no universe in which sending 200,000 strong army to occupy another country takes less effort than having a small handful of people overthrow a government and run it for you. So Russia is, clearly, putting in several orders of magnitude more effort into Ukraine than the US, with worse results. Which leads to a few possible conclusions:
- The US is an amazingly competent, super powerful, almost magical power while Russia is stunningly incompetent. Unlikely -- I mean, we couldn't even manage Afghanistan despite decades and billions of dollars...
- The US coup succeeded and the Russian invasion has been failing because there's actually a lot of Ukrainians who want what the US-imposed government is pursuing and a lot of Ukrainians who don't want whatever Russia is seeking. More plausible, but while US toppling governments is bad, it does rather blunt the moral outrage we should feel if the result was something people in that country actually want
- There wasn't a US coup. Ukrainians in 2014 overthrew a government that had ceased to respond to what Ukrainians actually wanted. I think this is the most plausible, especially as it acknowledges actual Ukrainians, which the coup theory erases.
No scenario I can think of, though, supports any justification for Russian actions. I mean, even if we presume that the US was the driving force behind 2014, we're still faced with the fact that the reaction of Ukrainians to that was to accept that, whereas the reaction of Ukrainians to Russian actions has been to fight like hell. I don't understand how a person can allege that there were "100 innocent people murdered on the Maidan" but then look at the Russian flattening of Mariupol and come away saying that, actually Russia is in the right here.
I would still disagree with you, but at least see it as a sensible POV, if you were claiming that 2014 was a US coup and also strongly denouncing the Russian invasion and saying Putin needs to stop his war. It's when you say claim that 2014 was a coup but then post deflections, defenses, and justifications of Russian actions that you completely lose me. There's just no through line there beyond opposition to the US.
I have never planned a coup or a military invasion but both take a lot of planning. The 2014 Ukraine coup took years to plan and they did not get it done in the first pass. They had to get the NGO to do the social media parts and get the color revolution going and then there was the recruitment and training of the Nazis and the coordination team.
The "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine was in 2004. You're saying that not only the 2014 demonstrations were part of a U,S. "coup", but the original 2004 revolution was, as well. That's really insulting to the people of Ukraine.
The "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine was in 2004. You're saying that not only the 2014 demonstrations were part of a U,S. "coup", but the original 2004 revolution was, as well. That's really insulting to the people of Ukraine.
It's heartbreaking because the people of Ukraine have often been in the middle of conflicts and used as pawns. Insulting is not the word I'd use. More like these: vulture capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, CIA/NGO/, viceroy, terrorists (Nazis), corrupt. proxy war, regime change, and more. And now, instead of focusing on peace negotiations, it looks like the US is pushing to replace Putin and dragging out the war. So, lots more Ukrainians have to die, and their cities destroyed so Biden's Moby Dick can be found and conquered.
Also, the US dollar is losing power and we are going to have inflation and food shortages and out of control oil prices. The sanctions put on Russia are going to boomerang back on us. It's actually insulting to the people of the USA that our tax dollars are going for possible nuclear war when we could have had healthcare instead.
Let's think this through a bit more. Your contention is that Ukraine's current government is just a puppet of the US, installed via a coup that was very successful. And with regards to the Russian invasion, while you would like to see the war end, you do seem to think Russia's goals are legitimate.
The reason I have a hard time seeing your point of view as reasonable is that, on the one hand, a country a continent and an ocean away has supposedly managed to overthrow a government, install another, and effectively control that country over nearly a decade while a large state bordering that same country has to resort to a very large, and so far unsuccessful, military invasion.
I don't plan too many coups or invasions either, but there is no universe in which sending 200,000 strong army to occupy another country takes less effort than having a small handful of people overthrow a government and run it for you. So Russia is, clearly, putting in several orders of magnitude more effort into Ukraine than the US, with worse results. Which leads to a few possible conclusions:
- The US is an amazingly competent, super powerful, almost magical power while Russia is stunningly incompetent. Unlikely -- I mean, we couldn't even manage Afghanistan despite decades and billions of dollars...
- The US coup succeeded and the Russian invasion has been failing because there's actually a lot of Ukrainians who want what the US-imposed government is pursuing and a lot of Ukrainians who don't want whatever Russia is seeking. More plausible, but while US toppling governments is bad, it does rather blunt the moral outrage we should feel if the result was something people in that country actually want
- There wasn't a US coup. Ukrainians in 2014 overthrew a government that had ceased to respond to what Ukrainians actually wanted. I think this is the most plausible, especially as it acknowledges actual Ukrainians, which the coup theory erases.
No scenario I can think of, though, supports any justification for Russian actions. I mean, even if we presume that the US was the driving force behind 2014, we're still faced with the fact that the reaction of Ukrainians to that was to accept that, whereas the reaction of Ukrainians to Russian actions has been to fight like hell. I don't understand how a person can allege that there were "100 innocent people murdered on the Maidan" but then look at the Russian flattening of Mariupol and come away saying that, actually Russia is in the right here.
