Although I do have a lot of serious criticisms of the Biden Administration's foreign policy decision-making (especially regarding failure to support our allies in Afghanistan and failure to support Ukraine with what it needs to win), it is heartening that under a Harris administration, there will be a strong degree of foreign policy continuity.
One can only imagine what former President Trump will do to our standing in the world if he is re-elected. Perhaps we can think less about that now, and more about what a Harris administration might do instead.
Mearsheimer once urged Ukraine to keep its nuclear weapons, now he's the new Neville Chamberlain. He's not credible anymore. Sachs is notoriously, hilariously wrong about everything going on in Russia, and has been since the 1990s. If you are following those two, you are indeed misguided. p.s. I thought you had promised to go away. Why not keep your promise?
The fact that Canada and Mexico are friendlies at this time is irrelevant and quite frankly I expected that response from you because it’s weak and doesn’t address the reality faced by Russia. Arguing it’s hypothetical is nothing more than an easy way to avoid the point. Regardless, you never answered the question of whether the US would stand having any country place to have massive troop deployments along its borders that include nuclear weapons.
Just because you say you have answered the question doesn’t make it so.
Btw.. The USSR attempted to place nukes during the cuban missile crisis. Russia has stated they have placed no nuclear weapons in Cuba nor plan to and the US has an acknowledged this.
Now I’m done because you are clearly never going to answer the damn question. Typical.
It took you so long to respond that I had actually forgotten about this conversation. If you don't want to continue it, even with long delays, then good riddance to you.
I have a few Ukrainian friends who would like to talk to you about what Russia is doing to their country, and why, if we value freedom and human rights, we must support Ukraine. Isolationism only begets more, and worse, conflicts. I fear that many Americans have forgotten the lessons of the 1930s and will have to learn them all over again at great cost.
Well, you're certainly bouncing all over the lot, but at least you not asking the same already-answered question over and over again. With regard to the negotiating record on German reunification, you need to understand the difference between changing negotiating positions and the finished document that resulted from the 2+4 process and was signed and binding for everyone. In that document, there are no commitments concerning NATO expansion. https://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/2plusfour8994e.htm
I have asked you to respond to my question several times, well before you posed any questions of your own. If you refuse to reply I can only assume you know the answer and just don’t want to destroy your argument that that this invasion wasn’t provoked.
Just answer the question. It’s really not as complicated as you want and seem to need it to be.
You continually refuse to answer the question of what the US would do if any nation placed any foreign weaponry or troops along its borders. No one ever does! This is because the entire Russia invaded unprovoked’ argument falls apart.
And you keep shifting your arguments. I see, however, that you must have run out of new material since you didn't answer my last reply.
You will recall that originally I told you that the US did respond when the USSR placed nuclear weapons in Cuba. At the risk of repeating myself, since you evidently didn't understand the first time, the problem was nuclear weapons threatening the United States. The United States responded in that case.
You may not know this, but both the Russians and the Chinese have deployed units to Cuba. The Chinese currently have a unit in Cuba, and the Russians recently deployed the flagship of their Northern Fleet and missile submarine to Cuba. In the latter case they specified that no nuclear weapons were carried by either vessel, although they did conduct exercises in the Caribbean. The Russians and Chinese have conducted joint deployments off the coast of Alaska. The Russians also deployed missile submarines off the coast of the United States during the Cold War. None of these military deployments resulted in conflict.
Obviously, only Mexico and Canada have land borders with the United States, so your hypothetical question is a bit irrelevant. The Russians, due to their incessant expansion, have land borders with 14 countries. In the Soviet era, their forces bordered on many more countries. Those countries all have the right of self-defense and some have joined NATO. US forces are based in some of these countries. So what?
Finally, you have not taken notice of the fact that the Russians also are basing their forces in other countries. They currently have nuclear missiles and a substantial contingent in Belarus. By your logic, that should pose an immediate threat to NATO and we should do something about it immediately. However, international politics is a bit more complicated than that, as I hope you will learn. Russia also has "peacekeeping forces" in Transnistria that pose a threat to the sovereignty of Moldova, occupy around twenty percent of Georgia, and until they were expelled, had a substantial contingent in Armenia. They also have a substantial contingent of mercenary forces in Africa, among other places.
So, stop being naive, realize that the world is a complicated place, and please stop falling for the oversimplifications inherent in Russian propaganda.
Your last question is loaded as I could ‘ramble’ as you say for pages. Your ‘look with your eyes ‘ comment with regard to the USSR is ridiculous. Russia is not the USSR. The USSR has not been around since 1990/91. Russia relinquished Ukraine sovereignty under the terms it would never allow NATO or foreign weapons on its soil. Reagan and Gorbachev came to that agreement. Google it. In fact it was announced NATO would not move an inch east if the USSR disbanded. Then Clinton got in and he saw Russia in chaos and was determined to grow NATO. Many of the most respected politicians at the time agreed NATO was only in place to create a power balance with the USSR. The US (Clinton specifically) and NATO reneged on this agreement. The original Minsk agreement intended to stop any further tension and escalation but when the leader of the Ukraine decided to pursue a relationship economically with Russia rather than the EU the US and the UK collaborated to facilitate and help organize (Victoria Nuland) the coup in the Ukraine to put a western friendly leader in place. These are just a couple of examples of why the US in’t any more trustworthy than Russia and why Russia has no reason to trust the US.
You clearly have a lot to read when it comes to the history behind the break up of the USSR and its relationship with Ukraine.