I would still disagree with you, but at least see it as a sensible POV, if you were claiming that 2014 was a US coup and also strongly denouncing the Russian invasion and saying Putin needs to stop his war. It's when you say claim that 2014 was a coup but then post deflections, defenses, and justifications of Russian actions that you completely lose me. There's just no through line there beyond opposition to the US.
Did you watch Ukraine on Fire? Yesterday they had a live presentation including an interview with the director.
The "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine was in 2004. You're saying that not only the 2014 demonstrations were part of a U,S. "coup", but the original 2004 revolution was, as well. That's really insulting to the people of Ukraine.
It's heartbreaking because the people of Ukraine have often been in the middle of conflicts and used as pawns. Insulting is not the word I'd use. More like these: vulture capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, CIA/NGO/, viceroy, terrorists (Nazis), corrupt. proxy war, regime change, and more. And now, instead of focusing on peace negotiations, it looks like the US is pushing to replace Putin and dragging out the war. So, lots more Ukrainians have to die, and their cities destroyed so Biden's Moby Dick can be found and conquered.
Your expression of concern for the people of Ukraine is touching.
Did you watch Ukraine on Fire? Yesterday they had a live presentation including an interview with the director.
You know I didn't and am not going to watch that.
I generally feel that people posting should be able to make their own arguments. Not that those arguments have to be original -- really, aren't we all in the end just adding a layer on what we've received from others? -- but should be able to make the argument. If something I saw, read, or heard struck me as convincing, it's a good test of how well I absorbed it if I can restate the case in my own words. If I can't, then maybe I need to go back and re-read/listen/watch.
It's heartbreaking because the people of Ukraine have often been in the middle of conflicts and used as pawns. Insulting is not the word I'd use. More like these: vulture capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, CIA/NGO/, viceroy, terrorists (Nazis), corrupt. proxy war, regime change, and more. And now, instead of focusing on peace negotiations, it looks like the US is pushing to replace Putin and dragging out the war. So, lots more Ukrainians have to die, and their cities destroyed so Biden's Moby Dick can be found and conquered.
Also, the US dollar is losing power and we are going to have inflation and food shortages and out of control oil prices. The sanctions put on Russia are going to boomerang back on us. It's actually insulting to the people of the USA that our tax dollars are going for possible nuclear war when we could have had healthcare instead.
What I see missing from this is a discussion of Ukrainian actions and goals. It's a bit ironic in the context of complaints that Ukraine is being treated as a pawn.
The "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine was in 2004. You're saying that not only the 2014 demonstrations were part of a U,S. "coup", but the original 2004 revolution was, as well. That's really insulting to the people of Ukraine.
It's heartbreaking because the people of Ukraine have often been in the middle of conflicts and used as pawns. Insulting is not the word I'd use. More like these: vulture capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, CIA/NGO/, viceroy, terrorists (Nazis), corrupt. proxy war, regime change, and more. And now, instead of focusing on peace negotiations, it looks like the US is pushing to replace Putin and dragging out the war. So, lots more Ukrainians have to die, and their cities destroyed so Biden's Moby Dick can be found and conquered.
Your expression of concern for the people of Ukraine is touching.
Absolutely touching.
What is really impressive is how dry her tissues are. How does she do it? Zaz is a wonder!
Your expression of concern for the people of Ukraine is touching.
It's more than they get from the US government who just uses them to get Putin.
‘Gods of War’: How the US weaponized Ukraine against Russia
Since the US-engineered 2013-14 coup in Ukraine, American forces have taught Ukrainians, including neo-Nazi units, how to fight in urban and other civilian areas. Weaponizing Ukraine is part of Washington’s quest for what the Pentagon calls “full spectrum dominance.”
Also, the US dollar is losing power and we are going to have inflation and food shortages and out of control oil prices.
The U.S. dollar is near a two-year high because of the Fed's intention to increase interest rates.
NEW YORK, April 6 (Reuters) - The dollar surged to a nearly two-year high on Wednesday after minutes of the last Federal Reserve meeting reinforced expectations of multiple half percentage-point rate increases to control soaring inflation.
1. The U.S.and other allies are fomenting conflict with Russia, and arming and training Ukrainians to fight on its behalf
2. Ukrainians are fighting Russia, and are asking for and receiving arms and training from the U.S. and other allies.
Two different scenarios -- in the first, Ukraine is a pawn, in the second, an independent actor -- but the outward signs may appear very similar in both cases. How do we discern the difference?
"For some in NATO" is a "some people" statement - for which the only response is "which ones?" Otherwise, it's just a straw man.
And the pictured quote is not from Professor Sachs' essay at the www.commondreams.org link (which one might assume since it comes right after the link). I risked getting insulted again by Paul, and read the article. Professor Sachs has a sensible approach, but the missing piece is the "buy in" by Russia, which so far isn't acting as if it wants to go down the road he outlines.
If the quote is from the WaPo article, I can't read that due to the paywall, so I'll have to trust Paul that it's from that article, and that there are no other clarifying details in the article that he left out.