At this point, unless you have an answer or response to the question I have posed twice now .. how do you think the US would respond to being surrounded by foreign military placements along its borders? .. I suspect you know full well it would be considered an existential threat by the US. I see no reason to continue this discussion unless you have a response to that specific question.
Once again, you are repeating a current Russian disinformation line. Gorbachev himself said that no promises were made regarding NATO expansion. Since then, apologists for the Putin regime have continuously raised this as a false justification for their own expansionist designs.
And, in case you didn't notice, the policy of the USSR and the Putin regime are very similar. Why do you think this is? Because the current leadership of the Putin regime used to be "devout" members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and preached endless expansion. They have now changed their spots and are devout members of the Orthodox Church, having adopted the endless expansion ideal not of the Soviet Union, but of Russia under the Tsars.
You might also notice that the most powerful members of the current Russian power structure all come from Leningrad and are either former members of the Leningrad KGB, Putin's clan, or both. So, don't be naive.
As for your assertion that "You clearly have a lot to read when it comes to the history behind the break up of the USSR and its relationship with Ukraine," try doing a little homework first before you make such a statement. Here: I'll help you: https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-f-schumaker-aaa24710/ . You'll find my short biography under the "About" section at the top.
James, I appreciate the time you have clearly taken to respond to my last post.
Let me start that I. Would never trust the word of the US on such matters because I am a lifetime student of history.
I do actually watch Russian state run news channels as part of around 10 national news outlets from Europe, Asia and of course North America. I have access to them all.
Having said that, the mainstream western media is just as adept and experienced at pure propaganda as any other country, including Russia. That’s why I read everything I can, fact check as best I can and talk to people from around the world.
If you don’t agree with me that the western mainstream media is trapped with in an information bubble of propganda, I think that might be why we may not be able to agree on this issue.
With regard to your comment “I would remind you in particular that NATO expansion has been a response to Russian aggression, not a cause of it” … you are implying, as do so many others, that without NATO’s presence Russia would have had eyes on invading and controlling other countries throughout Putin’s time in office I say show me evidence.
But when an invading leader clearly states he would never allow it to happen and is willing to go to war over it I say, that is proof to the contrary. I can find videos, past and president of Putin speaking the world leaders accusing the US of making up such ideas and clarifying no such Intentions. I have watched countless hours of interviews with Putin going back to before 2014.
I have yet to see or be shown any evidence that NATO has stopped Russia or any country from considering an invasion of any NATO nation.
The irony is their presence has done the opposite with Russian and the Ukraine.
I remind people of president Eisenhower’s departure speech where he clearly warns Americans about the possibility of the US military might being used for global geo political power and influence around the world. It’s happened. NATO is
now its muse.
While it may be true that Russia has had its fair share of wars that were questionable I would argue that the UK and the US have been guilty of far more war crimes.
Putin has done nothing the United Staes hasn’t done in spades and done unilaterally without the UN Security Council’ approval, whether it be illegal occupations, invasions, assisting in coups, abducting other world leaders, torturing people and taking away fundamentals rights under the so called Geneva Convention.
The US is an outlier to the majority of the UN by ignoring what the majority of the UN wants and vetoing the majority of its UN members. It was even exposed they had plans to blackmail and extort UN security members to get approval for their unjustified and fabricated reasons to invade Iraq.
And you say Russia should be trusted?
Though proven from intercepted and leaked emails, there was no global outcry against the US when brought to light. Who else would get away with such actions against its so called global friends with no sanctions or other repercussion.
NATO leaders are intimidated and controlled by the US. NATO is seen as a threat to non-NATO nations (which is the vast majority of the worlds nations) and seen as the proxy arm of the US due in large part to its military might and financial influence over other NATO nations.
Russia would be foolish to believe NATO wouldn’t place nuclear weapons in Russia because the US has lost its integrity due to its blatant hypocrisy on most foreign matters.
It would be naive of them to believe any such promise as the US has meddled in so many other foreign nations, as has Russia themselves.
Again, would the US allow such a close placement of Russian weapons.. of any kind, to be placed so close to its own borders.
The proximity to Moscow from the Ukraine border is close enough to be attacked by conventional weaponry.
Let’s not believe the leaders of the US government care about civilian deaths in the Ukraine.
I honestly feel bad for the Ukrainian people as they have a leader who is told not to give up and trust the world has their back.
The US only cares about selling hundreds of billions in arms and using strongman tactics to bully other nations into going along. Many of the EU’s leaders have shown a reluctance to follow the US but all end up capitulating when threatened by the US economically.
I will ask the question again.
Would the US would tolerate a similar situation where a group of foreign countries, united militarily saw the US as a threat and decided to place troops along is northern and southern borders?
I must say, you appear to be completely trapped in your own information bubble. You ramble quite a bit, so I'm not going to answer all your questions, but here's an answer to one you should already know the answer to.
You ask for me to provide proof that "NATO has stopped Russia or any country from considering an invasion of any NATO nation." How about the evidence of your own eyes? Name one NATO member that has been invaded by the USSR or Russia. You can't, because there aren't any.
Now name non-NATO members invaded by the USSR and Russia. Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Romania when they were not yet NATO members. Warsaw Pact members Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968). Afghanistan (1979-1989), Georgia (2008), Ukraine (2014-present).
I could answer the rest of your declarative statements in the same way, but tempus fugit.
I will instead restrict myself to a question: what did you mean when you said that "Russia would be foolish to believe NATO wouldn’t place nuclear weapons in Russia because the US has lost its integrity due to its blatant hypocrisy on most foreign matters."
With all due respect to your Ukrainian friends, I feel this conflict would never have occurred without the influence of the US and UK going back to before the first Minsk Accord.
Russia, simply wasn’t going to tolerate NATO forces and weapons along 2000 Kim’s of border. Nor would the US if roles reversed.
Remember the secret US weapon placement and the Bay of Pigs .. a threat of Russia to put weapons in Cuba.
Why do we take history classes to learn about past historical mistakes yet refuse to learn from our mistakes.
I believe an agreement between the Ukraine and Russia can be reached but only if the US and other NATO nations remove themselves from the conflict.
Initial steps:
Ukraine agrees to never become a member of NATO with assurances those in the Donbas be legally allowed to speak their mother tongue Russian, and access their worship houses of choice. In additional, remove troop forces in the area and ensure their region is made available to the same financial supports as the western part of the country.
I believe this would be a good place to sit down and start to negotiate.
Judging from your thoughtful comments, I have concluded that you are not a paid poster, as so many are, but sincerely believe what you have written. Let me just say that the Putin regime gains strength and is moved to further acts of aggression when those in the West engage in pre-emptive capitulation, which is what your post embodies. The regime is also given crucial aid by those who swallow the Kremlin's propaganda line whole and do not know the history of the region ( I would recommend Timothy Snyder's substack if you want to learn more).
I would also advise that you pay attention to what is actually being said on Russian state media. If you do not know Russian, you can still get the highlights from Julia Davis' site, Russian Media Monitor. You may be shocked by what you hear. State media these days consists of a collection of propagandists bellowing hatred at the West, threatening to nuke Washington and New York, among other things, and spreading the myth of the inevitability of Russian imperial expansion. They also express genocidal intentions against Ukraine.
This all stems from Putin's delusional view of history, which has pushed him on his current path. He is only too happy to use the excuses provided for him by naive people in the West who sincerely want peace, but, as in the 1930s, have no understanding of the true evil represented by him and his regime.
I would also caution against negotiating for Ukraine. That smacks of the deals made over the heads of the Czechs at Munich, and we all know how that turned out. Also, of course, Ukrainians would rather fight and die than agree to a capitulation negotiated by the Great Powers.
I would remind you in particular that NATO expansion has been a response to Russian aggression, not a cause of it. Eastern Europeans and now Scandinavians have flocked to NATO as a means of protecting themselves from what they accurately view as continuing Russian attempts to expand to its old imperial borders, which included not just the countries of the former Soviet Union, but also Finland, Poland, Manchuria and Alaska, and embodied ambitions to conquer a warm-water port, usually identified in Russian imperial times as Constantinople.
If you study the history of the region, you will find that Ukraine has suffered from centuries of oppression at the hands of Russia. Its culture and its language were, until the fall of the Soviet Union, carefully circumscribed subjects, and often forbidden. All of present-day Ukraine and much of the Russian areas bordering Ukraine used to speak Ukrainian, or Surzhik, a mixture of Ukrainian and Russian. The few areas where the majority speak Russian today were also subjected to forced resettlement of Russians to those areas and ethnic cleansing, such as the genocidal actions taken against the Crimean Tatars under Stalin. So, the subject of who should speak which language is not as cut and dried as you suggest. Now that the Russians have occupied parts of Eastern Ukraine, they are renewing these policies, which aim at the destruction of the Ukrainian language and culture, and the kidnapping of Ukrainian children to Russia where they are "Russianized" (Putin has been accused of war crimes by the ICC over this). It is Putin's long-term objective for all of Ukraine, as revealed by documents captured early in the present war.
I would also remind you that unlike the USSR, which placed nuclear missiles in Cuba, neither the United States nor any other power has plans to place nuclear weapons in Ukraine. We are providing weapons to Ukraine for its self-defense. In contrast, Russia has placed nuclear missiles in Belarus, near the border of Poland.
The situation is not as simple as many Westerners think. I strongly urge you to learn more about the realities of the region and Russia's true intentions.
“I would remind you that almost everything g you’ve talked about is the USSR, a country that has not existed for well over 30 years but you just can’t get past it.
But since you brought it up!!
I would remind you, the USSR sent missiles to Cuba because the US had first secretly placed weapons on the border of Turkey.
Surely you know this? The US were the initial provocateurs in the eyes of the USSR in that event. Again, I’m tired of the double standard that always applies to the US.
You bring up the ICJ in your reference to Putin. In your words,
“I would remind you” that the same ICJ that you are referring to that decided Putin was a war criminal also declared Netanyahu was a war criminal. Yet, soon after he was declared so the US welcomed him with outstretched arms and let him into your congress to give a speech.
Again the hypocrisy.
I could go in. It I fear it pointless. You won’t answer the most basic question.
If Russia led and majority financed a large group of heavily influenced countries (like the USSR) to place its military weapons s and personnel up against 2000 km of border, would they sit back and do nothing or threaten nuclear war and invade to show they won’t stand for the threat to its security???
Please, just answer the question without making it any more complicated than it needs to be with a lesson in the history of the Ukraine/Russia.
Okay, if Kamala Harris wins in November and retains Phil Gordon as her National Security Advisor, we might see a certain degree of continuity in policy. So far, so good. However, there has been widespread criticism, both within Ukraine and among international experts (such as yourself, if I am not mistaken), that the Biden administration's assistance policies have been described as: “Too little, too late,” as one of providing a drip-feed supply of weapons, as a policy of escalation management, or a policy aimed at preventing Ukraine from losing without ensuring its victory. These critiques highlight the approach of giving Ukraine enough support to be strong defensively on the battlefield but not necessarily enough to secure a decisive win. President Biden has mentioned that the U.S. aims to put Ukraine "in the strongest possible position to defend their nation," which some interpret as providing just enough support to maintain a stalemate.
Can Ukraine sustain itself under these policies? Where is the articulation of a policy that will lead to Ukrainian victory? Or even a definitive statement that the policy of the United States is to ensure Ukrainian victory? Might Phil Gordon, contrary to Jake Sullivan, be a National Security Advisor who would advise a President Harris to explicitly state that the policy of the United States is Ukrainian victory and Russian defeat? Would he advocate for U.S. assistance that fulfills this intent, including lifting restrictions to allow Ukraine to target Russian airfields, weapon depots, and bases deeper within Russia than currently permitted?
If the US had the threat of 2000 km of their own border having Russian troop and missile bases how would they respond? Do you not think this would provoke them to threaten nuclear retaliation. The US did exactly that to resolve the Bay of Pigs.
Why is it so hard to understand that if the Ukraine needs to say NO to NATO expansion inti Ukraine, accept Ukraine CAN NOT win this war due to basic math and the dwindling pool of recruits. They simply do not have enough troops. The best thing that could happen now is to stop the killing by negotiating with Putin.
The world may not like it, but the Russians feel justified enough to wait this war out.
Regarding the isolationist Republicans such as Vance, he and several others served in the military in Iraq, a war we should never have gotten into. Most Republicans regret that action. Although I fully support President Biden's actions in Ukraine, I think it is interesting that veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan want to avoid foreign entanglements.
I would expect that Republicans who rate the wars as worth fighting would be "normie" vs MAGA "Republicans" who are blocking our efforts to support Ukraine. Vance: "I don't really care about Ukraine". The Pew report was very interesting.
What I don't understand is why the support we have finally approved is so slow in delivery. Especially needed are Patriot missile batteries
Last year, the Republican House of Representatives held up funds for Ukraine for over five months. This created a dreadful situation at the front, as Ukraine began running out of weaponry. Two guesses as to which ex-President told them to drag their feet.
This year, all we've got to deal with is the Biden Administration's dithering. I'm not privy to the internal bickering going on, but the upshot is that Ukraine is getting just enough to hang on and not enough to win.
Patriots are an extremely expensive weapons system, and sometimes it is not a good trade to use one of them against an incoming missile or aircraft. The Russians will "flood the zone" with cheap missiles in the hope that Ukraine will use up its best missiles which will be needed later for worse threats.
The real problem is that Ukraine is not being allowed to use U.S. weapons to attack strategic targets outside of Ukraine. ATACMS could take out airbases and missile sites within 300 km of the border otherwise, and then aircraft like the newly-arrived F-16s could be used more aggressively. This would stop the Russians in their tracks and give Ukraine time to recover. The empty threat that this would cross a red line and lead to (insert whatever bluster Putin has decided on for the day) is just that -- empty.
I've given you the answer several times, and you continue to refuse to respond to my answers in any meaningful way. You appear to be in a blind alley. You also appear to think that if weapons are 90 miles offshore, they somehow are not threatening, but that weapons 100 miles away from a land border are threatening. Your question lacks logic.
If either Biden or Harris truly supported Ukraine they would stop protecting Russia and permit a country to table a resolution in the UN to remove Putin's impostor representatives from UN premises.
Set aside your preconceptions that it will be vetoed or would require a super-majority. That is 33 year old Kremlin disinformation.
Millions of lives, cities and economies have been lost or destroyed, fiddling about this issue while Ukraine burns. It's time to act.
As few as 15 countries could be able to pass the necessary UNGA resolution - a majority present and voting - abstentions do not count. But to vote in favour of continued violation of the UN Charter and to give control over the entire world to a terrorist state sponsoring corruption and wars would be politically impossible for governments once the issue hits the public attention. Not to mention the vast majority of small states to whom the UN should be providing protection from aggression and economic chaos caused by it. There's a real possibility it would be passed almost unanimously.
The legal way is the preferable way, easiest, fastest and foolproof. It will remove Russia's platform and "get out of jail free" hegemony used to run and expand the Kremlin's protection racket and immediately open the legal avenue for NATO together with other countries to intervene legally under UN authority, expel the invaders and enforce a buffer zone in Russia.
Who is Putin going to nuke if the whole world moves together?
Let me know what you think. Have I missed anything?
The performance of a politician should not be judged by what this politician says but rather by the policies that are enacted by this politician while in office and tte outcomes from these policies for his or her constituents., In his period as POTUS, Trump brought peace and prosperity to. his constituents. In his period as POTUS, Biden brought war and poverty to his constituents. Harri's policy preferences resemble Biden's,
Although I do have a lot of serious criticisms of the Biden Administration's foreign policy decision-making (especially regarding failure to support our allies in Afghanistan and failure to support Ukraine with what it needs to win), it is heartening that under a Harris administration, there will be a strong degree of foreign policy continuity.
One can only imagine what former President Trump will do to our standing in the world if he is re-elected. Perhaps we can think less about that now, and more about what a Harris administration might do instead.
Watch and learn from people who understand foreign policy far better than you or I. https://open.substack.com/pub/mearsheimer/p/john-mearsheimer-and-jeffrey-sachs?r=1o7g82&utm_medium=ios
Mearsheimer once urged Ukraine to keep its nuclear weapons, now he's the new Neville Chamberlain. He's not credible anymore. Sachs is notoriously, hilariously wrong about everything going on in Russia, and has been since the 1990s. If you are following those two, you are indeed misguided. p.s. I thought you had promised to go away. Why not keep your promise?
The fact that Canada and Mexico are friendlies at this time is irrelevant and quite frankly I expected that response from you because it’s weak and doesn’t address the reality faced by Russia. Arguing it’s hypothetical is nothing more than an easy way to avoid the point. Regardless, you never answered the question of whether the US would stand having any country place to have massive troop deployments along its borders that include nuclear weapons.
Just because you say you have answered the question doesn’t make it so.
Btw.. The USSR attempted to place nukes during the cuban missile crisis. Russia has stated they have placed no nuclear weapons in Cuba nor plan to and the US has an acknowledged this.
Now I’m done because you are clearly never going to answer the damn question. Typical.
It took you so long to respond that I had actually forgotten about this conversation. If you don't want to continue it, even with long delays, then good riddance to you.
I fear you may have that backward but I hope you’re right. I want a leader that stops supporting both conflicts.
I have a few Ukrainian friends who would like to talk to you about what Russia is doing to their country, and why, if we value freedom and human rights, we must support Ukraine. Isolationism only begets more, and worse, conflicts. I fear that many Americans have forgotten the lessons of the 1930s and will have to learn them all over again at great cost.
You can argue who said what to who but here is ‘what was said and what was clearly understood between the negotiators at the time.. “
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
Well, you're certainly bouncing all over the lot, but at least you not asking the same already-answered question over and over again. With regard to the negotiating record on German reunification, you need to understand the difference between changing negotiating positions and the finished document that resulted from the 2+4 process and was signed and binding for everyone. In that document, there are no commitments concerning NATO expansion. https://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/2plusfour8994e.htm
Would the USA respond military against any non-ally country that tries to place weapons along any of its borders thin 100 miles?
Yes or no????
A very simple question to answer for such a smart guy like you.
I have asked you to respond to my question several times, well before you posed any questions of your own. If you refuse to reply I can only assume you know the answer and just don’t want to destroy your argument that that this invasion wasn’t provoked.
Just answer the question. It’s really not as complicated as you want and seem to need it to be.
You continually refuse to answer the question of what the US would do if any nation placed any foreign weaponry or troops along its borders. No one ever does! This is because the entire Russia invaded unprovoked’ argument falls apart.
And you keep shifting your arguments. I see, however, that you must have run out of new material since you didn't answer my last reply.
You will recall that originally I told you that the US did respond when the USSR placed nuclear weapons in Cuba. At the risk of repeating myself, since you evidently didn't understand the first time, the problem was nuclear weapons threatening the United States. The United States responded in that case.
You may not know this, but both the Russians and the Chinese have deployed units to Cuba. The Chinese currently have a unit in Cuba, and the Russians recently deployed the flagship of their Northern Fleet and missile submarine to Cuba. In the latter case they specified that no nuclear weapons were carried by either vessel, although they did conduct exercises in the Caribbean. The Russians and Chinese have conducted joint deployments off the coast of Alaska. The Russians also deployed missile submarines off the coast of the United States during the Cold War. None of these military deployments resulted in conflict.
Obviously, only Mexico and Canada have land borders with the United States, so your hypothetical question is a bit irrelevant. The Russians, due to their incessant expansion, have land borders with 14 countries. In the Soviet era, their forces bordered on many more countries. Those countries all have the right of self-defense and some have joined NATO. US forces are based in some of these countries. So what?
Finally, you have not taken notice of the fact that the Russians also are basing their forces in other countries. They currently have nuclear missiles and a substantial contingent in Belarus. By your logic, that should pose an immediate threat to NATO and we should do something about it immediately. However, international politics is a bit more complicated than that, as I hope you will learn. Russia also has "peacekeeping forces" in Transnistria that pose a threat to the sovereignty of Moldova, occupy around twenty percent of Georgia, and until they were expelled, had a substantial contingent in Armenia. They also have a substantial contingent of mercenary forces in Africa, among other places.
So, stop being naive, realize that the world is a complicated place, and please stop falling for the oversimplifications inherent in Russian propaganda.
Your last question is loaded as I could ‘ramble’ as you say for pages. Your ‘look with your eyes ‘ comment with regard to the USSR is ridiculous. Russia is not the USSR. The USSR has not been around since 1990/91. Russia relinquished Ukraine sovereignty under the terms it would never allow NATO or foreign weapons on its soil. Reagan and Gorbachev came to that agreement. Google it. In fact it was announced NATO would not move an inch east if the USSR disbanded. Then Clinton got in and he saw Russia in chaos and was determined to grow NATO. Many of the most respected politicians at the time agreed NATO was only in place to create a power balance with the USSR. The US (Clinton specifically) and NATO reneged on this agreement. The original Minsk agreement intended to stop any further tension and escalation but when the leader of the Ukraine decided to pursue a relationship economically with Russia rather than the EU the US and the UK collaborated to facilitate and help organize (Victoria Nuland) the coup in the Ukraine to put a western friendly leader in place. These are just a couple of examples of why the US in’t any more trustworthy than Russia and why Russia has no reason to trust the US.
You clearly have a lot to read when it comes to the history behind the break up of the USSR and its relationship with Ukraine.
At this point, unless you have an answer or response to the question I have posed twice now .. how do you think the US would respond to being surrounded by foreign military placements along its borders? .. I suspect you know full well it would be considered an existential threat by the US. I see no reason to continue this discussion unless you have a response to that specific question.
Once again, you are repeating a current Russian disinformation line. Gorbachev himself said that no promises were made regarding NATO expansion. Since then, apologists for the Putin regime have continuously raised this as a false justification for their own expansionist designs.
And, in case you didn't notice, the policy of the USSR and the Putin regime are very similar. Why do you think this is? Because the current leadership of the Putin regime used to be "devout" members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and preached endless expansion. They have now changed their spots and are devout members of the Orthodox Church, having adopted the endless expansion ideal not of the Soviet Union, but of Russia under the Tsars.
You might also notice that the most powerful members of the current Russian power structure all come from Leningrad and are either former members of the Leningrad KGB, Putin's clan, or both. So, don't be naive.
As for your assertion that "You clearly have a lot to read when it comes to the history behind the break up of the USSR and its relationship with Ukraine," try doing a little homework first before you make such a statement. Here: I'll help you: https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-f-schumaker-aaa24710/ . You'll find my short biography under the "About" section at the top.
James, I appreciate the time you have clearly taken to respond to my last post.
Let me start that I. Would never trust the word of the US on such matters because I am a lifetime student of history.
I do actually watch Russian state run news channels as part of around 10 national news outlets from Europe, Asia and of course North America. I have access to them all.
Having said that, the mainstream western media is just as adept and experienced at pure propaganda as any other country, including Russia. That’s why I read everything I can, fact check as best I can and talk to people from around the world.
If you don’t agree with me that the western mainstream media is trapped with in an information bubble of propganda, I think that might be why we may not be able to agree on this issue.
With regard to your comment “I would remind you in particular that NATO expansion has been a response to Russian aggression, not a cause of it” … you are implying, as do so many others, that without NATO’s presence Russia would have had eyes on invading and controlling other countries throughout Putin’s time in office I say show me evidence.
But when an invading leader clearly states he would never allow it to happen and is willing to go to war over it I say, that is proof to the contrary. I can find videos, past and president of Putin speaking the world leaders accusing the US of making up such ideas and clarifying no such Intentions. I have watched countless hours of interviews with Putin going back to before 2014.
I have yet to see or be shown any evidence that NATO has stopped Russia or any country from considering an invasion of any NATO nation.
The irony is their presence has done the opposite with Russian and the Ukraine.
I remind people of president Eisenhower’s departure speech where he clearly warns Americans about the possibility of the US military might being used for global geo political power and influence around the world. It’s happened. NATO is
now its muse.
While it may be true that Russia has had its fair share of wars that were questionable I would argue that the UK and the US have been guilty of far more war crimes.
Putin has done nothing the United Staes hasn’t done in spades and done unilaterally without the UN Security Council’ approval, whether it be illegal occupations, invasions, assisting in coups, abducting other world leaders, torturing people and taking away fundamentals rights under the so called Geneva Convention.
The US is an outlier to the majority of the UN by ignoring what the majority of the UN wants and vetoing the majority of its UN members. It was even exposed they had plans to blackmail and extort UN security members to get approval for their unjustified and fabricated reasons to invade Iraq.
And you say Russia should be trusted?
Though proven from intercepted and leaked emails, there was no global outcry against the US when brought to light. Who else would get away with such actions against its so called global friends with no sanctions or other repercussion.
NATO leaders are intimidated and controlled by the US. NATO is seen as a threat to non-NATO nations (which is the vast majority of the worlds nations) and seen as the proxy arm of the US due in large part to its military might and financial influence over other NATO nations.
Russia would be foolish to believe NATO wouldn’t place nuclear weapons in Russia because the US has lost its integrity due to its blatant hypocrisy on most foreign matters.
It would be naive of them to believe any such promise as the US has meddled in so many other foreign nations, as has Russia themselves.
Again, would the US allow such a close placement of Russian weapons.. of any kind, to be placed so close to its own borders.
The proximity to Moscow from the Ukraine border is close enough to be attacked by conventional weaponry.
Let’s not believe the leaders of the US government care about civilian deaths in the Ukraine.
I honestly feel bad for the Ukrainian people as they have a leader who is told not to give up and trust the world has their back.
The US only cares about selling hundreds of billions in arms and using strongman tactics to bully other nations into going along. Many of the EU’s leaders have shown a reluctance to follow the US but all end up capitulating when threatened by the US economically.
I will ask the question again.
Would the US would tolerate a similar situation where a group of foreign countries, united militarily saw the US as a threat and decided to place troops along is northern and southern borders?
I know not. I just have to read my history.
I must say, you appear to be completely trapped in your own information bubble. You ramble quite a bit, so I'm not going to answer all your questions, but here's an answer to one you should already know the answer to.
You ask for me to provide proof that "NATO has stopped Russia or any country from considering an invasion of any NATO nation." How about the evidence of your own eyes? Name one NATO member that has been invaded by the USSR or Russia. You can't, because there aren't any.
Now name non-NATO members invaded by the USSR and Russia. Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Romania when they were not yet NATO members. Warsaw Pact members Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968). Afghanistan (1979-1989), Georgia (2008), Ukraine (2014-present).
I could answer the rest of your declarative statements in the same way, but tempus fugit.
I will instead restrict myself to a question: what did you mean when you said that "Russia would be foolish to believe NATO wouldn’t place nuclear weapons in Russia because the US has lost its integrity due to its blatant hypocrisy on most foreign matters."
With all due respect to your Ukrainian friends, I feel this conflict would never have occurred without the influence of the US and UK going back to before the first Minsk Accord.
Russia, simply wasn’t going to tolerate NATO forces and weapons along 2000 Kim’s of border. Nor would the US if roles reversed.
Remember the secret US weapon placement and the Bay of Pigs .. a threat of Russia to put weapons in Cuba.
Why do we take history classes to learn about past historical mistakes yet refuse to learn from our mistakes.
I believe an agreement between the Ukraine and Russia can be reached but only if the US and other NATO nations remove themselves from the conflict.
Initial steps:
Ukraine agrees to never become a member of NATO with assurances those in the Donbas be legally allowed to speak their mother tongue Russian, and access their worship houses of choice. In additional, remove troop forces in the area and ensure their region is made available to the same financial supports as the western part of the country.
I believe this would be a good place to sit down and start to negotiate.
I am
Judging from your thoughtful comments, I have concluded that you are not a paid poster, as so many are, but sincerely believe what you have written. Let me just say that the Putin regime gains strength and is moved to further acts of aggression when those in the West engage in pre-emptive capitulation, which is what your post embodies. The regime is also given crucial aid by those who swallow the Kremlin's propaganda line whole and do not know the history of the region ( I would recommend Timothy Snyder's substack if you want to learn more).
I would also advise that you pay attention to what is actually being said on Russian state media. If you do not know Russian, you can still get the highlights from Julia Davis' site, Russian Media Monitor. You may be shocked by what you hear. State media these days consists of a collection of propagandists bellowing hatred at the West, threatening to nuke Washington and New York, among other things, and spreading the myth of the inevitability of Russian imperial expansion. They also express genocidal intentions against Ukraine.
This all stems from Putin's delusional view of history, which has pushed him on his current path. He is only too happy to use the excuses provided for him by naive people in the West who sincerely want peace, but, as in the 1930s, have no understanding of the true evil represented by him and his regime.
I would also caution against negotiating for Ukraine. That smacks of the deals made over the heads of the Czechs at Munich, and we all know how that turned out. Also, of course, Ukrainians would rather fight and die than agree to a capitulation negotiated by the Great Powers.
I would remind you in particular that NATO expansion has been a response to Russian aggression, not a cause of it. Eastern Europeans and now Scandinavians have flocked to NATO as a means of protecting themselves from what they accurately view as continuing Russian attempts to expand to its old imperial borders, which included not just the countries of the former Soviet Union, but also Finland, Poland, Manchuria and Alaska, and embodied ambitions to conquer a warm-water port, usually identified in Russian imperial times as Constantinople.
If you study the history of the region, you will find that Ukraine has suffered from centuries of oppression at the hands of Russia. Its culture and its language were, until the fall of the Soviet Union, carefully circumscribed subjects, and often forbidden. All of present-day Ukraine and much of the Russian areas bordering Ukraine used to speak Ukrainian, or Surzhik, a mixture of Ukrainian and Russian. The few areas where the majority speak Russian today were also subjected to forced resettlement of Russians to those areas and ethnic cleansing, such as the genocidal actions taken against the Crimean Tatars under Stalin. So, the subject of who should speak which language is not as cut and dried as you suggest. Now that the Russians have occupied parts of Eastern Ukraine, they are renewing these policies, which aim at the destruction of the Ukrainian language and culture, and the kidnapping of Ukrainian children to Russia where they are "Russianized" (Putin has been accused of war crimes by the ICC over this). It is Putin's long-term objective for all of Ukraine, as revealed by documents captured early in the present war.
I would also remind you that unlike the USSR, which placed nuclear missiles in Cuba, neither the United States nor any other power has plans to place nuclear weapons in Ukraine. We are providing weapons to Ukraine for its self-defense. In contrast, Russia has placed nuclear missiles in Belarus, near the border of Poland.
The situation is not as simple as many Westerners think. I strongly urge you to learn more about the realities of the region and Russia's true intentions.
“I would remind you that almost everything g you’ve talked about is the USSR, a country that has not existed for well over 30 years but you just can’t get past it.
But since you brought it up!!
I would remind you, the USSR sent missiles to Cuba because the US had first secretly placed weapons on the border of Turkey.
Surely you know this? The US were the initial provocateurs in the eyes of the USSR in that event. Again, I’m tired of the double standard that always applies to the US.
You bring up the ICJ in your reference to Putin. In your words,
“I would remind you” that the same ICJ that you are referring to that decided Putin was a war criminal also declared Netanyahu was a war criminal. Yet, soon after he was declared so the US welcomed him with outstretched arms and let him into your congress to give a speech.
Again the hypocrisy.
I could go in. It I fear it pointless. You won’t answer the most basic question.
If Russia led and majority financed a large group of heavily influenced countries (like the USSR) to place its military weapons s and personnel up against 2000 km of border, would they sit back and do nothing or threaten nuclear war and invade to show they won’t stand for the threat to its security???
Please, just answer the question without making it any more complicated than it needs to be with a lesson in the history of the Ukraine/Russia.
Perhaps you should reread my comments. I've given you the answer to your question -- you just don't like it. Is it perhaps too complicated for you?
Okay, if Kamala Harris wins in November and retains Phil Gordon as her National Security Advisor, we might see a certain degree of continuity in policy. So far, so good. However, there has been widespread criticism, both within Ukraine and among international experts (such as yourself, if I am not mistaken), that the Biden administration's assistance policies have been described as: “Too little, too late,” as one of providing a drip-feed supply of weapons, as a policy of escalation management, or a policy aimed at preventing Ukraine from losing without ensuring its victory. These critiques highlight the approach of giving Ukraine enough support to be strong defensively on the battlefield but not necessarily enough to secure a decisive win. President Biden has mentioned that the U.S. aims to put Ukraine "in the strongest possible position to defend their nation," which some interpret as providing just enough support to maintain a stalemate.
Can Ukraine sustain itself under these policies? Where is the articulation of a policy that will lead to Ukrainian victory? Or even a definitive statement that the policy of the United States is to ensure Ukrainian victory? Might Phil Gordon, contrary to Jake Sullivan, be a National Security Advisor who would advise a President Harris to explicitly state that the policy of the United States is Ukrainian victory and Russian defeat? Would he advocate for U.S. assistance that fulfills this intent, including lifting restrictions to allow Ukraine to target Russian airfields, weapon depots, and bases deeper within Russia than currently permitted?
I dont know, I do know that Trump/Vance will be a disaster for Ukraine.
Yes. You are absolutely correct!
If the US had the threat of 2000 km of their own border having Russian troop and missile bases how would they respond? Do you not think this would provoke them to threaten nuclear retaliation. The US did exactly that to resolve the Bay of Pigs.
Why is it so hard to understand that if the Ukraine needs to say NO to NATO expansion inti Ukraine, accept Ukraine CAN NOT win this war due to basic math and the dwindling pool of recruits. They simply do not have enough troops. The best thing that could happen now is to stop the killing by negotiating with Putin.
The world may not like it, but the Russians feel justified enough to wait this war out.
Don Draper
Regarding the isolationist Republicans such as Vance, he and several others served in the military in Iraq, a war we should never have gotten into. Most Republicans regret that action. Although I fully support President Biden's actions in Ukraine, I think it is interesting that veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan want to avoid foreign entanglements.
It is true that the majority of veterans of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq say those wars were not worth fighting, but Republican-leaning veterans are much more likely to say that those wars were worth fighting. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/07/10/majorities-of-u-s-veterans-public-say-the-wars-in-iraq-and-afghanistan-were-not-worth-fighting/
I would expect that Republicans who rate the wars as worth fighting would be "normie" vs MAGA "Republicans" who are blocking our efforts to support Ukraine. Vance: "I don't really care about Ukraine". The Pew report was very interesting.
What I don't understand is why the support we have finally approved is so slow in delivery. Especially needed are Patriot missile batteries
Last year, the Republican House of Representatives held up funds for Ukraine for over five months. This created a dreadful situation at the front, as Ukraine began running out of weaponry. Two guesses as to which ex-President told them to drag their feet.
This year, all we've got to deal with is the Biden Administration's dithering. I'm not privy to the internal bickering going on, but the upshot is that Ukraine is getting just enough to hang on and not enough to win.
Patriots are an extremely expensive weapons system, and sometimes it is not a good trade to use one of them against an incoming missile or aircraft. The Russians will "flood the zone" with cheap missiles in the hope that Ukraine will use up its best missiles which will be needed later for worse threats.
The real problem is that Ukraine is not being allowed to use U.S. weapons to attack strategic targets outside of Ukraine. ATACMS could take out airbases and missile sites within 300 km of the border otherwise, and then aircraft like the newly-arrived F-16s could be used more aggressively. This would stop the Russians in their tracks and give Ukraine time to recover. The empty threat that this would cross a red line and lead to (insert whatever bluster Putin has decided on for the day) is just that -- empty.
I've given you the answer several times, and you continue to refuse to respond to my answers in any meaningful way. You appear to be in a blind alley. You also appear to think that if weapons are 90 miles offshore, they somehow are not threatening, but that weapons 100 miles away from a land border are threatening. Your question lacks logic.
If either Biden or Harris truly supported Ukraine they would stop protecting Russia and permit a country to table a resolution in the UN to remove Putin's impostor representatives from UN premises.
Set aside your preconceptions that it will be vetoed or would require a super-majority. That is 33 year old Kremlin disinformation.
Millions of lives, cities and economies have been lost or destroyed, fiddling about this issue while Ukraine burns. It's time to act.
I invite you to read my substack which discusses every aspect: an overview with links is at https://x.com/hifromnz/status/1793386231994454043. Or you can start with the video at https://vlp888.substack.com/p/images-russia-and-the-un.
As few as 15 countries could be able to pass the necessary UNGA resolution - a majority present and voting - abstentions do not count. But to vote in favour of continued violation of the UN Charter and to give control over the entire world to a terrorist state sponsoring corruption and wars would be politically impossible for governments once the issue hits the public attention. Not to mention the vast majority of small states to whom the UN should be providing protection from aggression and economic chaos caused by it. There's a real possibility it would be passed almost unanimously.
The legal way is the preferable way, easiest, fastest and foolproof. It will remove Russia's platform and "get out of jail free" hegemony used to run and expand the Kremlin's protection racket and immediately open the legal avenue for NATO together with other countries to intervene legally under UN authority, expel the invaders and enforce a buffer zone in Russia.
Who is Putin going to nuke if the whole world moves together?
Let me know what you think. Have I missed anything?
The performance of a politician should not be judged by what this politician says but rather by the policies that are enacted by this politician while in office and tte outcomes from these policies for his or her constituents., In his period as POTUS, Trump brought peace and prosperity to. his constituents. In his period as POTUS, Biden brought war and poverty to his constituents. Harri's policy preferences resemble Biden's,
Just because Trump says he brings peace and prosperity, that doesn't mean you should believe him. Here's an article by Steve Rattner dismantling several of Trump's main lies about his performance as President. Unlike Trump's rhetoric, Rattner's conclusions are based on provably true data and facts. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/24/opinion/trump-lies-charts-data.html?smid=fb-share&fbclid=IwY2xjawESGYRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHRw9O_1EZQqwZB9k1JsybafUNLQnaCwNrNCxkya92WV30125Iy7YX7rzFw_aem_sJ5RxsNdMEcto2KxIfH3GA